NationStates Jolt Archive

I beielve the only way to insure that the U.S. gets representation that isn't worried about their political future, would be to vote in a non political figure. So who (anyone NOT in politics) would you like to see be president on 2008?

I think Stone Cold Steve Austin would be interesting!

I beielve the only way to insure that the U.S. gets representation that isn't worried about their political future, would be to vote in a non political figure. So who (anyone NOT in politics) would you like to see be president on 2008?

A wrestler like Jesse the Body Ventura... oops no wait... an actor like Ronald Reagan... oops no wait... how about someone whose not even from the U.S. like Arnold Swartz... oops no wait...

Oh OH!! Jon Stewart of Daily Show fame! He'd be an awesome President.

What's with the sudden emergence of all these election threads? Wow. I went to eat out, and I come back.. and bam.

Eric Idel

What's with the sudden emergence of all these election threads? Wow. I went to eat out, and I come back.. and bam.

Two or three of them were dug up from the past...the Barack Obama thread was from early February. I wasn't even a member then!

I guess it's the Politics Cycle now. :p

Oh OH!! Jon Stewart of Daily Show fame! He'd be an awesome President.
lol! those were exactly my thoughts. But too bad he's sort of in politics. I think the Daily Show cast would make a good Administration.

Is Stephen Colbert staying on the show!?

Oh OH!! Jon Stewart of Daily Show fame! He'd be an awesome President.
Uhm........ He's a political hack that pushes his opinion on the country, and disguises it as humor. He's funny, but so were the Stooges!
Eric Idle He actually wouldn't do half bad, I reckon! Although, the Knights of Knit might scare the public! lol

martha stewart.

she has a couple years to get her felony conviction overturned then the sky is the limit!

and the white house would be decorated nicely, the state dinners would kick ass, and finally someone would find a good use for old land mines!

Why would you want someone who isnt worried about their political future? The fact that a politician is worried about his political future is what makes the democratic system work. Thats the motivation they have for doing a good job, the knowledge that the quality of the job they do will affect their career. Thats also the motivation they have for doing what the electorate asks rather than whatever floats their boat. Why would you want a candidate not worried about their political future? Thats like being a business owner and telling your manager "I want you to hire someone who doesnt care what we think about his job performance".

Lunatic Goofballs! Lunatic Goofballs!

Two or three of them were dug up from the past...the Barack Obama thread was from early February. I wasn't even a member then!

I guess it's the Politics Cycle now. :p

yeah I know.. those people deserve to get a kick in the butt for that.

Why would you want someone who isnt worried about their political future? The fact that a politician is worried about his political future is what makes the democratic system work. Thats the motivation they have for doing a good job, the knowledge that the quality of the job they do will affect their career. Thats also the motivation they have for doing what the electorate asks rather than whatever floats their boat. Why would you want a candidate not worried about their political future? Thats like being a business owner and telling your manager "I want you to hire someone who doesnt care what we think about the job hes doing".
Because the ones who care about their political future are the type who won't shut down the Mexican border because theyre afraid of losing Mexican American votes

I think Stone Cold Steve Austin would be interesting!

If its gonna be a wrestler it has to be The Rock. Personally I'd make Christopher Walken president. Parltly because hes just so cool, and partly because hes so damn scary it might discourage terrorists.

Stephen Hawking.

Because the ones who care about their political future are the type who won't shut down the Mexican border because theyre afraid of losing Mexican American votes

In other words, because they are less receptive to what people want? That's a very dumb reason (not to mention that shutting down the border with Mexico is a braindead idea).

Again, thats like a business owner telling a manager to go ahead and hire someone who doesnt care how management feels about the decisions he makes. The fact that politicians care about their career is what makes them be receptive to what the people that hired them want.

again I say Lunatic Goofballs!!!

In other words, because they are less receptive to what people want? That's a very dumb reason (not to mention that shutting down the border with Mexico is a braindead idea).

Again, thats like a business owner telling a manager to go ahead and hire someone who doesnt care how management feels about the decisions he makes. The fact that politicians care about their career is what makes them be receptive to what the people that hired them want.
Only a "Lazy Hippie" would seriously think that you can equate a Business to the Most powerful Government on the Planet! Now thats braindead!

