Presidential candidate's checklist 30 replies

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

In the USA it takes a lot to run for president succesfully, in addition to having a fat campaign pocketbook and being a candidate of a major party. In general the requirements and expectations for a presidential candidate are high as most of the people want more than just a simple political leader. From the perspective of an average American and the media, it seems that the following things are a simple necessity for a candidate, otherwise you don't stand a chance in the election:

1. You must be married, singles are losers or at least they have somewhat unbalanced or empty life.

2. You must be a Christian, atheists just don't have moral values and other religions are just weird, even dangerous in some ways.

3. You must be absolutely patriotic, your country does no wrong for others and the past is just something the previous administrations did.

4. You must support Israel all the way, otherwise you're anti-semite and freedom hater, even supporter of terrorism at worst.

5. You must be tough on crime, words like "rehabilitation" and "crime prevention" aren't popular.

6. You can't be talking about cutting down the military, otherwise you're unpatriotic and put the USA on immediate danger.

Does this bother you or is it just okay? Or are these just false perceptions? Discuss.




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Wow…that is the most canned assertion I’ve ever seen. Lets see… Might as well add that all Republicans are inbred Dixie-loving white people and all Democrats are dead-beat hippie-loving potheads… Is this how you think candidates and voters pick the president? Some may promote such rubbish, but your examples are consistent with an era thirty years in the past. Thus far Clinton, Bush and soon to be Obama are far from the “requirements” listed.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

1. You must be married, singles are losers or at least they have somewhat unbalanced or empty life.

No they get mega tax credits for having kids, but no such thing about this single vs married is a political topic.

2. You must be a Christian, atheists just don't have moral values and other religions are just weird, even dangerous in some ways.

No, atheiests are trying to change the majority, same for gay bs.They make themselves look evil because of things like the gay Jesus lookalike contest, and atheists what to change our pledge and our cionage, the majority says no and they may as well be evil freakin out all because they see a public display of a cross is retarded.

3. You must be absolutely patriotic, your country does no wrong for others and the past is just something the previous administrations did.

No but they mock our prez, undermine the troops and created a poor world perception from the media, another words "the blame america first crowd"

4. You must support Israel all the way, otherwise you're anti-semite and freedom hater, even supporter of terrorism at worst.

The only reason is if we abandon them, they really would all be killed or displaced, not because they are jews or not.

5. You must be tough on crime, words like "rehabilitation" and "crime prevention" aren't popular.

Yes but not because we want to, it's because the crimes of today are extremely bad, and massive operations such as "drug lords". They have piles of money, but essentialy more people get off easier than ever, now it has become too soft, other wise we would have no need for police at all.

6. You can't be talking about cutting down the military, otherwise you're unpatriotic and put the USA on immediate danger.

Everybody wants power in one form or another, people or countries.But we shouuld have a strong military, ever played any vid games before? or chess?.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago
AlDajaWow…that is the most canned assertion I’ve ever seen.

It's always nice when people declare "that sucks" without putting any effort to provide constructive arguments to back up their statement. But I do: 1. There's not a single presidential or vice presidential candidate of a major party in the modern US history who wouldn't have had a spouse during running for office (an exception reinforces the rule). Candidates' spouses have always been on the campaign trail, even with their children and they take part in television campaign commercials. I wonder a media hype that would follow if a candidate wouldn't be married while running for nomination or office: how he/she could talk about passion, taking care of others and family values without having a spouse 2. How many presidential or vice presidential candidates of a major party do you know who wouldn't have talked about their faith and how they believe on god? Mitt Romney being a mormon already raised quite a few eye browns about his "trustfullness" and Rudy Giuliani who wanted to keep his faith as a private matter (as it should be) he was criticized for it and he had to compromise. 3. There's not a single presidential or vice presidential candidate of a major party who would have openly criticized the wrongdoings of their country or even hinted that patriotism may sometimes be bad. For example Barack Obama didn't wear a flag pin or kept his hand on the chest during the national anthem in a single occasion and he was immediately attacked for it from all sides. Michelle Obama was open about his relation to the USA by implying that he wasn't content with all the actions of the USA and what followed? Media is still talking about it. 4. There's not a single presidential or vice presidential candidate of a major party who would have criticized Israel for their doings, on the contrary. For example Barack Obama was considered sympathetic for the Palestinian cause when he was still a state legislator but now he has talked loud how he supports Israel all the way without even mentioning the Palestinian state. Even a hint of support for the Palestinians would be bombed down as "soft on terrorism". 5. The US justice system is propably the most punishing in the western world and hard sentences (or soft) are every day media-material. If "soft" measures against crime would be even somewhat popular in the eyes of the people there wouldn't be so much money poured on the war on drugs, police & their equipment or prisons, not to mention that punishments would be less severe. Can you mention a single presidential or vice presidential candidate of a major party who would have had different approach to crime as a major campaign issue? 6. As patriotism, military and national security are such huge issues you can't find a presidential or vice presidential candidate of a major party in the modern US history who would have argued for cutting down the huge military budget, consisting 40% of the federal budget and which is more than next 10 major powers combined.

