[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 03 February 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

I believe that was after all the tension. If that is the case, how will be be able to do anything next term? If he can't get anything done for whatever reason he should not be president.

There's been tension since before the 2008 election. Remember Sarah Palin's "paling around with terrorist" comment? Like I said they never wanted to work with him from day one. Honestly I don't think guys like McConnell and DeMint and Cantor really see Barack Obama as the President of the United States. I don't believe they truly see Obama as their president. Then we have these "tea partiers" that they pander to, who still believe to this day he is a Muslim born in Kenya. Just last week Rick Santorum didn't even try to dispute that "he's a Muslim" bullshit when somebody at his campaign event said Obama was a Muslim (as if that were a bad thing). It doesn't serve the Republicans in congress or the ones running for president to work with President Obama. They gain nothing from it, we might but they won't.

Hell their are some policies Republicans in congress have supported for years. Then once Obama adopts it and says "okay let's do this," they do a complete reversal and oppose what they've supported for years. That makes no sense. You can't work with people like that.

Tell me what do they gain from working with President Obama when it comes to THEIR re-election campaigns? What did it do for Arlen Specter? What did it do for Bill Bennett? When you're a Republican and you work with Obama, expect to be "tea partied" when you're up for re-election. Like Specter and Bennett were. That's happening to my former congressmen right now.

But it's like I said last night, Obama should've been putting his foot in their asses from day one. They're not afraid of him, and why should they be when they know he's not going to call them on their shit. Obama's problem is he doesn't stand up for himself. That's another thing he does that pisses me off. God I wish the ghost of FDR would enter his body and takeover.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 03 February 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

I agree. I lived in AZ and watched McCain back the whole propane powered vehicle thing that nearly bankrupted the state as well as other deals. This might sound petty but him wondering in front of the camera just further proved he was not the guy. If he does not have the common sense to stay out of the camera's way how can he lead a country. We will probably be in the same boat this year. Obama will be they guy, not because he deserves it but we have no other choice.

I think McCain's downfall was Sarah Palin. He had been talking all summer about how Obama was too inexperienced to be president, and then he picks the governor of one of the least populated states in the country and had only had that job for less than 2 years. If a Republican woman was what he wanted as his running mate he should have picked Elizabeth Dole.

Quote

Why would someone want to be president. They can make alot more money working in the private sector with fewer headaches and better rewards.

For the same reason people move to Hollywood, to get fame and admiration. Power can be just as alluring as money and one usually leads to the other at some point.

[S-Dubb]

None of this is relevant to me because I live on the banks of the fuckifIknow river

[azjetfan]

Quote

I think McCain's downfall was Sarah Palin. He had been talking all summer about how Obama was too inexperienced to be president, and then he picks the governor of one of the least populated states in the country and had only had that job for less than 2 years. If a Republican woman was what he wanted as his running mate he should have picked Elizabeth Dole.

You may be right, I think people viewed her as dumb, As well as she made herself look dumb at times. She may have been one of his downfalls.

Quote

For the same reason people move to Hollywood, to get fame and admiration. Power can be just as alluring as money and one usually leads to the other at some point.

I dont know. I think the people who we would want are smarter than that. Besides you can get your rocks off in other ways if thats what you need.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 05 February 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

I dont know. I think the people who we would want are smarter than that. Besides you can get your rocks off in other ways if thats what you need.

Simply put to be president you have to have ambition.

When you're a city concilman your ambition is to work in the state legislature. When you're in the state legislature you're ambition is to be a congressman. When you're a congressman your ambition is to be a senator. When you're a senator your ambition is to be the president.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 06 February 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

Simply put to be president you have to have ambition.

When you're a city concilman your ambition is to work in the state legislature. When you're in the state legislature you're ambition is to be a congressman. When you're a congressman your ambition is to be a senator. When you're a senator your ambition is to be the president.

Thats an interesting thought process. Nobody outside of career polititions would want to be President? I see a problem with that. I want the best person for the job, not the best current politition. I am not attacking your comment, Just find it to be a scary scenerio.

As far as general ambition goes, I don't think the reward is worth the risk. We need to have better bait to catch the big fish.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 06 February 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Thats an interesting thought process. Nobody outside of career polititions would want to be President? I see a problem with that. I want the best person for the job, not the best current politition. I am not attacking your comment, Just find it to be a scary scenerio.

See you think being a "career politician" is a bad thing. That term "career politician" was something probably created and focus grouped by a guy like Frank Luntz for Republicans to use to as a derogatory term against their opponents. Just like things like "tax and spend liberal" and "welfare queen." Just more propaganda to use on the impressionable who want to blame the gov't for everything that's wrong under the sun. I'm sorry but I don't want Joe the plumber to be the President of the United States. Just because I'd like to have a beer with a guy doesn't mean I think he could handle the North Korean situation too. I want somebody who has had some government experience whether he or she was a senator or governor before. I want a senator who's met with foreign heads of state. Or a governor who's handled a crisis like a natural disaster. Really has the best person for the job ever come right out of the private sector? We already have too much intermixing between big business and the federal government. That's why we have the mess we have now.

The problem is not "career politicians." The problem is rich donors using their money (a.k.a. their speech) to influence our "career politicians." People like the Koch brothers being able to give millions to a Super-PAC to put a "career politician" like Scott Walker into higher office is the problem. And both parties benefit from those donations from the wealthy. But I guess when the Supreme Court says money is speech, this is what we get.

God I hope President Obama is re-elected and either Justice Kennedy or Justice Scalia retires during his second term.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 06 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

See you think being a "career politician" is a bad thing.

