President May be in Trouble

[beautifullywild77]

"Smart men, all three. Shame one of them can't be president."

There are several people here, among my friends, and among other people I have read about, that I would prefer to vote for over the choices we have been given. But none of them have enough money and influence to finance a campaign, unfortunately!

I totally agree!

I also think that a person running for president should have to have served in the armed forces for at least 4 years. Just my honest opinion!

 

[Lavender]

Ready for the debate tomorrow? Who will win the lie fest?

 

[Michael823]

I totally agree!

I also think that a person running for president should have to have served in the armed forces for at least 4 years. Just my honest opinion!

I personally will never understand this?.. and I don't mean to criticize, because clearly your experience is much different than mine. And I can see where someone might give an edge to someone (in certain areas) for having been in the armed forces (leadership, humility, etc..). But to say that it should be required to have been, to me, sounds just like saying that someone should need to be Christian, male, 6' tall, etc.. (as examples) to be elected into the White House.

It's way too exclusive. Not everyone has the ability to join the armed forces, but we all have the potential to change the world, or come up with ideas to run a country more productively. So I don't see the reasoning in limiting our options as candidates, just to ensure that someone has a background in the armed forces.

If YOU favor those in the armed forces, I can understand why you'd be more apt to vote that way. But if we need to enforce it as a requirement, as though voters aren't qualified, themselves, to choose what makes a strong candidate, or what values they believe in, then where is the freedom in our democratic process?

We can't just cherry pick what qualities should be required. It's our personal right to vote for qualities that represent our beliefs best, and if that's not enough to sway the majority, I don't believe that it's worth making into rule, at the expense of going against our free choice..

Personally, I think our president should have to know what it's like to go without food for a day (or two). Or what it's like to be homeless, or to live in an area without resources and opportunity. Or what it's like to grow up with a disability, where you're purposely set to the side and treated as damaged goods. What it's like to watch a family member suffer from preventable/treatable illness or addiction.. but these will never be requirements, no matter how beneficial the experience might be in understanding the full spectrum of what our fellow people go through.

So it's not to say that I disagree, that certain qualities come from being in the armed forces that really can't be gained elsewhere, but I just don't prioritize it higher than many other things, that will never be requirements.

 

[tsst]

I personally will never understand this?.. and I don't mean to criticize, because clearly your experience is much different than mine. And I can see where someone might give an edge to someone (in certain areas) for having been in the armed forces (leadership, humility, etc..). But to say that it should be required to have been, to me, sounds just like saying that someone should need to be Christian, male, 6' tall, etc.. (as examples) to be elected into the White House.

It's way too exclusive. Not everyone has the ability to join the armed forces, but we all have the potential to change the world, or come up with ideas to run a country more productively. So I don't see the reasoning in limiting our options as candidates, just to ensure that someone has a background in the armed forces.

If YOU favor those in the armed forces, I can understand why you'd be more apt to vote that way. But if we need to enforce it as a requirement, as though voters aren't qualified, themselves, to choose what makes a strong candidate, or what values they believe in, then where is the freedom in our democratic process?

We can't just cherry pick what qualities should be required. It's our personal right to vote for qualities that represent our beliefs best, and if that's not enough to sway the majority, I don't believe that it's worth making into rule, at the expense of going against our free choice..

Personally, I think our president should have to know what it's like to go without food for a day (or two). Or what it's like to be homeless, or to live in an area without resources and opportunity. Or what it's like to grow up with a disability, where you're purposely set to the side and treated as damaged goods. What it's like to watch a family member suffer from preventable/treatable illness or addiction.. but these will never be requirements, no matter how beneficial the experience might be in understanding the full spectrum of what our fellow people go through.

So it's not to say that I disagree, that certain qualities come from being in the armed forces that really can't be gained elsewhere, but I just don't prioritize it higher than many other things, that will never be requirements.

I think she is more referring to the POTUS assuming the role of commander in chief of the armed forces. It does seem like a pretty important part of the job to have absolutely ZERO experience at. :shrugs: Of course I guess he really didn't have much experience at any part of the job.

