A US political discussion....

[Aramike]

To Aramike - I do have clear ideas on the issues - but this is an opportunity for YOU to be as engaged as a voter.

I'm quite engaged as a voter, thanks.

[CaptainHaplo]

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to call you out personally - hope you understood that. I meant that in regards to everyone as I simply hope to get people involved. Twas not meant that you were not engaged as a voter.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to call you out personally - hope you understood that. I meant that in regards to everyone as I simply hope to get people involved. Twas not meant that you were not engaged as a voter.

Wow...you're already sounding like a politician. :p

[CaptainHaplo]

ROFL Torplexed! Maybe so - but I did capitalize the YOU part so I can see where he might have taken it personal. Unlike those that criticized Bush for being unable to admit a mistake - I shouldn't have capitalized that. Oh well. Live and learn.

Now - Torplexed - throw out a topic or a response to one of the items above! This isn't meant to be only one sided - I hope folks will use this to debate their own ideas or perhaps even poke holes in my own.

[GoldenRivet]

Capt haplo - its not worth it.

Historically speaking; there are four outcomes to a presidents time in office.

when you have served your term(s) and you are leaving office as president and the game is over for you.

either

1. You're a national hero who could do no wrong. (10% chance)

2. 4 years ago everyone was sure you were the new savior of America... now, you're a dumb SOB that everyone hates. (88% chance)

3. You've been impeached. (1% chance)

4. You've been assassinated *or died in office for some other reason. (1% chance)

But i will tell you this.

Even though i think Abraham Lincoln broke or raped as many laws as Bush could be accused of he nailed it when he said...

"You can make some of the people happy all the time... you can make all the people happy some of the time... but you cant make all the people happy all the time."

as for Yobama

I overheard some early twenties agers talking about how Yobama wants to make it so that any kid in a family which earns less than $60K per year will go to college for free and to top it off he is going to reduce taxes.

now im sorry, but im smarter than that... "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is a quote that comes to mind.

SOMEONE - SOMEWHERE is paying for that individual's college.

whenever a politician tells you that they will give you more stuff while taking away less money... you are having exorbitant amounts of smoke blown squarely up your ass.

America is shifting away from the mentality that "all men are created to equal" toward a mentality of "all men are subsidized into equality"


long live Harrison Bergeron

[Aramike]

whenever a politician tells you that they will give you more stuff while taking away less money... you are having exorbitant amounts of smoke blown squarely up your ass.

I agree with this. Politicians shouldn't be telling us that they can give us ANYTHING, because it's a flat lie.

Nothing is just "given".

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to call you out personally - hope you understood that. I meant that in regards to everyone as I simply hope to get people involved. Twas not meant that you were not engaged as a voter.

It's not so much that ... I'm kind of glib about this entire topic because, to be honest, positions aren't the first questions to ask anyone who seriously considers running for a public office.

So here are my questions:

Why do you think you'd be able to be the first successful modern Presidential Candidate without the backing of either political party?

How do you plan to be able to financially compete in a Presidential race?

What experiences do you have working with Congress?

How would you, as an independant, be able to work with Congress (specifics)?

What government leadership experience do you have?

Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones). Thousands of people call talk radio everyday with ideas. But transforming those ideas into public policy is something entirely different. And getting elected leader of a nation of hundreds of millions isn't something one can just jump right into, good ideas or not.

I can entertain the topic if it's about your political viewpoints, as I have and share many as well. But as a serious discussion about a bid for POTUS ... well, that's another thing entirely. And, to be honest, it certainly doesn't engage anyone as a voter anymore than any other political debate.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mikhayl - I understand what your saying - but neither of us can predict the future. Based on the situation as it stands now these are ways the US could effectively and reasonably approach issues in the middle east. Changes in the regions will require such policies to adapt as well.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - This is where I have to give an answer that you probably won't like. You said "Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones)." - really? Why?

Why do you think you'd be able to be the first successful modern Presidential Candidate without the backing of either political party?

Who said I will be successful? But its time people who care did more than - as you say - call in radio shows and talk about ideas. Someone has to act - and if it stirs the pot and causes change - I call that a success. It beats sitting around whining about woulda/shoulda/coulda.


How do you plan to be able to financially compete in a Presidential race?

