I've been reading these threads about these presidential candidates, but, I wonder if we are focusing on the correct credentials for president.

The truth is, the president is commander and chief----really nothing more and nothing less. Yes the president has a bully pulpit but, other than that, the president does not and should not be the center of any other issues. I know, I know, the media (All major media) wants us all to think otherwise. Presidential politics is much less interesting than the media makes it out to be.

Congress is the place where the real stuff happens when it comes to domestic issues. They represent the people in our governmental structure. The president can veto legislation but the congress can override that veto, beside, the president can not offer up bills to be voted on to become law.

So, all this talk about legalizing marajuana, gay rights, abortion and so on should be directed to your representatives in congress and not the president.

When trying to decide on a president, consider the following;

1) Is the person decisive enough but, also willing to listen to others?
2) Does this person understand the legal structure both domesticly and internationaly?
3) Can this person pass for what would be the most important ambassadorship in our nation?
4) Can he or she negotiate?

Questions not to consider;

1) have they had an affair?
2) what religion are they?
3) Do they love babies?
4) Are they tolerant of gay's?

It is an insult to any american person to have to even submit to the second set of questions, yet that is all we look at.....

The President's position on issues is far more important than you're giving it credit for. Further, keep in mind the President's role with respect to Supreme Court justices.

Those are not presidential issues, josh.Supreme court justices must pass through the senate.

But they are nominated by the president. That's a pretty significant presidential issue.

I agree and, It should, of course , be a concern. It was enough of a concern that the framers of the constitution decided to make it take the course it does. The senate, however, is concerned with one thing when appointing judges and , that is, 'are they qualified'?. Remember Robert Bork? Well, he wasn't qualifed and he didn't make it through. Bush wanted to nomimate Alberto Gonzales but, he changed his mind because the majority of senators, both republican and democrates told him it wouldn't come close to flying. Clinton attemped to have a couple that got turned down as well.

You can disagree with the justices on their opinions but, when you look at the court itself, you must admit that all the people on it are very well qualifed legal scholars. So, a president has the ability to nominate but that is where it stops.

When a supreme court nominee goes before the senate, it is grueling, to say the least. The senate and the house of representative is where yours and my opinions are represented, not the whitehouse. That is why I said what I said in my op.

Thanks for responding pt. I appreciate the dialogue.

Notice not many people are willing to take this on? That is because presidential politics is in fact boring, as I said before. The problem we have is, it is so important as we are seeing from the blunders made by these unqualified people whom have been elected, that people are dying and we are trully in a world of shit. We better get it together and start electing people based on the proper qualifications, or this situation is bound to get worse. We need to understand that when we want our opinions represented, we do that through our more local officials in congress and , when we want to be secure in both our power and our humility, we had better start electing a predident who can do the things I presented in my first set of questions...

I have no faith in the "democracy" of the United States any more. Admit that power and control is reserved for the few elite at the top of the pyramid! I think it's time, in today's society of hi-tech industry, education and stability that we considered other options rather than just rallying around the American flag with this weird idea of patriotism and loyalty to the ideas of people living hundreds of years ago in a completely different time. America was a beacon of democracy and freedom for its time but in this day in age it's falling behind.

What I'm saying is we need some sort of government that is actually OF the people and not just supposed to represent it. We need to look at and at least consider some form of (yea, you're all going to just scoff and call me crazy the minute you read the word) anarchism. Many leading great intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky consider this the best solution to the problem. We're living in a time where we're told what to think, or at least it's heavily implied, we're marginalized and controlled by the media and we'll never get any kind of radical change - ridiculed by the popular opinion of people who haven't thought about the issues, merely been told what's "right" and went along with it unquestioning.
Anyways, I need to think about it. Come ask me in a few years time when I've done some political science and philosophy at University

Seriously guys, read some Noam Chomsky, watch some of his documentaries! He rarely discusses anarchism - it's not a central point of his. What Noam Chomsky does best is tell the truth. He's extremely well informed, and I don't see the documentaries as revolutionary and leftist propaganda - but just simply eye-opening and bringing to light a great number of simple truisms of our society that everyone should be aware of.

I agree! What blows my mind is that an election is (or should be) a job interview, but immediately the public starts discriminating based on age, sex, color, religion, etc, and asking irrelevant questions.

I have refused to vote...simple as that.

My vote no longer counts in this country. For all intents and purposes, I am borderline Middle class (edging on Poor at any second), White, Non-religious, Pro-Choice, single, deeply in debt but have a pretty good credit score because I have a deep fear of what may happen, take responsibility for 100% of my actions, and am "disabled" (Moebius Syndrome coupled with hearing loss and poor vision). I've always fallen through the cracks, never thought the government owed me anything all the while, and have worked my way through life pretty well.

They don't care about me.

The day when the politicians wear clothing without pockets is the day I start voting again. Of course, my theory, and it's starting to be a popular theory, is that the President for the last 20 years or so has just been a puppet. Maybe even longer than that.

