Thurston, Mark Zuckerberg for president

Mark Zuckerberg in Panama. Photo by the Presidencia.
Mark Zuckerberg in Panama. Photo by the Presidencia.

Zuckerberg for president

by Edward Thurston

As we continue to witness the buffoonery of Donald Trump’s aspirations to be president of the USA, this small article about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg calling him out on his salacious immigration positions caught my attention. Very few people have really studied the effects of what would happen if Trump’s “shoot from the hip” policies were carried out, especially on immigration.

While I don’t disagree with all of Trump’s positions and I do believe we have border/immigration problems, his extreme resolutions to these problems are what concern me. And bottom line is he is asking people to “believe in him” — and apparently masses of followers are. We Americans have been let down for so many decades by weak or corrupt politicos running our country that we are almost willing to turn the reins over to ANY non-politician. Yet I have to draw the line on Trump, and I will not be blindly following his bluster to the voting booth.

I refuse to believe that a business tyrant like Trump, who has been bankrupt a few times, has obvious misogynist leanings against women and dislikes Latinos, has any chance to be the leader of our country. Do we really want this snarly egomaniac who obviously cannot listen to anyone but himself to lead us through the dark shadows of our economic demise and international entanglements? Do we really want him with his finger on the button of nuclear warheads? Could we really count on him as a unifying agent in our already divided country or world? I don’t think so.

In reaction to all of this, I submit the proposition that Mark Zuckerberg would be a better candidate to lead our country than all the 17 Republican candidates and smaller offering of Democratic candidates combined. He has more money than The Donald at a much earlier age. He is more level headed and less emotional than The Donald. He now leads an bigger organization and manages more money than all these candidates put together in their lifetimes.

In addition to these qualifications, I believe the main problem with electing leaders is that most of them are over the age of 50. I am sorry, but most of our world’s conflicts are caused by people over 50. The older people get, the less flexible they become in their positions and have long memories of past conflicts. Older people are slower to forgive and quicker to be offended. Believe me: I see this in myself. And we expect these people to be peacemakers and find “middle ground?”

Therefore, it is my opinion that we would be better off sending the smartest and most effective 30-year-old business leaders in our country to negotiate trade and get us out of armed conflicts abroad and at home. If all countries sent their 30-year-old leaders to negotiate in their sneakers and bluejeans, things would get done in far more peaceful and “brotherly” fashion. There would be no long memories of past wrongs and hatreds tainting any possibility of a resolution. There would be no lifelong bitterness and ego getting in the way of the most basic conversation.

Let the young idealists take us forward with their understanding that it is all about technology and responsible use and sharing of it that solves most of the world’s conflicts. Not bombs, embargoes or starvation of poor people living under tyrants. It is not about personality or enforcing antiquated laws or historic treaties that make no sense. It is about finding commonality among all of humanity, no matter what race, creed or ranking in the wealth meter in order to live free and responsibly.

It is time for major leadership change in our world — and it is not The Donald. It is more like Zuckerberg.


little donor button


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

I accept the Privacy Policy