Gene Simmons For President? The Rights position on who is qualified?

[Master Dan]

The constant Montra of the Romney Campain, Trump and now Gene Simmons is that the only person qualified to be president is a person who has run a business not just that but made alot of money? All the RNC GOP and conservatives seem to be in agreement on this?? Now Gene Simmons made his money from sex drugs rock and roll persona adding 3 inches to his tounge and sleeping with thousands of women? Romney made money by corporate raiding at the expense of others and Trump has to many issues for this thread but a recent news commentator called him a Bovulant lying pontificator boardering on dimensia? So in scrupples or morals are not the base then it is simply the ammassing of wealth by any means so the more the better if all things constant?

This means that since the largest most profitable business in America in the last 5 years is pornography and sex trafficing then we should be looking for someone from that industry to be the best qualified to be elected? That makes about as much sense as saying Obama is unqualified and it his fault for the recession and all the ecomomic problems we have. It is a lie it is meglomanic, dilusional, propagandized desperate hope of people who rush back to the right thinking they must give control back to the very people who caused this or we will all starve? The right stole the food in the first place and they want to give contaminated food and water in the future to make even more money.

Non of any of this makes any sense at all when looking at verifiable unbiased data of facts but the ultra conservative right refuses to admit or discuss on any level of compramise but seeking to destroy the two party system. Bill Clinton is talking on CNN right now stating that our problems are all stemed back to allowing all the controls that were in place including taxation being reversed to our present state. The greed and strugle for control cannot by those in power now will never be ended voluntarily but must be legislated back in. They know this that is why such large efforts are being taken to take away the power of free and fair voting at all costs. Its like sitting down at a peace table with a person or country who's firm belief is that you do not have a right to exist?

 

[Big Don]

Because electing someone with zero leadership experience and no real (outside of academia) work experience worked so well in 2008?
Larry Flynt (of Hustler magazine) ran for Governor when Grey Davis was recalled. He was one of the very few who put forth a workable plan for getting and keeping the state out of debt. Sadly, Arnold ran on his name and won.

 

[elder999]

We've already had a Republican President who'd run businesses, and George W. Bush ran the country just like every business he'd run:

Right into the ****ing ground!! :lfao:

 

[Master Dan]

Because electing someone with zero leadership experience and no real (outside of academia) work experience worked so well in 2008?
Larry Flynt (of Hustler magazine) ran for Governor when Grey Davis was recalled. He was one of the very few who put forth a workable plan for getting and keeping the state out of debt. Sadly, Arnold ran on his name and won.

You make my point Obama did not cause the problems in 2008 he got left with them by the rats leaving the sinking ship. The RNC could not come up with anyone better than Sara and Macain who seemed senile and agry enough to start another war just out of spite. Intellegent people do not just vote party but best possible solution for a problem unfortuatley short sighted at times? What experience did Abe Lincoln have was he a failure????????

 

[Master Dan]

We've already had a Republican President who'd run businesses, and George W. Bush ran the country just like every business he'd run:

Right into the ****ing ground!! :lfao:

Thank you I can sleep now. To be fair George did nothing with out Chenney dictating for him. Why is that man no in jail? They commited illegal acts then Chenney made sure they passed laws to protect them then destoyed files and evidence and he just got a new heart on tax payers dime. We need to elect Duck Dynasty to congress they couldn't do much worse?

 

[Sukerkin]

I have always thought that the position of the President in the American political hierarchy was over-emphasised in the public eye; that the man in the big chair was not solely responsible for the actions taken by the government or even for determining the direction that policy took.

Is that not why there are several 'legislative chambers' and an army of people whose task is the formulation and execution of government policy?

If it is the case that the President is 'in charge' and that is that, what purpose do all the other organs of governance serve? Further still, why did you bother having a terrorist insurrection against your rightful Monarch if all you then do is replace the Crown with another form of 'King'?

 

[WC_lun]

Yes and no, Sukerkin. The president, being the chief, does direct his party on policy. Those in his party may choose to balk his direction, but generally, what the president wants, his party in the House and Senate will try to pass. Of course, if those policies are not those that the opposite party can agree to, they will resist the passage of the bill. When the opposite party has majorities in the House and Senate this can pretty much negate any presidents will. The new thing with Obama's presidency is that the minority party resist everything he and democrats propose...sometimes even if it was originally a Republican idea. They cannot win the vote, so they use the threat of fillibuster to keep bills they do not like from even coming up for vote. This effectively lets the minority control the majority.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, this keeps the legislature from doing the bussiness they were voted into office to do...run the government. It is an effort to make President Obama look ineffectual. At the same time, many conservatives complain about how much Obama has hurt the country through his legislation, so it is kinda confusing. Guess we'll see if the strategy is effective in November.

 

[oftheherd1]

Sukerkin - "... rightful monarch ..."? You probably should have put a smiley face there so all of us knew you were joking. :uhyeah::uhyeah::uhyeah: But you are right that any president should appear to be, if not actually lead. We have a tendancy to like that here in the USA. Unfortunately, we haven't had a real leader in a while.