Google Free Masons and you'll find a lot of info. Ever wonder how the design for the dollar bill was come up, check that search out....

I agree with what you say about what should be the grounds for electing the president, rjwood. But we all know that it is not the case.
What a presidential race actually is about is who has the biggest wallet and the most support of big buisnesses, which George W. Bush is a good example of. And that is not a very good thing for the people, because what then will be the presidents greatest concerns is to please those who supports him finacially. And that would not be the people in general, but ara very small amount of the people: the elite who has the money.
All you americans (generally) think you have the greatest country in the world, because you are the richest measured by GNP. Don't get me wrong, I love america, but money is not everything. It is how you distribute your money. And again, don't get me wrong, I'm not a pink commie. For example take a look at Sweden. Their GNP per citizen is not the highest in the world, but pretty damn close. In Sweden they pay a huge tax ammount, about 50% on all earnings (less tax the less you earn, more tax the more you earn). What Sweden get in exchange for this is the worlds lowest infant child death rate, the lowest poverty rate (way, way lower than the US) and public health care and free education. If you are ill you don't have to worry about if you have the money for the doctor. And you don't have worry about if you have the money to attend to college. All these things combined give a much better standard of living.
It has always concerned me the way american politicians and the american people are afraid of trusting their own and their goverments ability to take sufficient care in a responsibel manner of its citizens. It is almost as watching someone with a borderline personality: either it is (rampage) laissez-faire capitalism or else it is communism. It is all black and white. There is no in-between. Everybody with just a little social insight knows that laissez-faire is not a very good choice.
I come from Denmark, a country simmilar to Sweden in the terms I described, and I consider health care and free education as a human right. Im proud of living in a country that offers me those choices.
I find it (sort of) humorous to watch your presidential tv-smear-spots. The republicans always hint in their commercials that public health-care is a bad thing, without really giving any reasons (which of course would be impossible in a 30-sec spot), but basicly playing on the old fear of communism sterotypes.
I don't live in a communist or a socialist country. I live in a democratic country! (Well, sort of. It is actually a monarchy). And don't get me wrong, not everything as green and wonderful here. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark! We do have religious freedom, but we also have a state-sponsored religion (protestantism...hey, that's the same religion George practices!). But generally I think I am better of here. Unless of course I would be insanely rich. Then the US would be the place for me, not this state-controlled communist-infested nest I am living in.

Phew, seems like I perhaps got a bid of track there. Another important thing about the presidential candidate would be his ability to portray himself favorably in the media, which the JFK-Nixon debate was a good example of.

That was my five cents. Hope I have not offended anybody (too much at least).

Lakersforce,

While I do see where you are coming from, I will admit that the US thinks too much of itself at times. But let me put it to you this way:

Taxes: We pretty much end up paying 50% in taxes by the time it's all said and one between Federal, State, Local, Sales, and Gas taxes. This is something that varies widely depending on the state you live in. Up here in NY, we are one of the highest taxed states in the nation, and for what? Our roads have potholes that damage our vehicles. They use salt on the roads in the winter that erodes our vehicle life. Our schools are the worst (that's as a nation). Crime here in Rochester puts us pretty much above NYC (1 million people in the metro area of Rochester vs. about 8 million people in the NYC metro area). Not a day goes by where there is a drive-by shooting, stabbing, arson, or theft. It's getting worse across the country.

Health care: We have THE WORST health care system. My employer doesn't pay any of my health care, but gets a "group" rate for it. I currently pay $58/week for health care that is the most basic coverage I can get as a single person, and would probably leave me in debt a lot more than I already am. I wear glasses, they can range in price from $50 - $500 depending on where you go, and they should be replaced every 3-?? years. I wear hearing aids, they can range in price from $700 - $5000 depending on where you go and the kind, and they should be replaced ever 5-7 years. I get no benefits from my government to help me pay for these things because I am not in a wheel chair and can hold a full-time job +. If health care is a human rights issue, then it should be free. Drug companies should not be paying doctors to get their patients to use their pills. Hospitals should not be performing procedures that are invasive and then kicking people out after a day, when they really should be monitored for longer than that. Doctors should not be charging $60 a visit, when on average they can last 5-10 minutes. This causes issues and is harmful to our society because drug companies can and DO create their own set of rules when it comes to what can be cured and what can't. If it means more money for them to not cure something, they will let people suffer.

Listen. I'm not saying we have it bad by far. But until money gets out of the political and health care sectors, we will be seeing more and more issues. The rate of obesity in this country is staggering. But yet junk food is much cheaper to purchase than wholesome, healthy food such as fruits and vegetables. As it is, our "natural" food could be considered tainted and no better than some "healthy" junk food because of everything that's done to these foods to preserve them and make them grow faster.

