View Full Version : Should presidential candidates be required to...
OddBall
08-22-2011, 5:14pm
...take an IQ and ethics exam. Results to be made public?
Just throwin' it out there.
:waiting:
Blademaker
08-22-2011, 5:16pm
It'd sure as hell narrow down the list of canditates PDQ.
wouldn't matter.
it's not the candidates who scare me...it's the voters.
BuckyThreadkiller
08-22-2011, 5:20pm
As well as show medical records? College records? Pass a drug test?
Hell, some won't even show a birth certificate.
carlton_fritz
08-22-2011, 5:43pm
Voters should also be required to pass.
69camfrk
08-22-2011, 5:48pm
As well as show medical records? College records? Pass a drug test?
Hell, some won't even show a birth certificate.
Sure they will. It just doesn't have to be a real one!
Burro (He/Haw)
08-22-2011, 5:50pm
wouldn't matter.
This.
If you go back in time and do this, it will change history as it is written. Different bills, different wars, different presidents and all would have been born here in the USA :flag:
Datawiz
08-22-2011, 6:25pm
Hell, at this point, I'd be thrilled with a genuinely valid birth certificate.
Voters should also be required to pass.
I've been saying/posting for years...
voters should be qualified beyond the fogged mirror.
oahuyahoo
08-22-2011, 7:02pm
wouldn't matter.
it's not the candidates who scare me...it's the voters.
Andy Rooney once said collectively Americans are a smart bunch, individually were dumber than a box of rocks. I agree with him on this with one exception, selecting elected personnel.
...Whitepower...
08-22-2011, 7:09pm
Forum members should be subjected to the same tests seeing that alot of you can't figure out how to post shit like this in PRC.:beat:
oahuyahoo
08-22-2011, 7:16pm
Forum members should be subjected to the same tests seeing that alot of you can't figure out how to post shit like this in PRC.:beat:
Nobody wants to go there.
OddBall
08-22-2011, 7:25pm
Forum members should be subjected to the same tests seeing that alot of you can't figure out how to post shit like this in PRC.:beat:
can't figure out and not giving a shit are two different things. :slap:
CertInsaneC5
08-22-2011, 7:33pm
can't figure out and not giving a shit are two different things. :slap:
:lol:
Flatbush Harry
08-22-2011, 7:43pm
...take an IQ and ethics exam. Results to be made public?
Just throwin' it out there.
:waiting:
Indeed...but it doesn't really have to be a test. Recall that the principal authors of the Federalist Papers were James Madison and John Monroe, that Thomas Jefferson was the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and, despite his predilections with his slaves, of which he owned 108, he was a genuine polymath, that John Adams was the president of the American Philosophical Society, and that others of the founding fathers were among the best and brightest in the USofA at the time. Today, John Kerry and G.W. Bush were committed "C" students at Yale and that Rick Perry was a "C" student with a few "D"s and an "F" at Texas A & M & D (that's Agricultural & Mechanical and Dumbass)...I don't really need an object lesson in how eff'n dumb most of these guys really are.
Har(er, er, :upchuck:, er, excuse me!)ry
Milton Fox
08-22-2011, 7:45pm
Forum members should be subjected to the same tests seeing that alot of you can't figure out how to post shit like this in PRC.:beat:
I took both tests - fortunatily I didnt pass so they let me in. :beer:
Burro (He/Haw)
08-22-2011, 7:48pm
.I don't really need an object lesson in how eff'n dumb most of these guys really are.
Another Flatbush post to make me feel like a eff'n dumbass. Polymath? I had to Google polymath.
I'll be in the short bus licking windows if anyone needs me.
VatorMan
08-22-2011, 7:53pm
One of the smartest Presidents was one of the worst. Carter was a sub commander.
Brains don't make good Presidents- Cabinet and Supreme Court selections do.
Flatbush Harry
08-22-2011, 8:00pm
One of the smartest Presidents was one of the worst. Carter was a sub commander.
Brains don't make good Presidents- Cabinet selections do.
Actually, it's about two sets of skills...leadership (the ability to inspire people to greatness, and to do the right thing) and management (the ability to do things right). The last President to have both was probably Harry Truman, preceded by FDR. Eisenhower was a manager, Kennedy was a leader, Johnson was neither (but managed the Senate as majority leader), Nixon was neither, Ford was a manager (as House majority leader), Carter was neither, Reagan was a leader, Bush 41 was a manager, Clinton was a leader (in part), and W was a disaster. The jury is still out on Obambamohbamarama...(lookin' like neither so far). I hope we can find a President who can find his ass in a bathtub with both hands...unlikely at this juncture.
