Describe your ideal presidential candidate here.

[eyer]

Reasons?

Samuel Adams:

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Patrick Henry:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

"I am not a Virginian, but an American."

George Mason:

"As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union."

"Our all is at stake, and the little conveniencys and comforts of life, when set in competition with our liberty, ought to be rejected not with reluctance but with pleasure."

"That the people have a right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided."

"No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty."

 

[philosophygirl]

Go and examine Popcorn####'s sigline. Quickly.

so does that mean you want to fatten me up and have me for dinner?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I hope the super computer gets you.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MpnA9si4GMs/S3M5hgk9MVI/AAAAAAAAGF8/MCFljLTq4II/s400/collosus.jpg

 

[Peregrinator]

so does that mean you want to fatten me up and have me for dinner?

No. I just want to have you. Did you click the link in his sig?

 

[Byron In Exile]

No. I just want to have you.

http://wileywiggins.com/require.png

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I get that. So what you seem to be saying is that the ideal president reflects the majority opinion. Under what circumstances, then, do we ever deviate from the status quo? Just when enough people think we should? That doesn't take into account information the pres has that the citizens don't have. Does it?

Perg, I have often entertained the thought that the next presidential election should be an American Idol-style television competition. More people would pay attention to what the candidates are saying than do now, more people would be engaged in the process, and that's really all an election is anyway.

No one's ready to be president as a candidate, just like no one's ready to be a pop-star as an American Idol contestant. By the end of the process, they're more ready, not just because of the fuss, but because the market already knows them, and wants them to be the artist whose output they're willing to follow for the next year or more. If you don't like music you're hearing during that year, you have no one to blame but yourself.

That's all a campaign is anyway, but most people don't connect their involvement to the consequences. This would let people truly feel that they made their choice, it just didn't (or did) work out as they'd hoped, and they'll learn for next time.

 

[mdb913]

It's a long shot, but I can't tell you how thrilled I would be to see an independent candidate in office. I am so sick of the black-and-white, blue-VS.-red, what-the-party-thinks-is-best-goes bullshit that the government has become. And yeah, I realize it's kind of always been that way, but wouldn't it be nice for a president to show up on television and say "The Democrats want this, the Republicans want that, but neither of them are right, so I don't give a damn."

I'd love a president who doesn't waste his time just campaigning for his second stint in office. If I constantly went into my boss's office talking about how awesome I am and how much everyone sucks, A) I'd never get anything done, and B) I'd piss them off so much, I'd probably get fired.

Which leads me to my next point, probably the second-most important thing: when you ARE campaigning, I don't give two turquoise shits what's so bad about your opponent. Talk about YOUR merits. Spend more time outlining all the good things that YOU would do in office instead of all the bad things that THEY MIGHT do. During the 2010 elections, I swear, I must have watched so many campaign commercials, and I didn't see a single, solitary ad talking about why one candidate is good; they were all about how the other candidate is bad. So guess what? I made a louder vote by staying home on Election Day. If you don't want to tell me about yourself, why the hell should I vote for you? People are always saying, "It's your duty to vote; men and women have given up their lives so that you can vote!" And yes, that's correct. They died for my right to vote, but in that same battle, they also died for my right to choose to vote.

During open debates (where the citizens are asking the questions up front), stop saying "Thank you for your question." I hereby give a universal "You're welcome" to that statement--now answer the damn question.

If you fail to retain any of the things I'm saying, remember only this--a political campaign, for all the time it takes and for all the money spent, is still, at its heart, A JOB INTERVIEW. Treat it as such. The only real difference is that, instead of three or four people filling the position, 305 million people are. Make sure a question asked is a question answered. Never lie; if you know you can do something, say you can, but if you're not sure, say "I'll try." At least then, you CAN be telling the truth. If you don't know the answer to a question, don't worry about it--there's still time; do more research on it and you'll be more informed the next time you're asked. You don't even really need a strong stance on it; hell, I'M still on the fence about abortion. Don't treat us like simpletons and we won't treat you like the next George McGovern.

 

[patient1]

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/still-image/Colossus-%20The%20Forbin%20Project/102680110.03.01.lg.jpg

I remember that movie.

Sort of the benevolent version of Skynet, wouldn't you say?

 

[philosophygirl]

No. I just want to have you. Did you click the link in his sig?

You have a thing for zombies then? We are dead sexy.

Just did, ha. That's awesome!

 

[Peregrinator]

I have some questions for you regarding these quotations. In red:

Samuel Adams:

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."What is "the law of nature," in your opinion? In what way(s) are the activities of man unnatural?

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” This and see below...