Me.

Only a "Lazy Hippie" would seriously think that you can equate a Business to the Most powerful Government on the Planet! Now thats braindead!

Interesting attempt to dodge the facts, but you still have yet to show why it is a good thing that politicians not be receptive to what the people who put them in power want. The allegory is a good one, but if you want to ignore it go ahead. You still need to come up with a good reason why having a politician that doesnt care about what the electorate wants would be a good thing. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Only a "Lazy Hippie" would seriously think that you can equate a Business to the Most powerful Government on the Planet! Now thats braindead!

simile
A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in “How like the winter hath my absence been” or “So are you to my thoughts as food to life” (Shakespeare).

What's with the sudden emergence of all these election threads? Wow. I went to eat out, and I come back.. and bam.

Don't you know? We're having an election in 2 months.

And Jon Stewart would kick ass.

Don't you know? We're having an election in 2 months.

And Jon Stewart would kick ass.
but these thread's are about the presidential election?

Interesting attempt to dodge the facts, but you still have yet to show why it is a good thing that politicians not be receptive to what the people who put them in power want. The allegory is a good one, but if you want to ignore it go ahead. You still need to come up with a good reason why having a politician that doesnt care about what the electorate wants would be a good thing. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.
A politician can be receptive to their constituents without being a puppet for special interst groups. Heres an example. If a "career first" politician is facing a tough election, with a gap of 2-3 percentage points in the poll, and 10% of his state is Middle Eastern, he will pander to them on ANY national security issue that may upset them, however important it is or regardless of whether its the right thing to do or not! Do you disagree?

A politician can be receptive to their constituents without being a puppet for special interst groups. Heres an example. If a "career first" politician is facing a tough election, with a gap of 2-3 percentage points in the poll, and 10% of his state is Middle Eastern, he will pander to them on ANY national security issue that may upset them, however important it is or regardless of whether its the right thing to do or not! Do you disagree?

No, but the other extreme is an even worse idea. The extreme you proposed on this thread is one where the politician never cares about what people think because he has no career aspirations. He will do whatever he feels like doing because if you dont ever reelect him for anything else, he could care less. That person would be willing to do whatever suits them or whatever they think is good regardless of how the electorate feels about it. If they are anti-gay they could care less that most people are pro-gay rights, he will go ahead and pass every anti-gay legislation he can because he really doesnt care if he gets reelected or not.

I would rather have a politician that errs on the side of his constituents than one who will do what feels good to him regardless of how the people who put him in office might feel about it.

Yes, what you describe can be a problem but it is a much smaller problem than having a politician who could care less what people think about him because he has no career aspirations.

However, you were not completely right. In the example you gave, the person would weigh their decision against the possible consequences. If their decision would create a dangerous national security situation, then they know that they are opening the door to losing more than the 10% of his states Middle Eastern vote, because if the decision has consequences that affect others then he could easily lose a large portion of his other 90%. So, even under the example you give Id rather have that person than someone who doesnt care.

Queen Latifah. I see the white men quaking in their pants!!!

JELLO BIAFRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jello_biafra) FOR PRESIDENT!

I also agree that Jon Stewart would kick ass therefore it's offical... JON STEWART FOR PRESIDENT 2008... now he makes fun of both, but what is he Republican or Democrat?????

No, but the other extreme is an even worse idea. The extreme you proposed on this thread is one where the politician never cares about what people think because he has no career aspirations. He will do whatever he feels like doing because if you dont ever reelect him for anything else, he could care less. That person would be willing to do whatever suits them or whatever they think is good regardless of how the electorate feels about it. If they are anti-gay they could care less that most people are pro-gay rights, he will go ahead and pass every anti-gay legislation he can because he really doesnt care if he gets reelected or not.

I would rather have a politician that errs on the side of his constituents than one who will do what feels good to him regardless of how the people who put him in office might feel about it.

Yes, what you describe can be a problem but it is a much smaller problem than having a politician who could care less what people think about him because he has no career aspirations.

