Quote:Agreed on the second point. The fact that it costs millions to be elected President means that our system has failed. You're essentially buying your way on to the ballot.
Its worked for over 200 years. Never been and never will be a poor man elected President.
Quote:Its worked for over 200 years. Never been and never will be a poor man elected President.
I'm not sure id want a poor man elected? Call me crazy but I'm not looking for average joes to lead the nation.
Quote:I'm not sure id want a poor man elected? Call me crazy but I'm not looking for average joes to lead the nation.
But being rich means you're evil (unless you're also liberal). Cant have that, we need to pull everyone down to the LCD.
Quote:Its worked for over 200 years. Never been and never will be a poor man elected President.
James A Garfield was born into poverty, and died penniless with almost no net worth at all. (He died in office)
Quote:James A Garfield was born into poverty, and died penniless with almost no net worth at all. (He died in office)
He did two decades in the House. He might've died poor but he didnt live that way.
Quote:But being rich means you're evil (unless you're also liberal). Cant have that, we need to pull everyone down to the LCD.
Being rich should not be a prerequisite for public office, unless of course you are conservative and worship wealth.
Quote:Being rich should not be a prerequisite for public office, unless of course you are conservative and worship wealth.
Being rich should not preclude you from public office, unless you are a liberal who thinks your team is different than the other one.
Quote:Being rich should not preclude you from public office, unless you are a liberal who thinks your team is different than the other one.
I have never said it should preclude them. I would not preclude anyone from office based on their status or bank account.
Quote:I have never said it should preclude them. I would not preclude anyone from office based on their status or bank account.
The undertones in your posts against the rich, corporations, and business in general seem to speak otherwise.
Quote:I have never said it should preclude them. I would not preclude anyone from office based on their status or bank account.
I don't worship wealth but someone that struggles with personal finance isn't probably the best choice to lead the nation. Really it's a dumb thing to even discuss, yes I like people who have been successful to take leadership roles it doesn't mean all successful people should it just means good leaders have a history of success.
Quote:The undertones in your posts against the rich, corporations, and business in general seem to speak otherwise.
I don't think they should be able to poor money into elections. I don't they rich/corps etc... should be able to influence policy disproportionate and sometimes to the detriment of the general public. I don't think corporations should be able to mistreat employees. There are no undertones about my stance on them I have been very open with what I think.
Quote:The undertones in your posts against the rich, corporations, and business in general seem to speak otherwise.
We just want corporations to take personal responsibility. I mean they are people, so they should be taking personal responsibility. instead of using things like corporate inversion.
Quote:I don't worship wealth but someone that struggles with personal finance isn't probably the best choice to lead the nation. Really it's a dumb thing to even discuss, yes I like people who have been successful to take leadership roles it doesn't mean all successful people should it just means good leaders have a history of success.
Very true. I am not rich nor even upper middle class but I also don't struggle with my personal finance. My point was being wealthy should not be a prerequisite to public service at high levels. That, however, appears to be the case.
Quote:Very true. I am not rich nor even upper middle class but I also don't struggle with my personal finance. My point was being wealthy should not be a prerequisite to public service at high levels. That, however, appears to be the case.
But that's just natural in a government as big as ours. Now if we localized more government then average joes COULD be elected. So you in essence support more local government! I'm slowly winning you over commie!
Hey, we can go back to when only land owners could vote.
A mans financial worth has nothing to do with ability to lead. Surround yourself with experts in their field and bring them together. Leadership brings out the best in everyone, gets them to work together and check their egos whenever they enter the room.
I've met intelligent, classy, leader type people with an average income...and some money bag arrogant dumbarse that inherited some coin and was as popular as a wart on the tip of Roscoe.
Somehow Donald Trump comes to mind
Quote:But that's just natural in a government as big as ours. Now if we localized more government then average joes COULD be elected. So you in essence support more local government! I'm slowly winning you over commie!
Nice try anarchist.
It's only natural because the wealthy are more likely to either know wealthy donors or be attractive to them for campaign donations. It's a circular cycle of money. Money is need to win in the current election system. The people that give the money general want the biggest return on their investment. That is common sense for business but politics should not be a business. Rational thinking and ability to actually be open to new ideas or ways to compromise should be foremost. Unfortunately that is not the case given the current system.
Why the patches will be laundered like money to hide the true puppet master (=hmm could it be satan)>?