Harry, pessimist, but still able to piss in the bowl
can't figure out and not giving a shit are two different things. :slap:
can't figure out = ignorance
not giving a shit = apathy
Mark C5
08-22-2011, 8:14pm
One of the smartest Presidents was one of the worst. Carter was a sub commander.
Carter never commanded a submarine. He transferred to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Lieutenant after seven years of active duty plus three years at the Naval Academy.
kingpin
08-22-2011, 8:18pm
Actually, it's about two sets of skills...leadership (the ability to inspire people to greatness, and to do the right thing) and management (the ability to do things right).[/B] The last President to have both was probably Harry Truman, preceded by FDR. Eisenhower was a manager, Kennedy was a leader, Johnson was neither (but managed the Senate as majority leader), Nixon was neither, Ford was a manager (as House majority leader), Carter was neither, Reagan was a leader, Bush 41 was a manager, Clinton was a leader (in part), and W was a disaster. The jury is still out on Obambamohbamarama...(lookin' like neither so far). I hope we can find a President who can find his ass in a bathtub with both hands...unlikely at this juncture.
Harry, pessimist, but still able to piss in the bowl
The 2 skills that a lot of people think they have, but are far from it. Especially in this day and age.
Imagine trying to be a leader of a nation to todays cynical people.
Problem with being a leader and a manager is that you have to do things that will make some dislike and not trust you. You have to be okay with that. That's where a good leader is able to make you think that what he is saying is going to work and the right way to do things.
Indeed...but it doesn't really have to be a test. Recall that the principal authors of the Federalist Papers were James Madison and John Monroe, that Thomas Jefferson was the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and, despite his predilections with his slaves, of which he owned 108, he was a genuine polymath, that John Adams was the president of the American Philosophical Society, and that others of the founding fathers were among the best and brightest in the USofA at the time. Today, John Kerry and G.W. Bush were committed "C" students at Yale and that Rick Perry was a "C" student with a few "D"s and an "F" at Texas A & M & D (that's Agricultural & Mechanical and Dumbass)...I don't really need an object lesson in how eff'n dumb most of these guys really are.
Har(er, er, :upchuck:, er, excuse me!)ry
College grades are a poor measure because some people are late bloomers.
News flash - teenagers can be immature.
My undergrad grades were shit. 2.9 UGPA First 2 years, didn't have a clue what I wanted to do, made some horrible grades, ended up changing majors with barely a 2.0. Started making As and Bs and pulled that GPA up close to a 3.0.
I grew up and got married, graduated with a 3.2 GPA for my MBA.
Working on a JD now, will graduate with a 3.5 as long as I don't suddenly screw the pooch this year.
I've scored into the 99th percentile on every type of standardized test I've taken.
I WORKED my way up into management and driving a C5 at the ripe old age of 21.
I'm no rocket scientist. Actually I can still be pretty ****ing dumb at times and make questionable decisions. But my undergraduate transcripts aren't exactly an accurate representation of my abilities either. They ARE an accurate representation of the typical maturity level of an 18 year old.
18 may be a magical cut-off number for the .gov and legal adulthood, but REALITY doesn't conform to arbitrary legal designations. Many people don't mature by 18. That shouldn't disqualify them from elected office (unless they happen to be running while still 18).
In short, elect me President of the United States in 2020. Thank You. :D
Forum members should be subjected to the same tests seeing that alot of you can't figure out how to post shit like this in PRC.:beat:
Off Topic - Anything Non-Corvette Related - Enter at your own risk!
Hell, at this point, I'd be thrilled with a genuinely valid birth certificate.
:iagree:
Is this issue dead? Are we accepting the fake one?
boracayjohnny
08-22-2011, 10:05pm
Oddball, the test wouldn't matter since they'd also cheat, lie, or get it fixed afterwards.
Joecooool
08-23-2011, 9:13am
The fact that the United States allows voters to elect the President is often the cause of the political grid lock this nation faces.
There is a reason we didn't establish the same type of government in Germany and Japan, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mark C5
08-23-2011, 9:23am
The fact that the United States has a direct election of the President is often the cause of the political grid lock this nation faces.
I guess you missed that whole electoral college thing huh?
kylebuck
08-23-2011, 9:26am
I guess you missed that whole electoral college thing huh?
beat me too it.
Joecooool
08-23-2011, 9:28am
I guess you missed that whole electoral college thing huh?
You know what I meant.
Sea Six
08-23-2011, 9:30am
The fact that the United States allows voters to elect the President is often the cause of the political grid lock this nation faces.