Did you read my above discussion of campaign finances? The fact is - the more people think about it, the more they want big money out of it. Give them an option that lets them "vote" with their money and time - and I am betting that it will be supported. I could be wrong - but again - doing is better than the alternative. Besides, the recent decade shows how powerful grass roots movements can be.

What experiences do you have working with Congress?

Ronald Reagan was not really versed in working with Congress - on the contrary - when Congress did things he didn't like, he didnt hold midnight burning oil sessions - he went to the people of the country and told em why what Congress was doing was wrong and let THEM speak out. Its empowering the people. He made it work. Not sure why I couldnt. So working with congress - its easy - they pass legislation that makes sense and furthers the best interest of this country and I will work with em fine. They act like knuckleheads and I will let them answer to the people. *Yes I know that Reagan had been a state governor prior to his run*

How would you, as an independant, be able to work with Congress (specifics)?

See above answer - I don't have to - I simply have to make sure they work FOR the people they represent.

What government leadership experience do you have?

I don't. However, I have leadership experience in another sector where I was directly responsible for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer equipment and the lives of multiple people. Nothing got lost and nobody got killed. That good enough for ya?

[Aramike]

Aramike - This is where I have to give an answer that you probably won't like. You said "Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones)." - really? Why?

Because ideas don't get anything done. You need a plan and the ability to enact your ideas.

Who said I will be successful? But its time people who care did more than - as you say - call in radio shows and talk about ideas. Someone has to act - and if it stirs the pot and causes change - I call that a success. It beats sitting around whining about woulda/shoulda/coulda.

People are doing more than that all the time. That was just an example.

If you want to effect change and debate, there are other ways to start than running for president.

Did you read my above discussion of campaign finances? The fact is - the more people think about it, the more they want big money out of it. Give them an option that lets them "vote" with their money and time - and I am betting that it will be supported. I could be wrong - but again - doing is better than the alternative. Besides, the recent decade shows how powerful grass roots movements can be.

Okay, sounds great. So, how do you plan on reforming campaign finances in such a way that would help your run for President PRIOR to having any political office?

Your response does not answer my question. My question was how you plan to finance any campaign. Giving the position on campaign finance reform does nothing to finance anything under the current laws.

Ronald Reagan was not really versed in working with Congress - on the contrary - when Congress did things he didn't like, he didnt hold midnight burning oil sessions - he went to the people of the country and told em why what Congress was doing was wrong and let THEM speak out. Its empowering the people. He made it work. Not sure why I couldnt. So working with congress - its easy - they pass legislation that makes sense and furthers the best interest of this country and I will work with em fine. They act like knuckleheads and I will let them answer to the people. *Yes I know that Reagan had been a state governor prior to his run*

Reagan, however, WAS the governor of California and had worked with the legislative bodies there.

See above answer - I don't have to - I simply have to make sure they work FOR the people they represent.

Congress doesn't answer to POTUS. How do you plan on making them do anything?

I don't. However, I have leadership experience in another sector where I was directly responsible for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer equipment and the lives of multiple people. Nothing got lost and nobody got killed. That good enough for ya?

No, not even close.

[CaptainHaplo]

GoldenRivet - your dead on - though sometimes - as has been the case with our country - the payee is now going to be our kids and their kids unless we stop the bleeding now. Thats where we are. So many "entitlements" and no way to really pay for them ourselves. Where we are parallels the Roman Empire in so many ways its scary!

Which brings me to another chance to talk about issues. Entitlements. There are too many of them - doing to little and often in the wrong place. Everyone hears about social security. How many of the presidents talk about "fixing" it. Every fix gives it another decade before its broke again - and the taxpayer foots the bill. Another Washington practice that has to stop. You can't fix it.

Its an unpopular thing to say - but its got to go. It was a bad idea to start with - why is it the government's job to take care of you when your past a certain age? Why isn't YOUR job to plan for those later years? Why isn't it my job to plan for mine? Now - I'm not talking privatizing it or anything - I mean it needs to be GONE. There are ways to do it by phase that are fair and reasonable, with a heavy hit up front that can be mitigated over time. Its time we take some tough problems head on and stop leaving them for our kids. We can keep the promise to our elders as long as we ourselves are willing to stop the cycle of dependance on the government .