Patrick Henry:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

"I am not a Virginian, but an American."

George Mason:

"As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union."

"Our all is at stake, and the little conveniencys and comforts of life, when set in competition with our liberty, ought to be rejected not with reluctance but with pleasure."With the above, this is a fairly reasonable description of the basis for a lot of my so-called "environmental" positions. Do you see how I arrive there from here?

"That the people have a right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided."

"No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty."

I get the link between standing armies and despotism. Do you believe that Mason or anyone else could have foreseen such things as fighter planes, bombers, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc? If so, how would they best be managed without a standing military? Can the country be adequately defended by you and me standing shoulder to shoulder armed with small arms?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I remember that movie.

Sort of the benevolent version of Skynet, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, Skynet was essentially a rip-off of Colossus. But Colossus was way hotter and creepier because its total control of mankind was for their own good.

 

[Peregrinator]

Perg, I have often entertained the thought that the next presidential election should be an American Idol-style television competition. More people would pay attention to what the candidates are saying than do now, more people would be engaged in the process, and that's really all an election is anyway.

No one's ready to be president as a candidate, just like no one's ready to be a pop-star as an American Idol contestant. By the end of the process, they're more ready, not just because of the fuss, but because the market already knows them, and wants them to be the artist whose output they're willing to follow for the next year or more. If you don't like music you're hearing during that year, you have no one to blame but yourself.

That's all a campaign is anyway, but most people don't connect their involvement to the consequences. This would let people truly feel that they made their choice, it just didn't (or did) work out as they'd hoped, and they'll learn for next time.

I hear you completely. I've been saying for years that politics has degenerated into a mere spectator sport, complete with tribalism. We see it here every day with the Obama bad bullshit, duly posted and argued, even if he isn't, even if the information is false or incomplete.

No one's ready to be president...reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: Readiness can only be assessed in retrospect.

It's a long shot, but I can't tell you how thrilled I would be to see an independent candidate in office. I am so sick of the black-and-white, blue-VS.-red, what-the-party-thinks-is-best-goes bullshit that the government has become. And yeah, I realize it's kind of always been that way, but wouldn't it be nice for a president to show up on television and say "The Democrats want this, the Republicans want that, but neither of them are right, so I don't give a damn."

I'd love a president who doesn't waste his time just campaigning for his second stint in office. If I constantly went into my boss's office talking about how awesome I am and how much everyone sucks, A) I'd never get anything done, and B) I'd piss them off so much, I'd probably get fired.

Which leads me to my next point, probably the second-most important thing: when you ARE campaigning, I don't give two turquoise shits what's so bad about your opponent. Talk about YOUR merits. Spend more time outlining all the good things that YOU would do in office instead of all the bad things that THEY MIGHT do. During the 2010 elections, I swear, I must have watched so many campaign commercials, and I didn't see a single, solitary ad talking about why one candidate is good; they were all about how the other candidate is bad. So guess what? I made a louder vote by staying home on Election Day. If you don't want to tell me about yourself, why the hell should I vote for you? People are always saying, "It's your duty to vote; men and women have given up their lives so that you can vote!" And yes, that's correct. They died for my right to vote, but in that same battle, they also died for my right to choose to vote.

During open debates (where the citizens are asking the questions up front), stop saying "Thank you for your question." I hereby give a universal "You're welcome" to that statement--now answer the damn question.

If you fail to retain any of the things I'm saying, remember only this--a political campaign, for all the time it takes and for all the money spent, is still, at its heart, A JOB INTERVIEW. Treat it as such. The only real difference is that, instead of three or four people filling the position, 305 million people are. Make sure a question asked is a question answered. Never lie; if you know you can do something, say you can, but if you're not sure, say "I'll try." At least then, you CAN be telling the truth. If you don't know the answer to a question, don't worry about it--there's still time; do more research on it and you'll be more informed the next time you're asked. You don't even really need a strong stance on it; hell, I'M still on the fence about abortion. Don't treat us like simpletons and we won't treat you like the next George McGovern.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

You have a thing for zombies then? We are dead sexy.

Just did, ha. That's awesome!

I have a thing for one particular dead squirrel.

I knew you'd like it.

 

[vrosej10]

I hear you completely. I've been saying for years that politics has degenerated into a mere spectator sport, complete with tribalism. We see it here every day with the Obama bad bullshit, duly posted and argued, even if he isn't, even if the information is false or incomplete.

No one's ready to be president...reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: Readiness can only be assessed in retrospect.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

I have a thing for one particular dead squirrel.

I knew you'd like it.

