If you could pick ANYONE...

Who currently living on this planet would be your dream president? And I mean anybody... imagine you could convince anyone on earth to run for President of The United States of America? Obviously this person would be allowed to run if not a US citizen... lets say congress finally realized our national bench isn't exactly overflowing with talent, then changed the law as a last chance to get the country back to full strength. Or maybe you want someone who doesn't want the US to be as powerful and influential as we used to be... so basically you should pick the person who's words or actions most closely resemble your ideology. But remember, this person has to run the country with only the knowledge they currently possess... if you want someone who will need on the job training, it better be in stuff like how to talk to the media and not how to help businesses create jobs. This person could be in or close to politics, or could be completely outside... advantages to both.

I think I'm going to have to think about this for a it, so feel free to make your pick, and your case. And for the record, you may also feel free to pick my choice apart... otherwise this may not be as interesting. So if you really live here ..........

























sorry that was probably uncalled for.

No cheating by jumping in to the wayback machine to bring back Ronaldus Magnus and the Iron Maiden (that's Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thacher for you folks in Rio Linda)? I think we really need two people of that caliber to slow things down and bring the country in to some sort of recovery ready state. Even with the "dream team" in place I think the best we can hope for is some damage control over two consecutive terms. I don't think there is any "fixing" that can be accomplished in the near term.

Who are those people in our current population? I don't know but I hope they emerge and gain popularity with our fellow countrymen before we get stuck with four more years of SSDD. The problem is that the collective "we" continue to create entitlements that the current tax base can't support. Stacking on more and more regulations that are depressing jobs because it's become too expensive to start and operate small and medium businesses. Our population is too dependent on the Government and the numbers are not going down; who would voluntarily cancel their own meal ticket and venture out into the big bad world to earn a living if they didn't have to?

otisptoadwater wrote: No cheating by jumping in to the wayback machine to bring back Ronaldus Magnus and the Iron Maiden (that's Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thacher for you folks in Rio Linda)? I think we really need two people of that caliber to slow things down and bring the country in to some sort of recovery ready state. Even with the "dream team" in place I think the best we can hope for is some damage control over two consecutive terms. I don't think there is any "fixing" that can be accomplished in the near term.

Who are those people in our current population? I don't know but I hope they emerge and gain popularity with our fellow countrymen before we get stuck with four more years of SSDD. The problem is that the collective "we" continue to create entitlements that the current tax base can't support. Stacking on more and more regulations that are depressing jobs because it's become too expensive to start and operate small and medium businesses. Our population is too dependent on the Government and the numbers are not going down; who would voluntarily cancel their own meal ticket and venture out into the big bad world to earn a living if they didn't have to?

You make good points, and I agree there is no quick fix to what is headed in a scary direction, that's why trying to find one or two individuals with enough knowl;edge to turn the ship would be very difficult. But as we've seen over the lastr 6 years, one individual CAN effect the amount of respect the US gets from it's enemies and it's allies. One person can also either make the country feel united, or divided, just by the words that come out of their mouth.

I tried to think of a non-citiizen that would be the best hope for this country but I've come up blank. I can't think of anyone outside hese borders that would put this country and it's interests first, always. So for me, that narrows it down to around 350,000,000 choices. Still thinking... `

And yeah, it's too bad we can't pick from the dead, but would they really want to be reborn from the dead if they were tasked to fix this mess?

Me. I'd pick me. Why? I'm the only one that agrees with me on 100% of the issues.

I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and believe in state's rights.

The biggest reason I'd pick me is because I don't want the power. I'd take it on just long enough to disperse it. One of the biggest problems in our government is too few people with power. It's the equivalent of people bitching about the 1% that have all the wealth. The powerful are becoming more powerful, and the weak are becoming weaker.

Nobody talks about the power. It's traded as a commodity in Washington. "You do this for me, and I'll put you in charge of that". Power has corrupted, and needs to be spread back out.