So many other programs need to be outside the scope of the federal government. Why is the federal government taking money from the states in taxes, only to redistribute it via the mess that is everything from road money to food stamps? It makes no sense - and its about time we got out house in order.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - since my experience isnt good enough for you - I still hope you vote. If you were looking for a career politician - then I was never - and won't ever, be someone you would vote for. I can run for office and not be a politician - just a real person with some knowledge, skill and experience in situations that is willing to put himself out there to serve this great country and her people.

However - I feel that I can garner enough support from the people of this great country via my ideas by following the reforms I listed - holding myself by deeds to the standard I would like to see implimented. Its one thing to have an idea - its another to act on it. Doing so will allow the people to decide if they want to continue to fund the political machine as it stands - or show by their support they choose differently. Hopefully that answers your financial question.

As for congress - I recall when Congress kept sending legislation to Reagan with all kinds of other crap in it - funding for things that he would never otherwise agree to. Finally he had enough - and discussed the issue with the American people. Well , Congress got the message - they were not going to be able to backdoor stuff through him - and I will be the same way. They don't work for the PoTUS, they work for the American People - just as the PoTUS does. And if you have a real issue with your co-worker - you should take it to your boss. Usually works.

With that I am off here for a few hours. I hope there is more discussion both back and forth, and questions or input for me when I get a chance to get back later this eve.

[Aramike]

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president. Your ideas aren't neccessarily bad, but I don't think you have a grasp on what it takes to even run a campaign, not to mention simply getting one started.

If you REALLY wanted to help your country, you'd start somewhere more feesible - like local office. There you'd gather the experience neccessary for the next steps.

You say that it'd be good enough for you just to start the discussion. I contend that the discussion has been started, and has been waging for quite sometime. Just read this forum.

Again, if you want to discuss your ideas, I'm all for it. However, in the context of a serious run for president, well ...

[breadcatcher101]

You don't need to cloud yourself with valid issues, it's more of a horse and pony show today.

Get yourself a good slogan, learn the art of talking without saying anything, and above all promise everything to everybody.

Oh, and no bad hair days!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president.

But the discussion can't hurt, right?

Back on topic, I like some of CH's platforms, especially on the role of the Constitution. However......

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The most pressing issues right now? Boy - talk about a loaded question. But still - the domestic economy is the very top of the list. That has a lot of sub subjects like tax structure, debt and the world economy, immigration, etc. etc.

Ok, you haven't mentioned too much about what you would like to do with the economy. What changes would you like to make and how would you utilize presidential powers to effect those changes?

However - you do bring up an interesting point - and one I will take the opportunity to address. I have posted about it before - money in politics. I think we need a true reform there. So here goes - I would push for the following campaign finance reforms.

I like some of the suggestions you made, but I think that it's too easy to get around them. (fiat powers on passage, for expediency's sake)
For one thing, they won't really eliminate large-scale campaign funding. Lots of powerful interest groups can raise tremendous amounts of money simply by encouraging their members to raise money or donate on their own. And item #7 on your list would have to include some pretty unenforceable laws to prevent them from doing that.
In some ways, they might actually make campaign contributions more unfair by placing too much power in the hands of citizens' special interest groups. It would undoubtedly make the system more "democratic" in a sense, but that's part and parcel with "tyranny of the masses", something our founders deliberately tried to avoid.

You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled.

That's a bold political step you're taking, and you'd be amazed at how insurgent organizations can thrive in the absence of state support.
I have no doubt that a lot of people would like that answer, but then you open up a whole new hornet's nest as well. Some nations may have only certain factions within them that support terror activities. How would you deal with that problem? Especially if their government is not inclined to allow direct intervention?
Are you advocating an unresticted war on terror and the all the nations involved, to whatever extent?




edit-

Constitutionally the role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and settle issues between the states. Boy its gone a bit beyond that hasn't it? It needs to get back to that role - though realistically it may never be solely that again.

It does what you mentioned, and other important things, but I don't think that it is too late to go back. Unlikely, in today's (and in many ways, any day's political climate) but it can be done, and there is some evidence of a reactionary trend towards unconstitutional policy that may manifest itself in a decade or so, assuming that the current administration doesn't perform too well.