If you could pick ANYONE...

Something the Dog Said wrote:
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.

Yes, I'm well aware. I guess I should have been more specific , it's a hypothetical question. I was just curious who your dream human would be based on intellect and ideology.

So I'm going to give this one last try... without taking about campaign finance or anything else off topic, which US CITIZEN would you want for president if you could just snap your fingers and make it so with no election?

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

Typical Printsmith rant. My statement in regard to Citizens United was accurate. Despite your allegations, I did not state that Citizens United allowed individuals to make unlimited donations to specific campaigns. That is your straw man, not my statement. My statement was directed to the fact that Citizens United allowed individuals (also corporations) to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns through "social welfare" groups ('527 groups) and through PACS and other entities. You have chosen either a deliberate distortion of my statements or simply did not bother to read my remarks. Your allegation that I stated that Citizens United allowed unlimited contributions directly to candidates was, as usual, false.

In regard to your attempt to use "collectivists" as a broad brush perjorative, it displays the use of a tool employed by small minded demagogues, rather than presenting a well thought out argument. Clearly, since Christ was such a "collectivist", I consider it to be rather a compliment.

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:
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.

Yes, I'm well aware. I guess I should have been more specific , it's a hypothetical question. I was just curious who your dream human would be based on intellect and ideology.

So I'm going to give this one last try... without taking about campaign finance or anything else off topic, which US CITIZEN would you want for president if you could just snap your fingers and make it so with no election?

I find the idea of placing someone in the office of the President of the United States without a fair election to be abhorrent. That being said, the current political process ensures that there is no one currently in a political office that I would consider the ideal candidate.

There have been a few tickets that I would have liked to have seen in the past that I believe could have put this country in better shape than it has been since 2000. The best of those would have been Colin Powell/Bill Bradley back in 2000. I think that would have been as close to ideal, combining the honor and foreign policy of Colin Powell (prior to him being used as a tool by Cheney/Rumsfield/Bush) with the domestic policies of Bill Bradley. The country would be stronger in foreign policy and the middle class would still exist.

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:
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.

Yes, I'm well aware. I guess I should have been more specific , it's a hypothetical question. I was just curious who your dream human would be based on intellect and ideology.

So I'm going to give this one last try... without taking about campaign finance or anything else off topic, which US CITIZEN would you want for president if you could just snap your fingers and make it so with no election?

Forget it, Rick. The only way this lot will participate in a hypothetical is if it's specific enough to enable them to create walls of text arguing the details rather than just relaxing and expressing an opinion without ripping someone else apart in the process.

Nobody that matters wrote:

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:
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.

Yes, I'm well aware. I guess I should have been more specific , it's a hypothetical question. I was just curious who your dream human would be based on intellect and ideology.

So I'm going to give this one last try... without taking about campaign finance or anything else off topic, which US CITIZEN would you want for president if you could just snap your fingers and make it so with no election?

Forget it, Rick. The only way this lot will participate in a hypothetical is if it's specific enough to enable them to create walls of text arguing the details rather than just relaxing and expressing an opinion without ripping someone else apart in the process.

You appear to be correct. All I was looking for was a little imagination so we could debate whether or not a perfect candidate could make a difference. Oh well.

Something the Dog Said wrote: My statement in regard to Citizens United was accurate. Despite your allegations, I did not state that Citizens United allowed individuals to make unlimited donations to specific campaigns. That is your straw man, not my statement. My statement was directed to the fact that Citizens United allowed individuals (also corporations) to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns through "social welfare" groups ('527 groups) and through PACS and other entities. You have chosen either a deliberate distortion of my statements or simply did not bother to read my remarks. Your allegation that I stated that Citizens United allowed unlimited contributions directly to candidates was, as usual, false.

No, your attempt wasn't at all accurate. You attempted to conflate a SCOTUS decision regarding the actions of individuals and groups acting on their own and independent of any affiliation with a candidate or their campaign with a SCOTUS decision that directly addressed rules pertaining to candidates and their campaigns. Citizens United left in place every federal law pertaining to contributions to a candidate or their campaign for exactly the same reason that they upheld the Florida law that placed restrictions on candidates and contributions.

The decisions in both Citizens United and the Florida case you mention are entirely consistent with one another. Where a State has a vested interest in avoiding any appearance of quid pro quo between a candidate and those that contribute money to the candidate or the candidate's election committee the State has the ability to regulate those contributions.

When, however, individuals or groups are not associated with a candidate or the candidate's election committee, any attempt to regulate their activities by the State is an infringement of the constitutionally protected right to participate in political speech. It is not the candidate or anyone associated with the candidate who has control over the message the speech contains, it is the speech of individuals and groups who wish to have their voices heard in the political process and it may not be restricted by the government. That is the essence of the Citizens United decision. SCOTUS did not a thing in that case to remove the restrictions imposed on contributions to a candidate or their campaign.

Only by deliberate and calculated misrepresentations, which are easily enough exposed to the light of truth as demonstrated above, is there even the appearance of a tether between the wholly dissimilar situations you attempt to link together. Your attempt to link regulations placed on a candidate with regards to contributions over which they have direct control and individuals and groups operating independent of any such control of the candidate is precisely as described earlier. You wanted to give the false impression that the decision in Citizens United was at odds with the decision in the Florida case when nothing could be further from the truth.

Rick wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote:

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:
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.

Yes, I'm well aware. I guess I should have been more specific , it's a hypothetical question. I was just curious who your dream human would be based on intellect and ideology.

So I'm going to give this one last try... without taking about campaign finance or anything else off topic, which US CITIZEN would you want for president if you could just snap your fingers and make it so with no election?

Forget it, Rick. The only way this lot will participate in a hypothetical is if it's specific enough to enable them to create walls of text arguing the details rather than just relaxing and expressing an opinion without ripping someone else apart in the process.

You appear to be correct. All I was looking for was a little imagination so we could debate whether or not a perfect candidate could make a difference. Oh well.

I'll play.

John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods. I've read a few of his articles, and he seems to get it. Social responsibility of those that have wealth, and the expectation that everyone works as best they can to better themselves.

That pesky native born requirement might be a mistake. It might be best for America to hire the president or prime minister of another country to take over. They have executive experience. Think Angela Merkel or David Cameron have what it takes to lead America?

President Bill Clinton could be come the leader of Jamaica, or replace Raul Castro.

Here's another one. Erik Prince. We might not have the best reputation as being the nice guys anymore, but terrorist activity would go WAAAAAAAAAAAY down.

FredHayek wrote: That pesky native born requirement might be a mistake. It might be best for America to hire the president or prime minister of another country to take over. They have executive experience. Think Angela Merkel or David Cameron have what it takes to lead America?

President Bill Clinton could be come the leader of Jamaica, or replace Raul Castro.

Hhaving Bill Clinton become the leader of a country that has nationalized cigar production would be fitting.