Next President.....

Godfather.

got this in a e-mail,too funny not to share.

Godfather.



This next year, both Groundhog Day and the
State of the Union address occur on the same day.
As Air America Radio pointed out,
"It is an ironic juxtaposition of events;
One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look
To a creature of little intelligence for prognostication
While the other involves a groundhog.”

fife

[

First, I don't care how much money he has to buy an election.
Second, what I meant was the persona he puts forth on TV - how else does anyone on this board know him? how else does anyone know him - is not necessarily the type of person he is and the type of president he would be. We know nothing about him other than what he has stated to the media. As far as "My opinions are based on the ideas and point of view he's expressed. He is on point with most of what he says," I'm not sure that this is trustworthy. What does he know of foreign policy? What does he know of war? What does he know about entitlement reform? Healthcare reform?
I am all for having someone run for office that IS NOT a career politician, but I do not think Trump is a valid choice. If Trump, then why not Bill Gates?[/quote]

What a President is, is a decision maker. no President knows everything about every topic. that is why they all have advisers. its not really fair to say that just because Trump may not know something doesn't mean he would be a bad president.

expectorant

...well, I think it's a bit early to be naming names, but there are interesting things going on.
nolabels.org just formed and is made up of dems, repubs and independants aimed at moving the
country forward. Don't know enough about them yet to know who they endorse, but it's very
interesting. Hopefully there will capable candidates who care enough about our future to toss their
hats into the ring of media storms and saviour mentalities.

Electric_Delta

satansbed wrote:

barack with hillary as his vp

No thanks.

expectorant

....the groundhog thing is funny...

cajunkiwi

Shawshank wrote:

whygohome wrote:

No to Trump. Come on, people. Can we be realistic? Is this the power that TV has on us? He would not be a good president. Just because he is a good businessman, doesn't mean he would be a good president.

What does TV have to do with it? The very fact that he has some stupid show on TV is the exact reason why I laughed the idea off at first. That's also the reason why it would never work. My opinions are based on the ideas and point of view he's expressed. He is on point with most of what he says Pray tell what would be the makings of a good president? A lack of business knowledge? A lack of economic sense? A lifetime of experience in various public offices? A great understanding of how to buy votes? A thorough knowledge of corruption and how to do it under the radar? Like it or not, with the shit pile we were left with from the previous admin. and the deeper the hole is being dug with the current, a good business man who is a hard ass and can't be bought off with campaign contributions is exactly what we need. Trump probably has enough money stuffed in his golden sock drawer to cover the expenses of his entire campaign, so I doubt he'd need much help getting elected.

I don't think I'd trust Donald Trump in charge of anything - do you know how many of his businesses go bankrupt? He makes his money selling an image, but the actual product isn't usually all that successful.

Commy

cajunkiwi wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

whygohome wrote:

No to Trump. Come on, people. Can we be realistic? Is this the power that TV has on us? He would not be a good president. Just because he is a good businessman, doesn't mean he would be a good president.

What does TV have to do with it? The very fact that he has some stupid show on TV is the exact reason why I laughed the idea off at first. That's also the reason why it would never work. My opinions are based on the ideas and point of view he's expressed. He is on point with most of what he says Pray tell what would be the makings of a good president? A lack of business knowledge? A lack of economic sense? A lifetime of experience in various public offices? A great understanding of how to buy votes? A thorough knowledge of corruption and how to do it under the radar? Like it or not, with the shit pile we were left with from the previous admin. and the deeper the hole is being dug with the current, a good business man who is a hard ass and can't be bought off with campaign contributions is exactly what we need. Trump probably has enough money stuffed in his golden sock drawer to cover the expenses of his entire campaign, so I doubt he'd need much help getting elected.

I don't think I'd trust Donald Trump in charge of anything - do you know how many of his businesses go bankrupt? He makes his money selling an image, but the actual product isn't usually all that successful.

people are under this strange delusion that what's good for business is good for everyone. while reality suggests that gov't for, of and by corporations only serves the corporations. the people are left out of this equation.

sarah palin is a better candidate than donald trump, and while hoping neither of them end up the rep candidate, i'm almost hoping for it knowing either one of them would lose to a dem. dems at least don't start with war as the first solution to a problem.

Shawshank

Commy wrote:

people are under this strange delusion that what's good for business is good for everyone. while reality suggests that gov't for, of and by corporations only serves the corporations. the people are left out of this equation.

sarah palin is a better candidate than donald trump, and while hoping neither of them end up the rep candidate, i'm almost hoping for it knowing either one of them would lose to a dem. dems at least don't start with war as the first solution to a problem.

Yes, and people are also under a strange delusion that what's good for business is bad for everyone. You can't have a healthy, happy, productive population without having a good environment for business. Unless most of the population is self-sufficient and can grown their own food, then they are going to need to rely on businesses for jobs and income. As we can see by our current situation, businesses don't hire when the economy is shit.

What my point was about Trump is, he wouldn't be beholden to investors in his campaign, because he doesn't need or want investors for it. He is also one of the few billionaire's out there that doesn't invest in the stock market. So he has no corporate interest other than his own, and he invests in real estate. Does this mean he'd be the ideal candidate? No. But it also means he won't be pandering to executives and big corporations. He's a believer in the free market, and yes, in a free market you don't bail out banks and automobile companies. You let them fail, because there will ALWAYS be someone else to fill in the vacuum that is left behind when they are gone. That is how our system works. When you have idiots like our last president tampering with that process then you are left with a shit pile like we have now.