I am NOT a religious person, but I respect that this country was built on Catholicism, but there is a separation of church and state. We currently have some major issues with political correctness and religious freedoms in this country. Even if I wanted to say "God Bless You" to a random person who sneezes, that could be considered offensive if they are of a different religion. Kids can't say prayers in schools. They can't celebrate Christmas in schools or businesses. The government wants to institute a national ID, and that leads up to RFID chips holding all of our information inside us. I hardly consider what we currently live in as a Democracy, and borderline Dictatorship by the Free Masons or some other group/person with a LOT of money behind them. Anyone can be bought out now. There's no sense of ethics or service to the people. When 65% of a country's people disapprove of the nation's leader, most places would have a coup. We just go along with it because we rely on the government too much!

We rely on the Congress to check the President, we rely on the President to check Congress, we rely on the Judicial system to check both and vice versa. This is not happening. We are allowing welfare to be given to just about anyone with an excuse. We are allowing our own companies to ax our jobs because we are too expensive to keep the job here. We have credit card companies that have virtual power over their customers and can charge a customer as much as 30% for a "loan" (which is what a credit card essentially is), and when we don't pay this "loan" back they can do pretty much anything to get their money back. But when a business promises something and renigs on that promise, consumers have to jump through flaming hoops covered with red tape to get a percent of their money back. We have a society that thinks it's ok to glorify killing, sex, and overall rude behavior in a whole genre or two of music. We allow parents to leave kids with random people to watch their kids everyday and come home from work and let a tv babysit them the rest of the time. And then we blame the kid for being a stupid moron who doesn't respect anyone, including themselves.

I don't want to sound cynical, but I am. I really think we are reaching a breaking point sociologically, financially, politically, and religiously in this country. It's all reflected on the leader of the country when a country falls apart. I really think we need the next president to be open, honest, stubborn, and ethical. Someone who won't bow down to money. Someone who will listen to the people instead of the lobbyists. Just read the millions of blogs on the net from people in all sectors of the community. Things are not doing so hot here. If we don't get a good one the next presidential election, the fall of Rome will look like a cardboard box collapsing compared to what we'll be going through.

I agree with you up to the point where you start talking about Free Masons But the problem isn't the politicians, it's the whole system. The politicians need money from big corporations, and corporations simply exist to make money above all else regardless of the effects. The documentary The Corporation has a really good explanation of why the current form of the corporation is completely unsustainable. Enron is a good example of this.

There's always the possibility that Free Masons are running everything, but then there's always the possibility that Reptilian Humanoids are secretly ruling the planet, or that we are simply living in a dream world, Neo. You can't prove the existence of anything doesn't exist, and you can't disprove it even if it doesn't. The Free Masons might have had a lot of power in the past and even now but I don't see why a Mason coming up with the design for the dollar bill means anything.

It's not the public. The public has no say in the elections. The media tells the public what's happening, and the media is controlled by all the corporations. Watch Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and the Media for more on that if you don't believe me.

I agree with most of what you said there, Sweden's a good example to many countries, that's how the economy should be run. The fact that they have, technically, a monarchy isn't that important in the big picture at all although it should still be changed.

lakersforce, I don't see how something can be "infested" by Communists, where does this negative image come from? (that's a rhetorical question, I know where )
Communism may be a completely misguided system of government, but real Marxism champions equality and freedom, and although Communism may be a stupid solution, it's not an evil one. Communism looks brilliant on paper but sadly doesn't work too well in practice - because nobody's perfect. It is not, as many people have come to think, based on the principle of ruling the country with an iron fist and putting millions of people in work camps for speaking out.

That's an interesting point ... I'll try to read the book when I get some time.

I wonder though, doesn't the buck rest on the public ultimately? Would the same lame tricks fly (repeatedly!!!) if everyone were as skeptical as Noam Chomsky? IMO, the media coverage is like something out of a Jerry Springer show. If there was no audience, there would be no show.

IMO, if an incompetent official is elected, it's because the voters are incompetent and unable to conduct a fair job interview.

I think blaming the media circus, or corporate funding are secondary problems. If the public were smarter, they would demand more transparency on these matters. Or for example, why don't we go to the candidate's websites rather than forcing them to run expensive smear campaings every 15 minutes on national television? A large part of the expensive of running a campaign is caused by the sheer laziness of the public ... the expectation to be spoon fed pre-digested information via popular media (between humour and catchy songs).

If a real job interview were conducted with such incompetence unprofessionalism, it might easily result in a lawsuit.

It's easy enough to do correctly. Think about it, When considering who to elect as president, what is the job description? Commander and chief of the military, period. That is the one and only purly individual job of the president. All other duties require participation and negotiation with the congress.

It's a documentary actually, pm me if you can't find a torrent for it.

Blaming the media and the corporations isn't a secondary problem, it is the problem. It's like when WalMart opens a massive store in a small town, undercutting everyone's prices and driving them out of business, or like when the US government, through 'defense' companies, supplies weaponry and tanks to both sides in a war (they do that all the time) or when Bush invades sovereign countries for no apparent reason resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The response is "oh, but you, you voted for me" and "so just don't shop at WalMart then if you don't like it" - I didn't kill those people, you son of a bitch, you did! --"aaah, but you still voted for me! "