Thus far Clinton, Bush and soon to be Obama are far from the “requirements” listed.

1. All are married and even have children while bringing their spouses and children to the campaign trail. 2. All are Christians and have openly talked about their faith and its role in their life and even politics. 3. All have time and again talked about the USA as greatest democracy, leader of the western world, country of strong values etc. etc. etc. and no-one has questioned US policies in general: Clinton nor Obama wouldn't bring significant chances to overall US foreign policy. 4. All show strong, even unquestionable support for Israel. 5. All have argued how they are tough on crime, not even mentioning the removal of death penalty. 6. Only Obama has talked about "using the money for military more wisely" but not directly about cutting down the military. You seem to have serious gaps in knowledge when it comes to current US presidential candidates. For the record, like I said in the introduction text, I talk from the basis what the US media and average Americans in general think. Of course there are more or less other reasons how people pick their candidates but if a candidate fails in two or more points in the requirement checklist he/she hardly can win in the general election or even the nomination.




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

You forgot lying, it's impossible to become leader of a country without tons of lying. Or did I miss that?




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago
Daniel1414You forgot lying, it's impossible to become leader of a country without tons of lying. Or did I miss that?

I left it out because it would have been lying in itself to say how all what it takes in politics is lying when people should know better.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

not 40%, if you are talking about money for Iraq it is not a budget for the military, we are rebuiding that country after 30 years of neglect, not because ours or others used bombs and we are fixxing the stuff we ruined.

People think especialy democrats it's as if we are thier to take the country and setup our own dictator.The Iraqis both shiia and sunni know we are eventualy leaving, and they don't want thier kids and wifes getting killed.

So now that we are winning bigtime in Iraq you would think the democrats have beliefs they were allways supposed to have, humanitarianism. But NO they would rather watch them die all to say how bad bush was. Oh and all the troops and money gone to waste, nice huh?

I definitly am voting for McCain, after Obama hired that guy who got a deal for loans of the very company Obama was bashing.If the dude is that stupid, no way, McCain it is.




Ipse

The Great Charm

50 XP

14th April 2007

0 Uploads

5,446 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago
QuetronSo now that we are winning bigtime in Iraq you would think the democrats have beliefs they were allways supposed to have, humanitarianism. But NO they would rather watch them die all to say how bad bush was. Oh and all the troops and money gone to waste, nice huh? [/quote] You were always wining the war, but ask your self this How much did you go indebt by? Uhm... How many of your troops died or get wounded? Uhm... Don't say that you blame all this on the liberals, because they didn't do all that last time I checked [quote=Quetron]I definitly am voting for McCain, after Obama hired that guy who got a deal for loans of the very company Obama was bashing.If the dude is that stupid, no way, McCain it is.

Soruce?




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

Siorry guys-gals but most requests for sources I am assuming you all heard about the things I have said throughout.

He resigned like 2 weeks ago, he was hired to find a vice prez for Obama, he accepted loan deals from Countrywide loan company of which Obama blasted for causing the loan-realestate problems in USA. If Obama is that stupid, I dunno folks.

No I don't blame the liberals, however now that we got a better standing in Iraq EVERYBODY should be happy for those people, WMD or not.But they want to pull the troops (Obama) and is a sorry case for calling themselves demacrats or liberals.




Ipse

The Great Charm

50 XP

14th April 2007

0 Uploads

5,446 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
Quetron;4402682Siorry guys-gals but most requests for sources I am assuming you all heard about the things I have said throughout.

Doesn't matter, No credible soruce no agruement

He resigned like 2 weeks ago, he was hired to find a vice prez for Obama, he accepted loan deals from Countrywide loan company of which Obama blasted for causing the loan-realestate problems in USA. If Obama is that stupid, I dunno folks.

I never got my source