Why are some here still willing to consider businessmen with no government experience? [View all]

[question everything]

Yes, I am talking about Yang and Steyer. No doubt, both are progressive with great ideas. Philanthropists even.

But the White House, as we've seen, should not be a training ground. Especially for individuals who have owned their own businesses, who have made decisions on their own and expected their employees to follow them without questions.

Why, because this is the way successful businesses run. The owners are not answerable to anyone, not even a board of directors or shareholders that CEOs of public companies are. (Except, of course, they have to follow the law and regulations, if applicable).

They will look at Congress and federal agencies as distractions. They probably will surround themselves with 'YES' men and women who would follow them no question asked.

After all, this is how the current occupant, that so many voted for him because they thought that a "businessman" is what we needed, got elected.

And he sees Congress as hindrance. He makes a decision and changes his mind. He has private meetings with heads of states and does not think that he has to provide an account of these.

And, really. there are currently 24 credible - more or less - candidates. (In 2016 there were 1780).

Twenty of them have held office as elected Democrats. Why, with such a diverse, skilled field do we have to look outside the ones who have proven themselves worthy of votes, many in Trump country?

And if the final nominee is not a Democrat, or someone with no government experience, why should we expect the rest of the country to accept him (or her?)