However, you were not completely right. In the example you gave, the person would weigh their decision against the possible consequences. If their decision would create a dangerous national security situation, then they know that they are opening the door to losing more than the 10% of his states Middle Eastern vote, because if the decision has consequences that affect others then he could easily lose a large portion of his other 90%. So, even under the example you give Id rather have that person than someone who doesnt care.
Wrong. Partisanism in this country has gotten so bad that even questions of nation security can't sway people away from their party. If its between a Dem and a Repub, the neo-con will always go repub, and the Liberal will always go dem. (with some few exeptions)
Why don't you support closing the border? Can you honestly say that leaving it open isn't creating a dangerous national security situation?

If you're taking politicians out of the equation, that only leaves tv and movie personalities, sports stars, and a very small group of captains of industry.

I can't think of anyone from those groups that I would consider qualified to lead the country for more than a second.

But actually, as a Californian, I was vehemently opposed to Schartzegger's election. But now that he's been in office for a while, I'm really very impressed and will support his reelection if he runs. So you never know.

Wrong. Partisanism in this country has gotten so bad that even questions of nation security can't sway people away from their party. If its between a Dem and a Repub, the neo-con will always go repub, and the Liberal will always go dem. (with some few exeptions)
Why don't you support closing the border? Can you honestly say that leaving it open isn't creating a dangerous national security situation?

Closing the border as in shutting out all immigration, or closing it as in increasing border patrols and cracking down on illegal immigration?

Lunatic goofballs means change to a much more interesting country.

JELLO BIAFRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jello_biafra) FOR PRESIDENT!

Hmmm... I like Jell-O... (How many Americans vote... especially the ones with low attention spans)

Closing the border as in shutting out all immigration, or closing it as in increasing border patrols and cracking down on illegal immigration?
Closing the border as in a 40 foot double wall from coast to coast,patrolled by dogs. Anyone is more than welcome to visit a gate to apply for citizenship. It should be a fair and expediant process, and anyone willing to work hard, and pay taxes should be welcome. On the other hand, anyone caught climbing the fence should be shot on sight!

Wrong. Partisanism in this country has gotten so bad that even questions of nation security can't sway people away from their party. If its between a Dem and a Repub, the neo-con will always go repub, and the Liberal will always go dem. (with some few exeptions)
Why don't you support closing the border? Can you honestly say that leaving it open isn't creating a dangerous national security situation?

Mexicans have not presented a national security problem to the US since the end of the Mexican-American war in 1848. No, it isnt creating a national security situation.

JELLO BIAFRA FOR PRESIDENT!
Who is that? (link doesn't work there's no artical)

Kirby, Cookie Monster or me.

Closing the border as in a 40 foot double wall from coast to coast,patrolled by dogs. Anyone is more than welcome to visit a gate to apply for citizenship. It should be a fair and expediant process, and anyone willing to work hard, and pay taxes should be welcome. On the other hand, anyone caught climbing the fence should be shot on sight!

That would be a waste of money. Mexicans arent a problem and other foreigners entering through Mexico can be controlled by coordinating with the Mexican government to ensure entry requirements for their country are along the same lines as ours. There is no sense in implementing a very expensive measure when the problem could be dealt with diplomatically at no cost.

Mexicans have not presented a national security problem to the US since the end of the Mexican-American war in 1848. No, it isnt creating a national security situation.

It's causing us economic harm. Illegal immigrants are using services that US citizens pay for tax free, and they are living in substandard conditions. By eliminating illegal immigration, it will remove the crises caused by it and improve the quality and opportunity of life for illegal immigrants.

Kirby
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Mind being taken over must not let evil escape. <( '-' )> (>'-')> <('-'<)
Kirby is the root of all evil!

It's causing us economic harm. Illegal immigrants are using services that US citizens pay for tax free, and they are living in substandard conditions. By eliminating illegal immigration, it will remove the crises caused by it and improve the quality and opportunity of life for illegal immigrants.

If you want tax money from them, then you are going to have to give them a legal status. Building and then watching a wall along the 20,000 miles that the US/Mexico border encompasses is going to be far more costly than providing services to those who have crossed the border. That wall would have to be 2/3 the size of the Great Wall of China.