 

[beautifullywild77]

Thank you Tsst! That is exactly what was I was referring to. My husband believes every citizen should at least do 2 yrs of some sort of civil service.

I want you to understand something I have lived a hard life. I was a single mother for a good 9 yrs of a special needs child and of a gifted child. I am now married to a disabled veteran to who I was married to while he was active duty. My son gets a SSI check and My husband gets a VA disability check. I have family members who I have watched suffer with addiction and homelessness. I have had loved ones who haven't made it home from war. I have had family members who have lost their homes because of the economy. My life is not all flowers and freaking rainbows and I still do not like the current president.

 

[Rich Z]

Seriously, how does anyone get to be president of the USA without accumulating an enormous number of strings attached in the process?

How Much Does it Cost to Run for President?

Campaigning for president can be a very expensive proposition. Running a campaign to win a presidential primary can range in cost from $50 million US Dollars (USD) to over $100 million USD. By itself, this cost is already enormous. However, there’s even more that must be spent to run for president. Once the primaries are over and the nominees begin their campaigns to win the general election, an additional $75 million USD is typically spent.

Presidential hopefuls actually start raising money about a year before the primary election. Fundraising is considered a very important part of gaining the notice necessary to be successful as a presidential nominee. In many cases, the candidate who raises the most money before the primary election stands the best chance of being elected to run for president by his or her party. Candidates needn’t raise all their own money to run in the primary election, however. If a candidate agrees to limit his campaign spending to a certain amount and spread it out geographically, he or she can receive matching campaign funds from the federal government.

In some elections, candidates have decided to raise all their own money to run for president. When a candidate decides to forgo federal fund matching and raise all of his own money, he is not required to limit spending or spread funds out geographically. In fact, President George W. Bush opted to raise his own money in the 2000 election and secured about $100 million USD. This amount was actually twice the sum candidates were restricted to if they opted for federal fund matching in the 2000 election.

After presidential nominees have been selected, the general election campaign starts and is financed through public funding. The cost to run for president in the general election can amount to millions of US Dollars. Though the amount of money required can vary, it normally costs at least $70 million USD to run for president. It is possible that at some point in the future, presidential candidates will run for president without taking any federal contributions. According to campaign finance experts, this change could push the cost to run for president to more than $500 million USD.

Many individuals call the presidency the most expensive political office. It has this reputation in spite of the fact that the general election is publicly funded. If you’re wondering where the public funds come from, check your United States federal tax return. Near the top, you’ll find a checkbox designed to indicate whether or not you wish to contribute three US Dollars to the general election.

Source: http://www.wisegeek.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-run-for-president.htm

As for those candidates pulling money from their own fortune, WHY would someone do that? What is the return expected on that investment?

 

[kathylove]

It's all about the money - and, power, too.

Some big government proponents like to pretend that government employees and elected officials are somehow more "pure" than those who run businesses. But I see how much is spent on elections (and which industries are "buying" those candidates). I see how many top regulatory agency officials go on to win high paying positions in the very industries they regulate. And I see "pure" academic researchers at public supported universities who seem to prostitute their findings in order to get more grants. When I add all of that up, I wonder just where the blurry line is that separates the "pure", non profit oriented public employee from the "greedy" business world. I don't see a whole lot of difference, except that the business execs at least are honest about their motives.

I am not letting "big business" off the hook, either. Some of their recklessness and excesses helped to get us in the mess we are in, too. But it seems that government was in collusion with them to get us here, rather than protecting the average citizen from them.

 

[Nova_C]

I am not letting "big business" off the hook, either. Some of their recklessness and excesses helped to get us in the mess we are in, too. But it seems that government was in collusion with them to get us here, rather than protecting the average citizen from them.

Not just seems. It's pretty obvious that the government has a huge role in causing and worsening the recession.

