If you could pick ANYONE...

ScienceChic wrote: Easy peasy. Jim Wright, author of Stonekettle Station .

Qualifications/why I want him:
Retired Chief Warrant Officer
Intelligent
Has army of minions
No-nonsense, straightforward, bluntly honest, no bullshit
Left-leaning and practical
Against more war
Doesn't want the Office. At all. Despite best attempts of minions to convince him otherwise.

Thank You!

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

It is really sad that you must resort to lies to support your pedantic demagoguery rants. Nowhere did I state that Citizens United allowed individuals to give unlimited amounts to candidates. That is simply your inability to comprehend simple prose, your decision to use straw man arguments to rant about something that simply is not at issue, or your deliberate dishonesty. I stated that Citizens United has a corrupting influence on elections, a statement that I 100% stand behind. I also stated that in the last presidential election, that over $1.1 billion was spent by Romeny and Obama campaigns with an additional $1.5 billion spent on their candidacies by outside groups through "social welfare" groups and other advocacy groups.

Please point out my statements that support your lies that I stated Citizen's United allowed individuals give millions directly to candidates.

ScienceChic wrote: Suspend the rules for a minute, forget the "minimum qualifications" and just have fun with it!

But that wouldn't result in numerous 10 cent words embedded in walls of text. If a reply can't have at least a couple of 5 syllable words and at least three paragraphs exemplifying the posters advanced verbosity and obvious knowledge of the Marquis of Queesbury rules of debate it's just not worth the time.

I pick Elon Musk from Tesla.

LOL wrote: I pick Elon Musk from Tesla.

Good pick! But where's the birth certificate? ??

Musk was born June 28, 1971, in Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa,[20] the son of Maye (née Haldeman), a Canadian-born model, and Errol Musk, a South African-born electrical/mechanical engineer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

I know that, but the rules were "anyone"

I just like his entrepreneurial "go for it" style, and optimism.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Please point out my statements that support your lies that I stated Citizen's United allowed individuals give millions directly to candidates.

Gladly . . .

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

Here you directly attempt to link candidates to big money donated to their election. And you suggest that the big money donors are funding electoral campaigns of the candidates. Added to your misrepresentation of Citizens United, a decision regarding independent expenditures separate and apart from any association with a candidate or their election campaign, and the Florida case which was directly tied to a candidate and contributions to their campaign and you have a prime example of the intentional distortions and misrepresentations of facts as they exist that you are so well known for here.

ScienceChic wrote: I think Rick just meant this to be a light-hearted wish-list kind of post - if you could have anyone as President, who would you choose. Suspend the rules for a minute, forget the "minimum qualifications" and just have fun with it!

Hell, I was tempted to put Madonna - she doesn't f*** around or take any sh** and she's got a huge following! But I thought Jim Wright would do a better job with his military tactical background so I said him instead. Malala Yousafzai would be a great choice, barring the fact that she's not American.

Congrats SC, you are the only one who got it.