That would be a waste of money. Mexicans arent a problem and other foreigners entering through Mexico can be controlled by coordinating with the Mexican government to ensure entry requirements for their country are along the same lines as ours. There is no sense in implementing a very expensive measure when the problem could be dealt with diplomatically at no cost.
Coordinate with the Mexican government!?!? The same government publishing handbooks on how to illegally enter our country!? You are Joking, right?

If you want tax money from them, then you are going to have to give them a legal status. Building and then watching a wall along the 20,000 miles that the US/Mexico border encompasses is going to be far more costly than providing services to those who have crossed the border. That wall would have to be 2/3 the size of the Great Wall of China.
Not in the long run. Building the wall is a one time cost. The illegals are sapping our tax dollars at an ever increasing rate, with no end in site!
Besides, if China can do it, so can we!

If you want tax money from them, then you are going to have to give them a legal status. Building and then watching a wall along the 20,000 miles that the US/Mexico border encompasses is going to be far more costly than providing services to those who have crossed the border. That wall would have to be 2/3 the size of the Great Wall of China.

I want them to become citizens, and/or enter the country legally. I have no problem with immigration as long as it is legal. They are free to come to our country as long as they agree to assume the responsibilities of being here, and that includes taxes.

Plus, it would improve their lives and make it harder to take advantage of them by threatening deportment.

Mexicans have not presented a national security problem to the US since the end of the Mexican-American war in 1848. No, it isnt creating a national security situation.
Your right! They just sap away our tax dollars. Its the fact that ANYONE can cross that border thats the security issue!

Not in the long run. Building the wall is a one time cost. The illegals are sapping our tax dollars at an ever increasing rate, with no end in site!
Besides, if China can do it, so can we!

Building the wall is not just a one time cost, it is a huge one time cost. But building it is not enough. A wall is useless if no one is watching it and maintaining it. Watching and mainting that wall will be an ongoing cost that never ends. Remember for each new border patrol agent you hire, you are going to have to pay them at least $12/hr + overhead x 24 hours a day (this is a 24x7x365 operation) x 365 days a year. Thats $105,120 a year per 24hours multiplied by however many people it takes to watch 20,000 miles worth of wall. You quickly see how this begins to become ridiculously expensive. If you limit it to just one person per mile, that is still $2.1 billion per year not counting anything but the one border patrol agent per mile (not counting maintenance, upkeep, overhead, technicians for the surveillance equipment, etc.)

Why not Bin Laden? At least he wouldn't bomb his own country if he were president, like the Bush administration. ;)

Hehe just kidding. But how about Morgan Freeman, I'd like to see a black president. And he'd know how to deal with terrorism, remember The Sum of All Fears (oops... he died in that one...)

Building the wall is not just a one time cost, it is a huge one time cost. But building it is not enough. A wall is useless if no one is watching it and maintaining it. Watching and mainting that wall will be an ongoing cost that never ends. Remember for each new border patrol agent you hire, you are going to have to pay them at least $12/hr + overhead x 24 hours a day (this is a 24x7x365 operation) x 365 days a year. Thats $105,120 a year per 24hours multiplied by however many people it takes to watch 20,000 miles worth of wall. You quickly see how this begins to become ridiculously expensive. If you limit it to just one person per mile, that is still $2.1 billion per year not counting anything but the one border patrol agent per mile (not counting maintenance, upkeep, overhead, technicians for the surveillance equipment, etc.)
Dogs! A double wall, with 30 feet inbetween, filled with wild dogs! You can't tell me someones gonna "accidentally" fall 40 feet up over a wall! The only ones who would get eaten are trespassers!

Building the wall is not just a one time cost, it is a huge one time cost. But building it is not enough. A wall is useless if no one is watching it and maintaining it. Watching and mainting that wall will be an ongoing cost that never ends. Remember for each new border patrol agent you hire, you are going to have to pay them at least $12/hr + overhead x 24 hours a day (this is a 24x7x365 operation) x 365 days a year. Thats $105,120 a year per 24hours multiplied by however many people it takes to watch 20,000 miles worth of wall. You quickly see how this begins to become ridiculously expensive. If you limit it to just one person per mile, that is still $2.1 trillion per year not counting anything but the one border patrol agent per mile (not counting maintenance, upkeep, overhead, technicians for the surveillance equipment, etc.)
illeagal immigration only costs $15 to $20 billion a year.