WC_lun - I think you give all politicians too much credit. A minority controlling the majority? Of course not, unless the majority wants to be able to do the same thing in the event they become the minority.

Remember, the rules by which all of Congress runs are set by Congress themselves. A senator, just one, can block a judicial nomination from coming to the floor. In other words, one senator can 'vote' down a nomination. He/she can do that in secret so no one even knows who did it. They could change that rule, but neither side wants to. They gleefully cut each other to ribbons, quite often without rancor among themselves, dispite what it sounds like in the press. Buys votes and contributions.

I know, I sometime get frustrated and blame one party or the other, and they do each have a constituancy to look good for. But they both do the same things to each other. I think the difference is, they used to actually negotiate what would have a chance of getting through, and it something wouldn't, what would be given up in place of it. I don't think that happens much any more.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Gene Simmons as president..... "Well Mr. Putin let me say this about that...."

 

[rickster]

Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, _____insert ... there are pros and cons with ANY president/presidency/political.

People need to get rid of the "Political Party" trife and get on the American Party.

ALL politicians screw up

ALL politicians seek money and power

ALL politicians have their personal concerns/agenda before their office and citizens

 

[crushing]

You make my point Obama did not cause the problems in 2008 he got left with them by the rats leaving the sinking ship.

President Obama was not "left with them." Obama was member of the majority party that had ruled congress for a couple years before he was elected and inherited what he and his party had sent the president. Lame duck Bush did veto a few piece of legislation, but nothing that would have made much of difference in regards to the economy.

Given Obama's records so far, there is nothing to indicate that he would have done anything differently than Bush. Obama continued Bush style stimulus attempts, continued the Bush auto industry bailouts, continued the Bush era tax cuts, continued the Patriot Act, and stuck with the Bush schedule and plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

 

[billc]

What exactly has obama been prevented from doing to fix the economy since he has been in office? He had complete control for what, the first 2 years of his presidency, got obamacare passed, voted for the stimulus while he was a senator and then had his policies enacted as president. The economy is all his. Remember as well he has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars giving money to "green" energy company cronies whose companies failed. Romney has been much more successful at running both business and as Governor than obama had been as a state senator whose main voting record consisted of voting present, except for the born alive infant protection act which he voted against, what, 3 times.

 

[Sukerkin]

After reading through this thread, I needed to cleanse my heart so I went and listened to one of my favourite songs by an (as yet) unknown band of sisters called Hastings.

I know that the song is about men being pigs in the realms of love but the lyrics just struck me as being so appropriate to the emotions of the typical voter feeling scorned by politicians of all stripes

[yt]zPk5B5lyVWA[/yt]

 

[Master Dan]

Yes and no, Sukerkin. The president, being the chief, does direct his party on policy. Those in his party may choose to balk his direction, but generally, what the president wants, his party in the House and Senate will try to pass. Of course, if those policies are not those that the opposite party can agree to, they will resist the passage of the bill. When the opposite party has majorities in the House and Senate this can pretty much negate any presidents will. The new thing with Obama's presidency is that the minority party resist everything he and democrats propose...sometimes even if it was originally a Republican idea. They cannot win the vote, so they use the threat of fillibuster to keep bills they do not like from even coming up for vote. This effectively lets the minority control the majority.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, this keeps the legislature from doing the bussiness they were voted into office to do...run the government. It is an effort to make President Obama look ineffectual. At the same time, many conservatives complain about how much Obama has hurt the country through his legislation, so it is kinda confusing. Guess we'll see if the strategy is effective in November.

Thank you this thread is not about a history lesson on the constitution about how goverment was set up its about the mentality of the present extreme right that has been allowed to have passed a super majority rule in the Senate and unlmited philorbusters stopping any progress with out having to be on the floor talking they leave town for 30 hours and come back. Also the president does matter he is the leader and with a mandate in the house and senate he should have acted like a republican and just ramed it down thier throats what needed to be done for the good of the country but instead he proved to be an insider taking money from all sides and expecting to sing Kumbaya can we just get along? when in fact it does come down to a total war of control willing to hurt common folk on both sides of the fense to get thier greedy way Boner and his cronies caused our down grade of credit and may do it again out of shear arogance and racism which is a core problem with the right period any way you look at if Obam says the sky is blue they will say he lies or it is green or say yes but we have to study it?

 

[WC_lun]

When the democrats refused to let filibuster stop legislation, they get accused of ramming law down the throats of the Republicans and the American people. When they let it work, they are accused of letting it work so they can do it when they are the minority. Oftheherd, I think it might be you who are giving politicians too much credit

Filibuster and the threat of filibuster has increased almost exponitionally since Obama has taken office. That is not a valid "both sides do it" arguement. No matter how you feel politically, that can't be argued. If you feel it is warranted may be another thing. There is also some factual information which argues against President Obama's administration and Democrats increasing the size of government. That doesn't fit well with some people's narrative though, so I am sure it will be ignored.