Totally agreed.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I get the link between standing armies and despotism. Do you believe that Mason or anyone else could have foreseen such things as fighter planes, bombers, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc? If so, how would they best be managed without a standing military? Can the country be adequately defended by you and me standing shoulder to shoulder armed with small arms?

Seems to be working for Afghanistan.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

I'd like to see a president who is bright and knowledgeable and is not owned by special interests. Of course that president would be of ineffective unless he had an opportunity to work with a Congress that is also not bought and paid for by special interests or an overwhelming need for power.

It would be a good place to start.

 

[philosophygirl]

I have a thing for one particular dead squirrel.

I knew you'd like it.

It's all the chattering, climbing trees and chewing on brains, I do?

Very awesome...I laughed.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'd like to see a president who is bright and knowledgeable and is not owned by special interests. Of course that president would be of ineffective unless he had an opportunity to work with a Congress that is also not bought and paid for by special interests or an overwhelming need for power.

It would be a good place to start.

If they're winning an election, they're bought and paid for.

 

[patient1]

I'm inclined to agree that an ideal president and an ideal candidate are different things. (An ideal president has experience in government, an ideal candidate has nothing that can be criticized for example.)

My idea of an ideal president is Theodore Roosevelt. A bad-ass that can handle foreign affairs, but could also earn a Nobel prize for peace. A guy that can respect gun rights as well as champion preserving the environment. A guy that's not afraid to go against the establishment in his own party to the point of forming a new party when need be. A guy that has no tolerance for corruption in government or abusive monopolies. A guy that has the vision to takle a great project like the Panama Canal.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

If they're winning an election, they're bought and paid for.

I know, I was hallucinating.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'm inclined to agree that an ideal president and an ideal candidate are different things. (An ideal president has experience in government, an ideal candidate has nothing that can be criticized for example.)

My idea of an ideal president is Theodore Roosevelt. A bad-ass that can handle foreign affairs, but could also earn a Nobel prize for peace. A guy that can respect gun rights as well as champion preserving the environment. A guy that's not afraid to go against the establishment in his own party to the point of forming a new party when need be. A guy that has no tolerance for corruption in government or abusive monopolies. A guy that has the vision to takle a great project like the Panama Canal.

First, I think TR was probably the ideal US President. But second, the Bullmoose party wasn't because he wanted to take on his party's leadership, it was because he wanted to be president again and lost the Republican nomination to the incumbent Taft...

 

[patient1]

I thought it was because he thought Taft was too weak towards big business interests. Let me read up on that...
Well, you're right that he lost the nomination in spite of winning the primaries.

You know, I think I like my choice of president a little better.

From wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)


However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that

To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.[6]
To that end, the platform called for

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
Registration of lobbyists.
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.

 

[Byron In Exile]

My idea of an ideal president is Theodore Roosevelt. A bad-ass that can handle foreign affairs, but could also earn a Nobel prize for peace. A guy that can respect gun rights as well as champion preserving the environment. A guy that's not afraid to go against the establishment in his own party to the point of forming a new party when need be. A guy that has no tolerance for corruption in government or abusive monopolies. A guy that has the vision to takle a great project like the Panama Canal.

A guy that neither the Democrat nor the Republican party would nominate today.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I thought it was because he thought Taft was to weak towards big business interests. Let me read up on that...

Let me know if I'm wrong.

ETA: Actually, I just wiki'ed, and it's as I remembered.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm inclined to agree that an ideal president and an ideal candidate are different things. (An ideal president has experience in government, an ideal candidate has nothing that can be criticized for example.)

My idea of an ideal president is Theodore Roosevelt. A bad-ass that can handle foreign affairs, but could also earn a Nobel prize for peace. A guy that can respect gun rights as well as champion preserving the environment. A guy that's not afraid to go against the establishment in his own party to the point of forming a new party when need be. A guy that has no tolerance for corruption in government or abusive monopolies. A guy that has the vision to takle a great project like the Panama Canal.

TR is my nominee for 2012, for all the reasons you cite. John D. Rockefeller hated him. TR made JP Morgan and the Wall Street crew fix the 1907 Crash with their own money. I also like that he was a combat veteran, and had the respect of real men like his Rough Riders.

Teddy's on Mt.Rushmore for a reason.

 

[Byron In Exile]

TR is my nominee for 2012, for all the reasons you cite. John D. Rockefeller hated him. TR made JP Morgan and the Wall Street crew fix the 1907 Crash with their own money. I also like that he was a combat veteran, and had the respect of real men like his Rough Riders.

Teddy's on Mt.Rushmore for a reason.

Plus, he's dead.

Nobody is going to fuck with a country that elects a dead President.

That's just too scary.