Dogs! A double wall, with 30 feet inbetween, filled with wild dogs! You can't tell me someones gonna "accidentally" fall 40 feet up over a wall! The only ones who would get eaten are trespassers!
dogs need food and are stupid.

illeagal immigration only costs $15 to $20 billion a year.

Yes, and by simply improving border security and cracking down on illegal immigration (without insanely expensive walls), we'd save that and recoup the investment by encouraging solid economic growth and better quality services which would improve living standards.

illeagal immigration only costs $15 to $20 billion a year.
Don't forget the National guard, and don't forget all the Border Patrol agents we are ALREADY paying!

dogs need food and are stupid.
How smart do you need to be to eat a trespasser?

Dogs! A double wall, with 30 feet inbetween, filled with wild dogs! You can't tell me someones gonna "accidentally" fall 40 feet up over a wall! The only ones who would get eaten are trespassers!


Hahaha..getting desperate eh?

Dogs require food, shelter, training, and medical care so they still cost money. Not only that, but they are ineffective. Dogs are primal creatures and you can distract them by tossing them some food or you can pepper spray them and they'll run away, you can drug them with tranquilizers or laced food, etc. heck, you could even befriend them.

Then, on top of that. Lets suppose some idiot decides that building this $2.1 billion a year wall is a good idea, and they complete it and they can successfully guard it. So, people will build tunnels under the wall instead of trying to jump over it. There are people who make a living off smuggling immigrants into the country and they will always find a way around anything you do. So, you would waste $2.1 billion a year or more plus the huge investment to create this monstrocity of a wall, only to slow the tide but not stop it.

How smart do you need to be to eat a trespasser?
smart enough to not all go to sleep at the same time.

Hahaha..getting desperate eh?

Dogs require food, shelter, training, and medical care so they still cost money. Not only that, but they are ineffective. Dogs are primal creatures and you can distract them by tossing them some food or you can pepper spray them and they'll run away, you can drug them with tranquilizers or laced food, etc.

Then, on top of that. Lets suppose some idiot decides that building this $2.1 billion a year wall is a good idea, and they complete it and they can successfully guard it. So, people will build tunnels under the wall instead of trying to jump over it. There are people who make a living off smuggling immigrants into the country and they will always find a way around anything you do. So, you would waste $2.1 billion a year or more plus the huge investment to create this monstrocity of a wall, only to slow the tide but not stop it.
O.k. First off, You need to get enough food/tranquilizers/pepper spray to distract 1000s of dogs. Second, Dogs could hear if someone was burrowing underground, and the Agents could be trained to spot the behavior of the dogs. BUT, most importantly, I don't care how much it costs, as long as it sends the message that Illegal immigrants will not be tolerated. Maybe a better idea will come along, but "coordinating with the Mexican Government" is a laughable idea at best!

O.k. First off, You need to get enough food/tranquilizers/pepper spray to distract 1000s of dogs. Second, Dogs could hear if someone was burrowing underground, and the Agents could be trained to spot the behavior of the dogs. BUT, most importantly, I don't care how much it costs, as long as it sends the message that Illegal immigrants will not be tolerated. Maybe a better idea will come along, but "coordinating with the Mexican Government" is a laughable idea at best!

It doesnt take a whole lot of food for the dogs to rush to grab it, and if you sent one guy down a distance away to go throw food at the dogs, he could stand at the top of the wall tossing food down and distract all the dogs in the area while the people a ways out can move past. People will always be smarter than dogs, you definitely should not rely on animals.

Coordinating with the Mexican government is the best and most cost effective idea to guard against unwanted terrorists coming in through Mexico. It doesnt address immigration. The best way to address immigration is to help Mexico raise their standard of living so people will no longer feel like life there is hopeless.

O.k. First off, You need to get enough food/tranquilizers/pepper spray to distract 1000s of dogs. Second, Dogs could hear if someone was burrowing underground, and the Agents could be trained to spot the behavior of the dogs. BUT, most importantly, I don't care how much it costs, as long as it sends the message that Illegal immigrants will not be tolerated. Maybe a better idea will come along, but "coordinating with the Mexican Government" is a laughable idea at best!
Agents!? if there's enough agents to be able to see every dog then what's the point of the dogs! That's stupid the only good reason for stopping them is because of money, and the money is better being lost to mexicans who are people then making a stupid point!