This is all bullshit talk anyway, because it won't happen. I guess I see us at a point where I'd rather have someone with good business sense running the country, because ultimately that is what we are lacking.

wolfamongwolves

Noam Chomsky

Godfather.

Shawshank wrote:

Commy wrote:

people are under this strange delusion that what's good for business is good for everyone. while reality suggests that gov't for, of and by corporations only serves the corporations. the people are left out of this equation.

sarah palin is a better candidate than donald trump, and while hoping neither of them end up the rep candidate, i'm almost hoping for it knowing either one of them would lose to a dem. dems at least don't start with war as the first solution to a problem.

Yes, and people are also under a strange delusion that what's good for business is bad for everyone. You can't have a healthy, happy, productive population without having a good environment for business. Unless most of the population is self-sufficient and can grown their own food, then they are going to need to rely on businesses for jobs and income. As we can see by our current situation, businesses don't hire when the economy is shit.

What my point was about Trump is, he wouldn't be beholden to investors in his campaign, because he doesn't need or want investors for it. He is also one of the few billionaire's out there that doesn't invest in the stock market. So he has no corporate interest other than his own, and he invests in real estate. Does this mean he'd be the ideal candidate? No. But it also means he won't be pandering to executives and big corporations. He's a believer in the free market, and yes, in a free market you don't bail out banks and automobile companies. You let them fail, because there will ALWAYS be someone else to fill in the vacuum that is left behind when they are gone. That is how our system works. When you have idiots like our last president tampering with that process then you are left with a shit pile like we have now.

This is all bullshit talk anyway, because it won't happen. I guess I see us at a point where I'd rather have someone with good business sense running the country, because ultimately that is what we are lacking.

I agree with you but once in office the game really begins,thats when he/or any candidate might find out that there is deals and trading that can not be avoided, just from what I have learned from all of you here on the train it's that politics don't have a common goal as far as policy's go and the cards are held by the Dem's and repub's and each side will play those cards to sway the presidents decisions, if I am wrong on this I apologize for sticking my nose in this thread but it seams with a 2 party system any president will forced to compromise on their intended goals...does this sound about right ?


Godfather.

Jason P

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Noam Chomsky

He is too old. Plus, his head might explode when he is forced to make an actual decision as commander-in-chief instead of just providing philosophical insight on the issue.

Electric_Delta

Jason P wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Noam Chomsky

He is too old. Plus, his head might explode when he is forced to make an actual decision as commander-in-chief instead of just providing philosophical insight on the issue.

cajunkiwi

One thing I'd like to know is what presidents found the job to be like, compared to what they thought it would be like when they were campaigning. One thing I've noticed about politicians is that when they're running for office they all say they're going to fix all of the problems and change the culture of the office. Then, when they get voted in, they don't.

Is it because the actual job of running a country is more overwhelming than they expected?

Godfather.

cajunkiwi wrote:

One thing I'd like to know is what presidents found the job to be like, compared to what they thought it would be like when they were campaigning. One thing I've noticed about politicians is that when they're running for office they all say they're going to fix all of the problems and change the culture of the office. Then, when they get voted in, they don't.

Is it because the actual job of running a country is more overwhelming than they expected?

I'd have to say HELLLLLLL YES !!!!, just the stuff I've learned on here is enough to realize that that job and this country are not run by the man holding the presidential seat...he's more a puppet for the real power...who ever they are.

Godfather.

unsung

The cigarette smoking man runs the show.

ed243421

unsung wrote:

The cigarette smoking man runs the show.

hey unsung

honest question
how do you justify supporting ron paul concerning
his stance on the civil rights act of 1964?

unsung

What is his stance in your mind?

If you are talking about whether a business owner should be able to refuse service to someone based on their skin color I'd answer if the business owner wanted to take that stance that is his choice. He shouldn't be surprised if he gets a less than positive reaction though. Generally a business open to the public, IMO, should not be one that excludes someone based on skin color.

Now if someone has a private club that was privately paid for and they don't want to admit someone based on skin color then they have that right, and they should not be forced to admit someone that they don't want to.

I believe in government staying out of the private lives of the citizens. Stay out of my library records, my cell conversations, where I shop, who people want to marry, and keep its' mitts of my guns, eliminate the "death" tax, don't tell people they can't smoke outdoors, force a motorcyclist to wear a helmet, etc.

Shawshank

Not to skew off topic too much, but I do believe that one of the requirements for being president should be that you write your own damn speeches. Let it be your own words being expressed in eloquence or stupidity, not some schmo hiding in the shadows. I know it's not a huge deal for many people, but this is something that has always bothered me. It just irks me when people give accolades to some speech, or some specific phrase in a speech, and it wasn't even the President who came up with it. Also, I hate that they hand out copies of the speech ahead of time so that the media sits there and scrutinizes and tells us what's going to be said before it's said. Ok, carry on, I just had to rant a bit on that.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestof ... cnn?hpt=C2

know1

I voted for Ron Paul the last time and will again if he runs unless someone with either: no political ties or experience whatsoever, or someone running on a platform of term limits for all politicians run.