vtsnowedin wrote:
While I think Jeb Bush is capable and far better then the present office holder I disagree with him on more then one issue. More to the point I can't abide the thought of the US presidency becoming a hereditary position or even having it become exclusive to the rich old money class.
It's not up to you. You'll get what you're given.
Jim Inhofe, anyone?
Not a chance. He is eighty years old and on the extreme right.
Perhaps Scott Walker?
Less of a chance. Being old, white, male, not-a-tad stupid, right-wing are not the usual barriers to power.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
vtsnowedin wrote:
Not a chance. He is eighty years old and on the extreme right.
Perhaps Scott Walker?
Less of a chance. Being old, white, male, not-a-tad stupid, right-wing are not the usual barriers to power.
The oldest president was Reagen, just under 70 when taking office. His staff pretty much ran things for him the last two years in office. We hopefully will not repeat that mistake with Hilary who would also be 69 in 2017.
There are plenty of people out there or a better age to do a good job. I'm sorting out all those over 67, along with all that disbelieve in evolution and those that think burning 95 million barrels of oil a day has no effect on our environment or climate. Throw in some military service and some foreign policy experience or at least a wide knowledge of the histories and issues and I might look into a candidates position papers.[/quote]
I'm half joking with my suggestions; all I know is that it will be a bad choice, partially because you're given no choice. The winner is known already.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:I'm half joking with my suggestions; all I know is that it will be a bad choice, partially because you're given no choice. The winner is known already.
I don't share your cynicism. The public will have a choice between several candidates and the final choice is theirs. Yes many are put forward and financed by the Powers that Be but often their choice goes down in flames as in Romney and H.H. Humphrey. All I have to do is pick the right candidate and then get a majority of voters in the right states to agree with me. Piece of cake!!
emordnilap wrote:I'm half joking with my suggestions; all I know is that it will be a bad choice, partially because you're given no choice. The winner is known already.
I don't share your cynicism. The public will have a choice between several candidates and the final choice is theirs. Yes many are put forward and financed by the Powers that Be but often their choice goes down in flames as in Romney and H.H. Humphrey. All I have to do is pick the right candidate and then get a majority of voters in the right states to agree with me. Piece of cake!!
Whoever spends the most gets the POTUS. This is a simple fact.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:I'm half joking with my suggestions; all I know is that it will be a bad choice, partially because you're given no choice. The winner is known already.
I don't share your cynicism. The public will have a choice between several candidates and the final choice is theirs. Yes many are put forward and financed by the Powers that Be but often their choice goes down in flames as in Romney and H.H. Humphrey. All I have to do is pick the right candidate and then get a majority of voters in the right states to agree with me. Piece of cake!!
Whoever spends the most gets the POTUS. This is a simple fact.
Simplistic and untrue. Often the big money reads the polls and abandons the losers well before election day giving the illusion that money always wins. Hilary had more money then Obama but still lost.
Money is useful but must be spent wisely and can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
vtsnowedin wrote:Money is useful but must be spent wisely and can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Then how the hell do Republicans (being the greater of the two evils) get elected?
Eisenhower won a war. or at least he didn't lose his part in it. Nixon ran smear campaigns against all worthy opponents leaving light weights to run against, He also promised to end Vietnam . Reagen beat Carter and fifteen percent inflation and hostages in Iran, George Bush promised no new taxes, George W. Bush won due to the Clinton scandals.
Every election is different and the country faces different times.
And the fact is the Dems. are working with as many tattered sows ears as the GOP is.
vtsnowedin wrote:Money is useful but must be spent wisely and can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Then how the hell do Republicans (being the greater of the two evils) get elected?
Eisenhower won a war. or at least he didn't lose his part in it. Nixon ran smear campaigns against all worthy opponents leaving light weights to run against, He also promised to end Vietnam . Reagen beat Carter and fifteen percent inflation and hostages in Iran, George Bush promised no new taxes, George W. Bush won due to the Clinton scandals.
Every election is different and the country faces different times.
And the fact is the Dems. are working with as many tattered sows ears as the GOP is.
That last line brightened my day.
Not much different over here, we have 3 mainstream parties and one new kid on the block competing to see who can put the most lipstick and cheap perfume on a pig.
emordnilap wrote:Whoever spends the most gets the POTUS. This is a simple fact.
untrue.
Check it out.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Wrong: Bush $345 million, Kerry $310 million; Obama: $1.123 billion vs. Romney: $1.019 billion
America is 1 dollar = 1 vote. Choices - yours, the little people, just like in the UK - have nothing to do with it.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:Wrong: Bush $345 million, Kerry $310 million; Obama: $1.123 billion vs. Romney: $1.019 billion
America is 1 dollar = 1 vote. Choices - yours, the little people, just like in the UK - have nothing to do with it.
Fuzzy math there. Votes cost way more then a dollar each. What is your source for your figures? All I find are estimates as much goes unreported or through third persons or PACs.
Any one of these sites could have got it wrong; there are other sites that may get it wrong too. But the fact remains that, given the information out there, if you spend the most, you win the POTUS.
vtsnowedin wrote:All I find are estimates as much goes unreported or through third persons or PACs.
Well. You disputed something you had no information about. Good ol' USA tactics indeed.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Any one of these sites could have got it wrong; there are other sites that may get it wrong too. But the fact remains that, given the information out there, if you spend the most, you win the POTUS.
vtsnowedin wrote:All I find are estimates as much goes unreported or through third persons or PACs.
Well. You disputed something you had no information about. Good ol' USA tactics indeed.
I had found no consensus on exact figures so chose not to quote a misleading number. From your second source above total team spending was$1,107,062,701 by the Dems. and $1,238,090,807 for the GOP so I fail to see how that proves your assertion. Quite the contrary actually.
Being old, white, male, not-a-tad stupid, right-wing are not the usual barriers to power.
Fuzzy math there. Votes cost way more then a dollar each. What is your source for your figures? All I find are estimates as much goes unreported or through third persons or PACs.