There is a reason we didn't establish the same type of government in Germany and Japan, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.
I guess you missed that whole electoral college thing huh?
beat me too it.
Lots of things get past Joecooool. :yesnod:
Entropy
08-23-2011, 9:34am
No.
I'd just be happy rolling things the way the constitution has them laid out.
Will made some good points as well.
Mark C5
08-23-2011, 9:35am
You know what I meant.
I do? Why yes, I think I do. I think you meant the President is elected directly by the people which he is not.
VatorMan
08-23-2011, 9:35am
I guess you missed that whole electoral college thing huh?
beat me too it.
Damn. Joebuck slapping Phil down. :rofl::rofl:
Madmikeee
08-23-2011, 9:42am
ALL candidates for public office MUST meet the following requirements: (At least in MY opinion)
1) Born and Raised in the U.S. (Obviously this includes people born on U.S. Soil in foreign countries if in the military or the likes)
2) MUST have worked a minimum of 10 years, as an adult (Working at McDonalds from the age of 16 does not count), in the private sector doing a REAL Job, not working for daddy making a quarter of a million a year for sitting in an office jerking off all day.
3) MUST have at LEAST another 10 years experience working in politics with GOOD reviews
4) MUST spend at least 4 years in the military
5) Cannot spend more than 1m dollars on ANY campaign and is not allowed to use public tax dollars for ANY personal reason while campaigning.
6) Must write their OWN SPEECHES and cannot use "Smear Tactics" while campaigning. If you cannot beat your opponent without someone doing your homework for you or resorting to 2'nd grade bullshit you don't deserve to be in office.
Feel free to add some more.
:hurray:I do? Why yes, I think I do. I think you meant the President is elected directly by the people which he is not.
Yep, and we still have an Electoral College that was set up in a time of communication by mail delivered on horseback. It's long past a time for change.
The electoral college is a good idea. We don't need to change that too, we need to UNdo the change made to the election of U.S. Senators.
State governments no longer have a voice in Washington D.C., and since that change - SURPRISE - the power and scope of the federal government have increased DRAMATICALLY.
The electoral college is a good idea. We don't need to change that too, we need to UNdo the change made to the election of U.S. Senators.
State governments no longer have a voice in Washington D.C., and since that change - SURPRISE - the power and scope of the federal government have increased DRAMATICALLY.
Explain why the Electoral College is valid in today's world and what change were made to senayor elections? :confused5:
Scissors
08-23-2011, 10:01am
Voters get the elected officials that they deserve.
Scissors
08-23-2011, 10:02am
ALL candidates for public office MUST meet the following requirements: (At least in MY opinion)
1) Born and Raised in the U.S. (Obviously this includes people born on U.S. Soil in foreign countries if in the military or the likes)
2) MUST have worked a minimum of 10 years, as an adult (Working at McDonalds from the age of 16 does not count), in the private sector doing a REAL Job, not working for daddy making a quarter of a million a year for sitting in an office jerking off all day.
3) MUST have at LEAST another 10 years experience working in politics with GOOD reviews
4) MUST spend at least 4 years in the military
5) Cannot spend more than 1m dollars on ANY campaign and is not allowed to use public tax dollars for ANY personal reason while campaigning.
6) Must write their OWN SPEECHES and cannot use "Smear Tactics" while campaigning. If you cannot beat your opponent without someone doing your homework for you or resorting to 2'nd grade bullshit you don't deserve to be in office.
Feel free to add some more.
Your requirements would have disqualified almost all of our best presidents.
Explain why the Electoral College is valid in today's world and what change were made to senayor elections? :confused5:
Senators were originally selected by state legislatures, under Article 1 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
The 17th amendment changed the selection of Senators to a popular vote.
The electoral college is valid because that is how our constitution ordered things, and the purpose for doing so still exists --> our nation is a collection of STATES, a federal republic. #1 - a simple popular vote means presidential candidates can simply ignore the needs of smaller states, #2 - very rarely does a candidate win the electoral college and not the popular vote anyway.
We live in the United States of America, NOT the United States of New York, Florida, Texas, California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia (the 10 largest population states of 50, or 20% of the states, accounting for over 50% the U.S. population)
Cybercowboy
08-23-2011, 10:28am
and W was a disaster. The jury is still out on Obambamohbamarama...(lookin' like neither so far). I hope we can find a President who can find his ass in a bathtub with both hands...unlikely at this juncture.
Harry, pessimist, but still able to piss in the bowl
Actually, the Bush years are starting to look like the good ol' days...