Rick wrote: Who currently living on this planet would be your dream president? And I mean anybody... imagine you could convince anyone on earth to run for President of The United States of America? Obviously this person would be allowed to run if not a US citizen... lets say congress finally realized our national bench isn't exactly overflowing with talent, then changed the law as a last chance to get the country back to full strength. Or maybe you want someone who doesn't want the US to be as powerful and influential as we used to be... so basically you should pick the person who's words or actions most closely resemble your ideology. But remember, this person has to run the country with only the knowledge they currently possess... if you want someone who will need on the job training, it better be in stuff like how to talk to the media and not how to help businesses create jobs. This person could be in or close to politics, or could be completely outside... advantages to both.

I think I'm going to have to think about this for a it, so feel free to make your pick, and your case. And for the record, you may also feel free to pick my choice apart... otherwise this may not be as interesting. So if you really live here ..........

sorry that was probably uncalled for.

FYI, the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen of the US is set in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, and can not be removed by congressional legislation.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I personally believe that there are many in the US who would make an excellent President, but the corrupt system in which the President is elected, particularly since Citizens United, prevent them from being elected. Until the system funding electoral campaigns is drastically reformed, the big moneyed interests will have undue influence on the selection and election of Presidents. Only those candidates who are successful in kowtowing to big money donors have any chance of being selected and elected.

Money buys elections? No one I know believes that election ads help them decide who to pick.

I do think that many of the best candidates for President are unwilling to go through the process of being elected.
Maybe it is time for a move to a parliament system, where the party that wins the House gets to choose the President. And limit campaigns to six weeks like Britain. Then you might see better people apply.

FredHayek wrote: Money buys elections? No one I know believes that election ads help them decide who to pick.

I do think that many of the best candidates for President are unwilling to go through the process of being elected.
Maybe it is time for a move to a parliament system, where the party that wins the House gets to choose the President. And limit campaigns to six weeks like Britain. Then you might see better people apply.

Obama and Romney spent over 1.1 billion dollars in the last presidential campaign, with the "social welfare" groups, Pacs, etc. spending an additional 1.5 billion dollars. The total spending in the Bush/Gore 2000 campaign was $1.4 billion. Bush/Kerry was $1.9 billion.

The Koch Bros have announced they will be spending almost $1 billion in the 2016 elections for their chosen candidates. Sherman Adeleson spent $20 million on Gingrich last election and over $50 million on Romney. Tom Steyer spent $73 million on his chosen candidates, and so on.

The amount of money involved in presidential campaigns on down to house/senate, governors, down to your local races is incredible. It is not just ads, but the polling, political consulting to outright "bribes" (see Ron Paul - Sorenson).

I do find it quite interesting that the Supreme Court found that money = speech in politics, but that money does not equal speech in judicial elections. In a recent decision, the Court held “A state’s interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary extends beyond its interest in preventing the appearance of corruption in legislative and executive elections,”


So according to Justice Roberts, it is ok that the voters expect their politicians to be corrupt, but not their judges.

A recent study by Princeton University found that US government policy is guided by a relatively few rich well-connected individuals against the will of the average citizen.

They found that "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

They compared the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They found that the government more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/file...can_politics.doc.pdf

A three day dead carp would be less noxious than the crypto-muslim, socialist POS we currently have.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I do find it quite interesting that the Supreme Court found that money = speech in politics, but that money does not equal speech in judicial elections. In a recent decision, the Court held “A state’s interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary extends beyond its interest in preventing the appearance of corruption in legislative and executive elections,”

So according to Justice Roberts, it is ok that the voters expect their politicians to be corrupt, but not their judges.

Amazing how the collectivists still need to misrepresent the facts to make their case, isn't it? Citizens United was about individuals and groups not affiliated with a candidate or their campaign being able to spend their own money on disseminating their speech, not donations to campaigns or candidates from individuals and organizations. There are limits and rules on donations to candidates for local, State and federal elections for the same reasons, preserving the vested interest the State has in ensuring that even the appearance of quid pro quo is eliminated or reduced to the greatest possible extent. And yet, the collectivist run around trying to give the impression that the Citizens United decision opened the door for unlimited donations directly to a candidate, which has no tether to reality as it exists. Courts have consistently held that States and the federal government have a vested interest in regulating donations made to candidates or their campaign committees, there is no disparity between the Citizens United Ruling, which left in place every federal regulation regarding donations made to a candidate or their campaign and this one regulating contributions to judicial candidates despite your deliberate intention to distort the facts.