 

[Master Dan]

When the democrats refused to let filibuster stop legislation, they get accused of ramming law down the throats of the Republicans and the American people. When they let it work, they are accused of letting it work so they can do it when they are the minority. Oftheherd, I think it might be you who are giving politicians too much credit

Filibuster and the threat of filibuster has increased almost exponitionally since Obama has taken office. That is not a valid "both sides do it" arguement. No matter how you feel politically, that can't be argued. If you feel it is warranted may be another thing. There is also some factual information which argues against President Obama's administration and Democrats increasing the size of government. That doesn't fit well with some people's narrative though, so I am sure it will be ignored.

My understanding as I am being told its been the republicans that changed the rule on super majority and the filibuster. It has been one side republicans blocking everything they can including even lower lever apointments of judges to lower courts indefinetly. Also according to the GBOS Obama has had lower taxes continuing Bush era policies and grown goverment slower or reduced it compared to previous.

But I am like many others who voted for him upset that when he had a super majority and a mandate allowed that to slip away with out taking firm leadership by the balls and getting it done comes out now he took over a $ million from Insurance companies in campain donations even money from Romney's investment bank who claims they want thier money back due to his bashing them?

Still what is our choice in a president nut case radicals thank God they are gone but Romney please. Today the financial basis of real cause and effect and the biggest threat is total caos in the EU.

We need to spend our way out by rebuiding the infrastructure at what ever the cost which will put people to work them and companies paying taxes if Obama would have had any real balls he would have done that since day one.

 

[Big Don]

Gene Simmons as president..... "Well Mr. Putin let me say this about that...."

Oh no, I thought he meant:

 

[Big Don]

My understanding as I am being told its been the republicans that changed the rule on super majority and the filibuster. It has been one side republicans blocking everything they can including even lower lever apointments of judges to lower courts indefinetly.

Then your understanding is as screwed up as a football bat... During President George W. Bush's two term tenure in office, he nominated 39 people for 27 different federal appellate judgeships that were blocked by the Senate Democrats either directly in the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor using a filibuster.During his presidency, Bush also nominated 23 people for 23 different federal district judgeships who were never confirmed by the United States Senate.

We need to spend our way out by rebuiding the infrastructure at what ever the cost which will put people to work them and companies paying taxes if Obama would have had any real balls he would have done that since day one.

Try spending your way out of debt in your personal life, let us know how that works out...

 

[Sukerkin]

There is a major difference between the ways that economic activity functions at the micro and macro levels. A consistent problem that arises in 'layman' discussions of economics is that there is an attempt to equate the international flows of production, trade and wealth to how a household functions. That equivalence does not hold true ... or at least it didn't until the First World economies bought into the idea that you could run a country on selling each other haircuts and insurance :lol:.

The USA economy has not even started to address the structural debt that is hanging around it's figurative neck - the pain has not begun yet for you I am sad to say. The Democrats have been continuing to implement the policies of the previous Republican government so as to prop up domestic demand. The cuts are due to start in a year or two.

Over in Europe, we have, theoretically, been taking our medicine and allowed the economies to contract whilst destroying the savings of tens of millions through effectively negative interest rates. Despite the pain, not much progress is being made because inflation is a worry due to the billions of 'pretend money' that has been given to the banks, funded by 'real' money being taken from us, the taxpayer. If the QE (Quantative Easing) had consisted of giving money to people rather than bankrupt institutions we might have seen some benefit but, sadly, that is not the way it works when the banks hold the cards and merely want to wipe out their mistakes at our expense.

 

[billc]

Here is a look at the two investment techniques of Mitt Romney and obama...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-about-w...of-bain-capital-and-the-obama-administration/

The problems for The One’s are threefold. First, he has made near-universally bad bets. Second, public entity investing possesses fundamental flaws. And third, the opportunity to make investments with politically connected business ventures has led to charges of corruption and cronyism.
Look around. Can anyone name a successful entity in which this administration has risked billions of dollars of taxpayer money? From Solyndra to LightSquared. All taxpayer money, none of it confined to only one failure and in technology whose merits none of us have any interest, expertise, and time to debate, other than for me to make the observation that Steven Chu’s fervent hope and desire that oil prices climbing much, much higher would be the first necessity for this business model to work in the real world without needing to be propped up by the government.
Moreover, the folly associated with public entities investing in established businesses (like, say, General Motors…oops!), let alone technologies best evaluated by trained professionals, is manifest for all to see. A private equity (or even venture) investor is a highly experienced individual who has seen, invested in (and/or rejected investment in) many companies in his or her career. His existence is Darwinistic: if he doesn’t know what he’s doing and makes too many bad bets, he doesn’t get to raise the next round of fund capital and is out seeking a new career by the day after that failure.

And, of course, as Mr. Romney pointed out this week, the government investing in industries it likes has a chilling effect on private investment in those same industries. As he said, “Who wants to compete against the federal government?”
Finally, consider the opportunity for corruption or cronyism. Would it surprise anyone reading this that the largest bets that this administration ever made were to friends and contributors of Mr. Obama’s? None of us can know which of the numerous enterprises that sought public funding failed to obtain it, but would it further surprise anyone if companies owned and managed by those on the right side of the political spectrum were refused funding?