Flatbush Harry
08-23-2011, 10:29am
Actually, the Bush years are starting to look like the good ol' days...
Respectfully, I disagree.
Harry
Senators were originally selected by state legislatures, under Article 1 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
The 17th amendment changed the selection of Senators to a popular vote.
The electoral college is valid because that is how our constitution ordered things, and the purpose for doing so still exists --> our nation is a collection of STATES, a federal republic. #1 - a simple popular vote means presidential candidates can simply ignore the needs of smaller states, #2 - very rarely does a candidate win the electoral college and not the popular vote anyway.
We live in the United States of America, NOT the United States of New York, Florida, Texas, California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia (the 10 largest population states of 50, or 20% of the states, accounting for over 50% the U.S. population)
Oh Boy! Here we go more states rights B.S.
The 17th Amendment was instituded almost 100 years ago and works fine.
You're right, we do live in the USA and what difference does it make where you live to get your vote counted. Sad when one state like FLA can swing an entire election.
Of course, you mention the 10 largest population states, funny that they, also, have the largest percentage of non-whites.
Entropy
08-23-2011, 10:35am
Wow, just wow.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking.
The 17th Amendment was instituded almost 100 years ago and works fine.
If you're anti-federalist and pro-"Big Government," then sure, it has worked fine.
If you share our founders' desire for limited government and maximum personal and state autonomy, then no. No it hasn't worked "fine."
If you're anti-federalist and pro-"Big Government," then sure, it has worked fine.
If you share our founders' desire for limited government and maximum personal and state autonomy, then no. No it hasn't worked "fine."
No, I'm not pro "Big Government". I'm for sensible government which at this point we sure don't have.
I share the founding Fathers ideal, but trying to go back to 1788 when the Constitution was ratified and there were 13 States and a population of maybe 3 million is nuts.
I share the founding Fathers ideal, but trying to go back to 1788 when the Constitution was ratified and there were 13 States and a population of maybe 3 million is nuts.
This argument has no value. It implies that simply because times have changed and population has changed, a certain aspect of government organization must also change or should also change.
The argument makes no more sense than arguing that we should stop breathing in air and instead use another method as our primary intake of oxygen because breathing in air is what the founding fathers did and by God times were a different back then and we had fewer states and people.
Tell me WHY a popular vote is preferable to the electoral college and tell me WHY we should go through the process of amending the constitution to change the way we elect our president and what benefit doing so would have. "The year is 2011 and 2011 is different from 1788" isn't good enough.
This argument has no value. It implies that simply because times have changed and population has changed, a certain aspect of government organization must also change or should also change.
The argument makes no more sense than arguing that we should stop breathing in air and instead use another method as our primary intake of oxygen because breathing in air is what the founding fathers did and by God times were a different back then and we had fewer states and people.
Tell me WHY a popular vote is preferable to the electoral college and tell me WHY we should go through the process of amending the constitution to change the way we elect our president and what benefit doing so would have. "The year is 2011 and 2011 is different from 1788" isn't good enough.
I wasn't aware that this was an arguement, as you put it. I was under the foolish impression that we might have a sensible discussion. Must have hit a sore point. Since you feel no change is aceptable, there can't be any discussion, so it's your way or the highway in other words.
I thought I made my point about the Electoral College with the 2000 FLA situation. The thing that you really don't want to change is the fact that an individual citizen has NO constitutional right to vote for the electors of the president of the US.
If you share their ideal then you would be for reversing the Amendment.
It's not like an Amendment hasn't been reversed with another one before.
Why would I forfit my right to vote directly for the Senator of my choice?
Why would I forfit my right to vote directly for the Senator of my choice?
For the greater good. Our government was designed to give you the ability to directly vote for a representative to D.C. - in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Senate was for STATE representation:
Senate - State representation
House - Individual representation
NOW, thanks to the knee-jerk 17th amendment, we have:
Senate - Individual representation
House - Individual representation
The state legislatures have no voice in congress. And surprise, surprise, state's rights have been trampled and the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority with impunity. Instead of having a say in the federal legislative process, as was originally intended, state legislatures now have to sit back and watch themselves getting butt-f***ed, and then after the fact go beg the courts to retroactively take corrective action, no small feat.
Perfect recent example - the Affordable Care Act. Probably would NOT have passed without the 17th amendment. Instead it did, and now states are having to clog the court system to try and get the piece of garbage overturned, as it should be.
Because it goes against the Framers ideal, which you said you are for.