To Vetalia: No problem with that it's crazy wall schemes that I have a problem with

Oh yeah, and I forgot about those crazy PETA people who will come break chunks of the wall to free the dogs you have working in 100+ degree desert temperatures.

yet another sarcastic based thread turned into something insanely serious. :(

That's stupid the only good reason for stopping them is because of money, and the money is better being lost to mexicans who are people then making a stupid point!


The money should be spent whever the American people see fit to spend it, not on people who sneak through borders, with family in tow, and use our public welfare programs to float through life! Thats the major reason I don't support welfare increases. If it was used for needy people, fine. But it also gets used by women who go and have 8 kids without being able to support them, and people who sell drugs(obviously under the table) and then collect a welfare check so they can get bigger rims, and by lazy slobs who would rather sit on their fat ass and collect a check than get a job!

yet another sarcastic based thread turned into something insanely serious. :(
in a strange twist it involves the thread starter this time.

Oh yeah, and I forgot about those crazy PETA people who will come break chunks of the wall to free the dogs you have working in 100+ degree desert temperatures.
GOOD! Then we'll secure the border and get rid of the PETA whackos!

in a strange twist it involves the thread starter this time.
I don't like to get involved in ANYTHING unless its strange! :D

The money should be spent whever the American people see fit to spend it, not on people who sneak through borders, with family in tow, and use our public welfare programs to float through life! Thats the major reason I don't support welfare increases. If it was used for needy people, fine. But it also gets used by women who go and have 8 kids without being able to support them, and people who sell drugs(obviously under the table) and then collect a welfare check so they can get bigger rims, and by lazy slobs who would rather sit on their fat ass and collect a check than get a job!
So instead spend it on a big wall with dogs in it! YAY!

So instead spend it on a big wall with dogs in it! YAY!
If we didn't have the illegal immigrants to deal with, then we could use the money for a giant lake of pudding!

If we didn't have the illegal immigrants to deal with, then we could use the money for a giant lake of pudding!
Why not us a giant lake of pudding to block off the way to the us!

Why not us a giant lake of pudding to block off the way to the us!
Thats genius!

I'd say Chris Rock


I'd rather not even have a president!

I'd rather not even have a president!Maybe he meant as a deterent to illeagal immigrants, it's genious if it is!

The money should be spent whever the American people see fit to spend it, not on people who sneak through borders, with family in tow, and use our public welfare programs to float through life! Thats the major reason I don't support welfare increases. If it was used for needy people, fine. But it also gets used by women who go and have 8 kids without being able to support them, and people who sell drugs(obviously under the table) and then collect a welfare check so they can get bigger rims, and by lazy slobs who would rather sit on their fat ass and collect a check than get a job!

Suddenly what the American people want matters? But you were just promoting a system where the president isnt bound by the desire to please his constituents. Now Im confused, do you want the president to do what the American people see fit, or what he sees fit without regard for the American people's wishes?

Suddenly what the American people want matters? But you were just promoting a system where the president isnt bound by the desire to please his constituents. Now Im confused, do you want the president to do what the American people see fit, or what he sees fit without regard for the American people's wishes?
I want the president to follow the wishes of the majority of the voters, not just the special interest groups who threaten his re-election! Do you actually read posts, or just skim them and assume you know what people mean?

Samuel Jackson

:D

I want the president to follow the wishes of the majority of the voters, not just the special interest groups who threaten his re-election! Do you actually read posts, or just skim them and assume you know what people mean?

You proposed a president who has no political ambition. Such a president has no reason to listen to anyone's wishes. Thats the type of president you said you wanted. One who with no career ambition. Im just going by what you said.

Special interest groups are a good thing, they are the foundation of modern democracy.

then watching a wall along the 20,000 miles that the US/Mexico border encompasses

The world is only 25,000 miles in diameter..... big border..

Samual L Jackson for president, or James Earl Jones (the voice of Vader xD)