 

[Rich Z]

I guess it becomes easier to see how a capitalistic state could easily swing over to communism when the people finally get fed up with the greed and corruption that capitalism can't seem to help but develop into. The siren song to end capitalism with an equal and fair distribution of ALL resources will lure people into what they hope will be a change for the better.

Only problem is, PEOPLE are the problem, not the social and political organizations of the populations carrying any such labels as "capitalism", "socialism" or "communism". They will ALL sound good, in pure theory. Which is how they are always sold.

Unfortunately humanity doesn't appear to be able to run a society without chiefs and indians. It appears that the chiefs (or the office that makes one a chief) will always go corrupt eventually, regardless of the structure and process that makes them chiefs. Most will always want to become bigger chiefs, and do whatever is necessary to try to make that happen. Gladly stepping on the heads of all the indians in that process.

So in effect, they all eventually become the same thing to you, when you are only an indian.

 

[Lavender]

I guess it becomes easier to see how a capitalistic state could easily swing over to communism when the people finally get fed up with the greed and corruption that capitalism can't seem to help but develop into. The siren song to end capitalism with an equal and fair distribution of ALL resources will lure people into what they hope will be a change for the better.

Only problem is, PEOPLE are the problem, not the social and political organizations of the populations carrying any such labels as "capitalism", "socialism" or "communism". They will ALL sound good, in pure theory. Which is how they are always sold.

Unfortunately humanity doesn't appear to be able to run a society without chiefs and indians. It appears that the chiefs (or the office that makes one a chief) will always go corrupt eventually, regardless of the structure and process that makes them chiefs. Most will always want to become bigger chiefs, and do whatever is necessary to try to make that happen. Gladly stepping on the heads of all the indians in that process.

So in effect, they all eventually become the same thing to you, when you are only an indian.

Nice long definition of total depravity.

 

[kathylove]

Or of human nature!

 

[Chip]

Romney won that debate so handily he moonwalked off the stage and got in a limo with PSY.

 

[Outcast]

That debate was crazy... Did any of you guys watch Gary Johnson on Youtube? I haven't watched it yet but his tweets were funny.

 

[Chip]

Johnson would have slayed those guys. Or more accurately, brought up subjects neither one wanted to go anywhere near. I followed his Twitter feed, haven't checked out Youtube.

 

[Outcast]

Yeah... I really hope that he is able to get into the next debate... Personally I think that everyone who is on the ballet should be allowed in the televised debates. That way people actually can decide on all the candidates, not just the ones that the Media follows.

 

[Michael823]

I don't see that Romney won. I think he did a good job delivering his answers, and pres. Obama seemed a little off (in personality, not answering), so I can see where he polled better. But it's always so selective as to who they poll, and typically America has too much diversity than to account for in those numbers.

I would have definitely like to have more people up there, though. There's only so many ways two people can show contrast.

 

[tsst]

I don't see that Romney won. I think he did a good job delivering his answers, and pres. Obama seemed a little off (in personality, not answering), so I can see where he polled better. But it's always so selective as to who they poll, and typically America has too much diversity than to account for in those numbers.

I would have definitely like to have more people up there, though. There's only so many ways two people can show contrast.

Apparently his million dollar supporter didn't agree with your optimism in BHO's debate performance.

https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/253680489850892289

 

[Nova_C]

I only caught part of the debate because I was working at the time, but from what I did see, it seemed pretty even, which is likely a huge win for Romney since his campaign spent the last two weeks trying to lower expectations.

 

[tsst]

I only caught part of the debate because I was working at the time, but from what I did see, it seemed pretty even, which is likely a huge win for Romney since his campaign spent the last two weeks trying to lower expectations.

Huh? What? When MSNBC admits it wasn't good for Obama you KNOW it was a win for Romney. Given any in the MSM would have declared Obama the victor. :shrugs:

 

[Rich Z]

I didn't bother watching the debate. In my opinion, it would be like the captain and the navigator of the Titanic debating over the weather forecast for tomorrow, ignoring that iceberg dead ahead.

I don't plan on voting for Obama nor Romney anyway, so what they say just doesn't matter to me.