 |
VS. |  |
federer |
XBN |
|
NEW PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS: BILL GATES & STEVE JOBS! |
||
Barns wants and the country needs a few REALLY GOOD, FRESH FACES TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY!
Barns thinks ALL the present candidates UNINTERESTING, WITHOUT CLEAR MORAL COMPASSES, OF OPAQUE VISION, LACKING IN INTERNATIONAL STATURE, LACKING THE COJONES REQUIRED TO FIGHT THE INSIDIOUS GEOPOLITICAL WARS AHEAD.
Barns wants Gates & Jobs as CO-PRESIDENTS!
1. They “get it!” Whatever “it” is!
2. They know “how to make it!” Whatever “it” is!
3. They know “how to sell it!” Whatever “it” is!
4. They can afford to TAKE THE JOB! Whatever it costs to run and lead unencumbered by outside interests!
Barns wants YOUR suggestions for GOOD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES and WHY! We will declare and announce the winner for MOST INNOVATIVE AND SMART CHOICE! Winner gets a HUGE prize personally from Barns! Submit your choices now!
It All Started With...
Personally, I think I would be the best candidate. I'm smart, articulate, analytical, funny and, dare I say it, damn good looking. Who cares about experience? Seriously, could I be any worse than the candidates that are out there today (each of their favorite movie is, "Say Anything." Who wants to vote for me? Write in "Federer." I announce my candidacy today. You heard it first.
federer ( 43 posts / 6 fights ) from los angeles, California (United States) on 03/29 at 11:30AM PT
No experience?! Even if this was meant to be humorous, it is frightening that you even posted it. I understand you are an attorney. Here is my question: Would you allow someone to represent you if they had no experience with the law at issue in a case? No. Why then allow for a person with no experience in government or international relations be a part of the Executive Branch?
XBN ( 35 posts / 6 fights ) from Las Vegas, Nevada (United States) on 03/31 at 11:38PM PT
I wasn't being humorous (but I am now). As to experience of government or internaltional affairs, how's that worked out the last few years?
Being an attorney and being a president is materially different. Attorneys have substantive legal requirements before they can practice. Once in, yes, experience matters. But, Presidents don't have legal requirements and there is no single job in the world even remotely similar. So, what kind of experience is needed. I would opt for analytical intelligence, charisma (good looking), ability to inspire and communicate effectively, poise and a real set of stones. None of that necessarily requires a particular kind of experience but rather real life experience. My only caveats are that a president needs to have some large institutional executive experience, knowledge of foreign affairs and a profound sense of history. Ask any of my friends. That sounds just like me.
federer ( 43 posts / 6 fights ) from los angeles, California (United States) on 04/03 at 05:12PM PT
The true question in this debate is what are the characteristics or qualities that a persosn should have to take the oval office. The ones that Mr. Federer put forth would be an extra advantage of anyone who took the seat in the White House. However, “charisma (good looking), ability to inspire and communicate effectively, poise and a real set of stones” are truly irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of the Executive Branch. These characteristic sounds like the America people should be voting for the President as if the election was the Miss America or American Idol. I do not refute that some voting may be based upon these things but that doesn’t make any of these qualities more valid. This is not the source of my vexation with his post. It is what he left absence that is my truest concern.
Next: The Executive Concern
XBN ( 35 posts / 6 fights ) from Las Vegas, Nevada (United States) on 04/04 at 07:56PM PT
There is emerging research that being red or blue is predisposed neurologically and that reason and logic will not change one's political affiliation or candidate choice. My post was intended to mock the system which has not permitted the most meritorious candidates to rise to the top. That flaw in the system may well be the human condition. However, good hair, a good voice, a good suit go a long way in getting elected...being connected to big oil or the defense industry wouldn't hurt much either.
Hamilton had it right. Jefferson had it wrong. The populous does not really operate on higher motives in the political decisions it makes; and therefore should not be making the top level decisions. Shareholders do not pick the CEO...that is done instead by a representative board of directors. The electoral college was supposed to do that but it doesn't...Too bad.
federer ( 43 posts / 6 fights ) from los angeles, California (United States) on 04/06 at 10:37AM PT
I have thought long and hard about this topic and my conclusion is thus: When the Presidency was being discussed at the constitutional convention it was Ben Franklin who said that the "genuis of the people" must not be disregarded. Franklin's statement capture the very purpose of this nation; allowing the people's voice. The President then must have experience and understanding with the fundamental meaning and nature of that idea. The Presidency must truly be another representative of the genuis and will of the people. Ideally, he should hear the voice of the nation through Congress and then use his power to enforce, support, protect and follow that voice, only devaiting from it during extreme circumstances (war) and even then he must explain this decision to the people. The President must then be a servant of the public and the public only.
XBN ( 35 posts / 6 fights ) from Las Vegas, Nevada (United States) on 05/15 at 11:58PM PT
It is true that the Framers intended and designed for a select group of people to pick their leaders (Thus the limits on who could vote). However, the country has moved away from this belief (debates on the electoral college). The people of this country want to have their vote count and their voice to be heard more then ever (The pop vote in 2000). If the people are operating from lesser motives when choosing leaders then so be it. I'd rather have leaders choosen from the motives of the people then from the motives of a select group of people. That equals an aristocracy. The President must be a servant of the public and if he believes the people's will is insupportable on an issue it is up to him to raise the people's standards of motives and convince them to support a different view.
XBN ( 35 posts / 6 fights ) from Las Vegas, Nevada (United States) on 05/16 at 12:16AM PT