The only reason the framers set it up that way is because communication was so slow that they no way to tabulate all the votes in any timely manor, so they had elected representatives for each district meet at the state capital to name their senators, much like the electoral college.
Just like the Electoral College, the individual voter did not directly vote for their state senators. Sadly, many people believe, to this day that, they are voting directly for the president in a Presidential Election, but the current Constitution does NOT give them that right. That makes the phrase "Make your vote count" a myth.
I am sure that, if the writers of the Constitution were alive today, they would insist on each citizen having the right to directly vote for the person of their choice.
For the greater good. Our government was designed to give you the ability to directly vote for a representative to D.C. - in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Senate was for STATE representation:
Senate - State representation
House - Individual representation
NOW, thanks to the knee-jerk 17th amendment, we have:
Senate - Individual representation
House - Individual representation
The state legislatures have no voice in congress. And surprise, surprise, state's rights have been trampled and the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority with impunity. Instead of having a say in the federal legislative process, as was originally intended, state legislatures now have to sit back and watch themselves getting butt-f***ed, and then after the fact go beg the courts to retroactively take corrective action, no small feat.
Perfect recent example - the Affordable Care Act. Probably would NOT have passed without the 17th amendment. Instead it did, and now states are having to clog the court system to try and get the piece of garbage overturned, as it should be.
In other words, what you're saying is that the state legislature should be able send who ever they want to the Senate, even those opposed to the will of the people.
I aways thought our Democracy was government for and by the people and not the few who want to gain control by political manipulation.
I aways thought our Democracy was government for and by the people
#1 Thankfully we're NOT a democracy, although sadly many are trying to oush us that way. Democracy is an enemy form of government, no more preferable to communism. We are a REPUBLIC, centered around a constitution based on themes of INDIVIDUAL liberty and a federal system of government. True Democracy and individual liberty are mutually exclusive. Democracy is literally 2 wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Our founders wisely created a somewhat complex yet somewhat simple republic.
In other words, what you're saying is that the state legislature should be able send who ever they want to the Senate, even those opposed to the will of the people.
#2 The people vote for their state-level representatives, so your argument doesn't hold water. Moreover, the same sort of thing can happen under ANY system, even the current post-17th amendment set-up. AGAIN, see the affordable care act - the majority of Americans opposed, a majority continues to oppose it and favor repeal, yet those directly elected via popular vote senators voted for it, AGAINST the will of the people.
RedLS1GTO
08-23-2011, 3:14pm
For the greater good. Our government was designed to give you the ability to directly vote for a representative to D.C. - in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Senate was for STATE representation:
Senate - State representation
House - Individual representation
NOW, thanks to the knee-jerk 17th amendment, we have:
Senate - Individual representation
House - Individual representation
THIS.
What we are left with now is House I and House II. There is really no difference between them now which is completely contrary to the original intent.
Sadly, many people believe, to this day that, they are voting directly for the president in a Presidential Election, but the current Constitution does NOT give them that right. That makes the phrase "Make your vote count" a myth.
Congratulations, you just came up with a question that should be asked of every voter. Answer incorrectly and you can't vote. If you are too stupid to even know the basics of our government, you are part of the problem.
I am sure that, if the writers of the Constitution were alive today, they would insist on each citizen having the right to directly vote for the person of their choice.
What exactly are you basing this comment on?
Speaking on behalf of the founders of this country and saying that they would change their views is a bit of a bold statement.
And you got this idea from where?
Let me ask you the same question. It's my opinion just like yours.
THIS.
Speaking on behalf of the founders of this country and saying that they would change their views is a bit of a bold statement.
No bolder than other statements that have been made here. I love the comparison of democracy and communisim by your comrade.
No bolder than other statements that have been made here. I love the comparison of democracy and communisim by your comrade.
Both roads lead to loss of individual liberty. Democracy = mob rule. See the UK for example. They simply democratically voted to strip all UK citizens of their right to bear arms.
So you have no idea how it works and are pulling incorrect information out of your rectum?
Hmmm... your posting style seems to resemble someone else....
Since you brought up assholes, why don't you stop acting like one and state something intelligent and productive instead of just making shitty remarks.
I done with this thread. It needs to be PRC
I thought there'd would be some fun exchanges here, but you folks take your politics way to seriously and closed mindedly. :seeya:
Kevin_73
08-23-2011, 3:59pm
Since you brought up assholes, why don't you stop acting like one and state something intelligent and productive instead of just making shitty remarks.
I done with this thread. It needs to be PRC
I thought there'd would be some fun exchanges here, but you folks take your politics way to seriously and closed mindedly. :seeya:
Irony post is ironic! :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.