Should presidential candidates be required to...

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by Madmikeee

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.

[Will]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

Explain why the Electoral College is valid in today's world and what change were made to senayor elections?

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]

Originally Posted by Flatbush Harry

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]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Actually, the Bush years are starting to look like the good ol' days...

Respectfully, I disagree.

Harry

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by Will

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]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Wow, just wow.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking.

[Will]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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."

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by Will

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.

[Will]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by Will

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.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by TxAg

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?

[Will]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by TxAg

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.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by Will

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.

[Will]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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]

Originally Posted by Will

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.

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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.

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by TxAg

And you got this idea from where?

Let me ask you the same question. It's my opinion just like yours.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

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.

[Will]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

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.

[sxeC6]

Originally Posted by TxAg

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.