I never said it was a bad thing just that that thought process takes away 97% of the availible candidates. From personal experience I can say some of the best people I have hired have been from another industry. Why would we not want to lure them into this if they are a better option?

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 06 February 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

I never said it was a bad thing just that that thought process takes away 97% of the availible candidates. From personal experience I can say some of the best people I have hired have been from another industry. Why would we not want to lure them into this if they are a better option?

Like I said running a company and running the government are too totally different things. I don't believe Jack Welch would've made a good POTUS just like I don't believe Bill Clinton would've made a good CEO of General Electric.

People who move from the private sector right to elected office in the government rarely do it to help the average Joe. If ever.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 06 February 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Like I said running a company and running the government are too totally different things.

Thats not the point. The point is we have a small pool of people to do the most important job. Your not going to get the best nor good diversity out of a small pool.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 06 February 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Thats not the point. The point is we have a small pool of people to do the most important job. Your not going to get the best nor good diversity out of a small pool.

Anybody who is at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years can run for president. That's a pretty large pool to draw from. Only problem is to get anybody else to notice you're running for president you'll need to already have a lot of money of your own, or have people willing to give you a lot of money. That's when the pool you're talking about becomes much smaller. And I think we can both agree that's a problem. Now how to solve that problem is the question.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 06 February 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Anybody who is at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years can run for president. That's a pretty large pool to draw from. Only problem is to get anybody else to notice you're running for president you'll need to already have a lot of money of your own, or have people willing to give you a lot of money. That's when the pool you're talking about becomes much smaller. And I think we can both agree that's a problem. Now how to solve that problem is the question.

To get exposure on a national level it would cost big money. More fuel to the small federal and more responsibility on the local government.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 06 February 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

To get exposure on a national level it would cost big money. More fuel to the small federal and more responsibility on the local government.

Yes there it is again, "small government." I bet that's the cure for the common cold too. It isn't 1789 or 1865 anymore. You will never have a small federal gov't in a nation that is over 3 and 1/2 million square miles large and has a population of over 300 million people. It is not possible to continue life as we know it and give all these new burdens to local governments who are already over extended as it is. Local gov'ts will just be lobbied and funded by the same deep pockets doing it in D.C. today. We have too much land to secure and too many people to protect to have "small government." The only way to really have a small federal gov't is to give all the land west of the Mississippi River back to France and Spain and kill millions of Americans to lower the population.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 06 February 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Local gov'ts will just be lobbied and funded by the same deep pockets doing it in D.C. today.

Small federal government, not small government. I can pretty much be sure if my Mayor does something stupid like take special intrest money I have a good chance to know about it. I have no or little chance of someone in DC. What this does? It allows people to vote on actions rather than talk and B.S. I just think there is no way a person in DC will have a clue about what is best for a town/city/rural area. We cant put it all in one pot.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 07 February 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Small federal government, not small government. I can pretty much be sure if my Mayor does something stupid like take special intrest money I have a good chance to know about it. I have no or little chance of someone in DC. What this does? It allows people to vote on actions rather than talk and B.S. I just think there is no way a person in DC will have a clue about what is best for a town/city/rural area. We cant put it all in one pot.

Like I said you can't have a small federal government in a nation as large in land and population as the U.S. is and keep living the same standard of living we currently have.

There are already mayors and city council members in bigger cities that take special interest money and are influenced by lobbyist. And now because of this Citizen's United ruling, special interest groups can use these super PACS to get their message out there and they don't have to reveal who they are. Now that money=speech your mayor could have a former staffer start a super PAC and get all kinds of special interest money to benefit him/her. And technically your mayor won't be taking special interest money because his/her official campaign and the super PAC will be two separate entities (on paper). So when the negative advertisements start up against the candidate you're supporting to unseat your special interest influenced mayor, the mayor can just say "I don't control the super PAC." And that would technically be the truth. Now how are you going to beat that?

And that's just the super PAC part of it. In your small gov't utopia there is also going to be a K street in just about every state and major city in the country. There are already lobbyist in state capitals and in big cities, it would just get worse in this world of smaller gov't. It would be like living in a large house infested with roaches. You can move to a smaller house to solve the problem, but some roaches are still going to come with you to the new house. A smaller house isn't going to get rid of the roaches, just like smaller gov't isn't going to get rid of the lobbyist.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 07 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Like I said you can't have a small federal government in a nation as large in land and population as the U.S. is and keep living the same standard of living we currently have.

Standard of living we currently have? I think we would increase that. I think it is clear we disagree. I will gracefully bow out.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 08 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Standard of living we currently have? I think we would increase that. I think it is clear we disagree. I will gracefully bow out.

When I say standard of living I'm referring to things like being able to turn on a faucet and get clean water to come out of it, having quick access public safety and emergency medical care just by dialing 3 numbers on a phone. Being able to send every child in America to a school to receive an education. Things we sometimes take for granted. Those are the things I'm talking about when I say our standard of living. There are many other countries on this earth that don't have those things the way we do.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 08 February 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

When I say standard of living I'm referring to things like being able to turn on a faucet and get clean water to come out of it, having quick access public safety and emergency medical care just by dialing 3 numbers on a phone. Being able to send every child in America to a school to receive an education. Things we sometimes take for granted. Those are the things I'm talking about when I say our standard of living. There are many other countries on this earth that don't have those things the way we do.

I would not see any of those changing. The federal government would still have a role to play.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 08 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

I would not see any of those changing. The federal government would still have a role to play.

Having and maintaining those things in a nation that's over 3 1/2 million square miles and has a population of over 300 million people isn't cheap and can't be done on the cheap. All of those things are a form of socialism that Americans like having around and that we all benefit from in some shape or form.

[santana]

figured i would leave this here as it deserves some attention