How would you test the presidential candidates?

[Duckie]

Personally, I think we should take anyone who wants to be a politician and throw them in a river with a few rocks tied to their feet.

If they float, they're inelligible, and we burn them.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that he's the head of state does not mean that he has to be a national icon. It means that he's the head administrator. You're demonstrating precisely the kind of broken thinking that causes these problems.

Technically speaking, the Head of State is supposed to be the national icon for their country, like how the royalty is for Britain.

"Technically speaking?" Don't bullshit me. Where the fuck is it "technically" defined anywhere that a nation needs a national icon at all, never mind a living one, never mind one who must be its head of state?

[Adrian Laguna]

What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that he's the head of state does not mean that he has to be a national icon. It means that he's the head administrator. You're demonstrating precisely the kind of broken thinking that causes these problems.

Did you read my post? The head administrator is called the head of government. Being head of state has nothing to do with administration, as demonstrated by the fact that Queen Elizabeth II, Emperor Akihito, President Peres, King Rama IX, and several others are all heads of state who do not administrate anything.

Now, it is true that some heads of state serve as the face of the nation more than others. As already mentioned, Israel's might as well not exist. The same holds true for Queen Elizabeth in most of the 16 states she's head of, including your own. In the case of the United States, the President is very much the face of the nation on top of being its head administrator. Not just to Americans, but to the whole world as well.

I neither like nor advocate that state of affairs, but there is no alternative save importing a monarch from somewhere, which is probably less likely than Congress making me Dictator. As pointing out already, trying to separate the offices of head of state and head of government results in the HoS being sidelined and the HoG being treated like HoS regardless. So you basically change nothing save making the government more complicated.

[Havok]

For the experienced candidates (or those that claim to be, like McCain, Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, and so forth - although you can do all the candidates if you want to), tell them you are going to ask them highly specific policy questions. Then do it as Mike said - one on one job interview style. Get them to lay out exactly how they plan to do, how they are going to fund it, and so forth.

Isn't that exactly what Mike said would be pointless?

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that he's the head of state does not mean that he has to be a national icon. It means that he's the head administrator. You're demonstrating precisely the kind of broken thinking that causes these problems.

Did you read my post? The head administrator is called the head of government. Being head of state has nothing to do with administration, as demonstrated by the fact that Queen Elizabeth II, Emperor Akihito, President Peres, King Rama IX, and several others are all heads of state who do not administrate anything.

What the fuck is your problem, moron? I'm criticizing the fact that your head of state is treated as a national icon. Do you have ANY concept of what that means, and why it has nothing to do with the fact that some countries have a separate head of state and head of government?

I neither like nor advocate that state of affairs, but there is no alternative save importing a monarch from somewhere, which is probably less likely than Congress making me Dictator. As pointing out already, trying to separate the offices of head of state and head of government results in the HoS being sidelined and the HoG being treated like HoS regardless. So you basically change nothing save making the government more complicated.

The problem is one of cultural attitude, moron. Obviously, you can't change it by fiat. Nothing you have said here challenges anything I've said.

[Adrian Laguna]

What the fuck is your problem, moron? I'm criticizing the fact that your head of state is treated as a national icon. The problem is one of cultural attitude, moron. Obviously, you can't change it by fiat. Nothing you have said here challenges anything I've said.

Your original statement is, "for a lot of people, he represents a symbol of the nation rather than a mere administrator". This implies that the US President is not really a symbol of the nation, only treated as one. This implication is simply not true, so I corrected it.

Now, I do believe I understand your argument. The cultural issue you are referring to is the American tendency to treat the symbols of their nation as things that are sacred. That's why so many people get their panties in a twist over flag burning. It is possible for something be a symbol of a nation and not be treated as one. I mentioned Queen Elizabeth before, she's a national symbol in 16 states, but is only treated as such in one of them. In Venezuela we have a national bird and tree, but it's mostly an obscure fact you learn in elementary school. Ideally people would have such an attitude toward most of their national symbols, especially if said symbol is also in charge of running the country. Is this correct? If so then I support the sentiment, though I have doubts as to whether such a thing is at all possible in US.

[Glocksman]

In Venezuela we have a national bird and tree, but it's mostly an obscure fact you learn in elementary school. Ideally people would have such an attitude toward most of their national symbols, especially if said symbol is also in charge of running the country. Is this correct?

Interesting.
This American (though I'm sure there are others who disagree) would allow disparagement of our national symbols because the 1st Amendment explicitly permits it in the name of free speech.
I'm certain that our Republic is strong enough to survive such displays, and in fact displays its strength by permitting them, so I have no problem with SCOTUS's rulings that permit flag burning.

I guess you and I think more alike at times than either of us would care to admit.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck is your problem, moron? I'm criticizing the fact that your head of state is treated as a national icon. The problem is one of cultural attitude, moron. Obviously, you can't change it by fiat. Nothing you have said here challenges anything I've said.

Your original statement is, "for a lot of people, he represents a symbol of the nation rather than a mere administrator". This implies that the US President is not really a symbol of the nation, only treated as one. This implication is simply not true, so I corrected it.

Wrong. The President is not an official national icon. If he is, then you will show me the legal document where he is defined as one. The treatment of the President as a national icon is a simple cultural issue, not a matter of "fact" as you so strangely put it.

Now, I do believe I understand your argument. The cultural issue you are referring to is the American tendency to treat the symbols of their nation as things that are sacred. That's why so many people get their panties in a twist over flag burning. It is possible for something be a symbol of a nation and not be treated as one. I mentioned Queen Elizabeth before, she's a national symbol in 16 states, but is only treated as such in one of them. In Venezuela we have a national bird and tree, but it's mostly an obscure fact you learn in elementary school. Ideally people would have such an attitude toward most of their national symbols, especially if said symbol is also in charge of running the country. Is this correct? If so then I support the sentiment, though I have doubts as to whether such a thing is at all possible in US.

Your modified distortion of my argument is OK I suppose, although you're clearly just trying to evade admitting error. Either way, it is a cultural problem where people feel a need to worship the office of the president, and for the holder of that office to be someone they could worship, rather than someone who is competent to do his job.

[Surlethe]

The whole idea that the president must be a symbol of the United States instead of simply a competent administrator elegantly explains why conservatards went for the torches and nooses when Obama was photographed without his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Obama might be a competent adminstrator, but if he doesn't put his hand over his heart, he won't be a respectable patriotic symbol, which automatically disqualifies him.

[MKSheppard]

Ask them their views on strategic thermo-atomic war.



In short, subject them to the Thomas Sarsfield Power test.

The correct answers are:

A.) "You know, it's not yet been proved to me that two heads aren't better than one."

B.) "Restraint! Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards! At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian, we win!"

C.) "Well, Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't have any friends or relations in Albania, because we're just going to have to wipe it out."

[Wanderer]

Ask them their views on strategic thermo-atomic war.

In short, subject them to the Thomas Sarsfield Power test.

The correct answers are:

A.) "You know, it's not yet been proved to me that two heads aren't better than one."

Huh?

B.) "Restraint! Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards! At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian, we win!"

We wouldn't have a viable breeding pool and thus actually lose if we follow that ideal.

C.) "Well, Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't have any friends or relations in Albania, because we're just going to have to wipe it out."

Yeah because it has a radar that can be better taken out by Fighters from Italy or Greece using precision guided munitions. But no we need to destroy the nation to punish it for being communists.