Finally! A Candidate I could Support!
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
Ray
Master Black Belt
At this very moment, I wish there was a viable candidate who represented my idea of good government that I could support. I don't see one on the right, I don't see one on the left.
blackxpress
Green Belt
Not to highjack the thread but I'm getting a little tired of hearing about Obama's supposed lack of experience. True, he doesn't have much experience but what experience does Hillary have? Being the president's wife is not the same thing as being president. For that matter, what experience did Ronald Reagan have before he was elected? Governor of California and president of the Screen Actors Guild. Big whoop. And does anybody really think George W. Bush's experience as Governor of Texas qualified him to be president? Think about it. How many of our presidents have had loads of experience in Washington prior to taking office? Some have, many have not. Dwight D. Eisenhower comes to mind. So do Bill Clinton (governor of Arkansas) and Jimmy Carter (Governor of Georgia). Think about it, people. Don't fall for straw man arguments.
Ray
Master Black Belt
Eisenhower is probably not one of the guys to use as an example of someone who had little leadership or decision making experience.
True, the guy did help defeat the axis powers in WWII and create the interstate highway system (originally for the military... still is) which we can get to our tournaments a lot quicker.
But I think I found the rear vehicle for all the candidates motorcades...
Attachments
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Oh sure just because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during world war 2 you think he has leadership experience :uhyeah:
Actually he had a lot of experience as a leader just not as a politician
As for me I think I would vote for this guy and his sidekick for President and VP myself... but sadly neither are US citizens :disgust:
blackxpress
Green Belt
What Xue Sheng said.
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 110
I disagree. Governors are chief executives of rather large governments what position do YOU think would give better experience? President of a smaller country?
So if generals and governors aren't good enough for you, who is?
Obama, on the other hand, is not a chief executive, just a newbie legislator (same goes for Hillary).
Ray
Master Black Belt
What more need be said?
ChadWarner
Green Belt
Reagan is, was, and will always be astronomical units ahead of bush, carter and clinton. Reagans degrees were in economics and sociology so he knew money and he knew people and he liked people. That is the difference between President Reagan and the others. Do you realize Reagan has much higher marks then the others listed? He is one of the top men to lead the US.
Only governor of California and sag? You forgot to mention he was giving speeches before that so he was involved in poliks for a long time before he finally made it to the presidency.
Actually, President Reagan only had one degree. He was an Economics major at Eureka College, Eureka, IL.
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/school.html
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/school.html
You're both right and both wrong. He had one degree with two majors (economics and sociology):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_reagan#Early_life
Well isn't that the beauty of the U.S. electorial process.. that basically anybody meeting the guidelines can run for president... sadly now-a-days if I wanted to run, I'd have to make a career out of robbing 7-11's because somebody has to pay for all that advertising... sigh.I disagree. Governors are chief executives of rather large governments what position do YOU think would give better experience? President of a smaller country?
So if generals and governors aren't good enough for you, who is?
Obama, on the other hand, is not a chief executive, just a newbie legislator (same goes for Hillary).
Caver's point at the end of the chain of preceding posts is the one that for me, as an outsider, contained the most pertinent information (not to imply that those earlier posts didn't have something important to add).
A democracy only works when you have something good to chose between. Over here we've often espoused the view that what we are electing is the party we dislike the least.
Sadly, no insult intended, we've been getting more and more American in our approach to elections with 'flash money' holding greater sway than 'worthiness' or a common-sense assessment of a parties intent.
A democracy only works when you have something good to chose between. Over here we've often espoused the view that what we are electing is the party we dislike the least
.Sadly, no insult intended, we've been getting more and more American in our approach to elections with 'flash money' holding greater sway than 'worthiness' or a common-sense assessment of a parties intent.
Ninjamom
2nd Black Belt
THIS man is the best president the USA has had in the last 16 years:
http://www.christinetarbet.com/palmer/
http://www.christinetarbet.com/palmer/
As far as I'm concerned, this idea of "extensive experience" is THE PROBLEM. What do people complain most about? Party politics, lobbyists controlling our government, political ties.....etc. Or maybe that's just what I complain about. But as far as I'm concerned, these politicians become ENTRENCHED in what is basically a broken system and the system becomes their guide - rather than their issues and conscience.
How come everyone on the street knows how to run the government better than the government? Half the stuff that the government does everyone thinks is CRAZY.....
The problem - TOO MUCH experience. We should be electing Taxi drivers, small business owners, housewives, etc. Politicians have so much "experience" that they are completed disconnected from the real world and what actually happens in it.
How come everyone on the street knows how to run the government better than the government? Half the stuff that the government does everyone thinks is CRAZY.....
The problem - TOO MUCH experience. We should be electing Taxi drivers, small business owners, housewives, etc. Politicians have so much "experience" that they are completed disconnected from the real world and what actually happens in it.
Amen, Buzzy!
If I had my way, I'd add a few requirements for becoming president:
1) either owned or managed a company in the private sector at some point. If you can't manage a company and make money, how can you possibly manage an entire country? That company better be profitable and ethically run. Employees better not have hated you either. Well, at least not a lot of them. Can't make everyone happy
2) Not be a career politician (kind of linked to 1)
3) Served in the military. How on Earth can you become the Commander in Chief w/out having any clue how the military functions? If I were to go to the local recruiting station and ask to become a 5-star General after signing up, I'd be laughed at. Why should it be different for a president? Not saying you have to be a war hero, or a General, but at least served in some fashion.
- Thread Starter
- #20
Amen, brother! Even a lousy Private has a better idea of how the military at large works than most liberal politicians.
As to your first and second points, while the reason was horrifying, Tom Clancy's character, Jack Ryan gives an impassioned plea for PROFESSIONALS, not politicians to be appointed and/or elected in his novel, "Executive Orders". That book, and it's precursor, Debt of Honor, ought to be required reading for politicians
