You have to be very rich, and have a lot of rich friends.Kelly Antilles wrote:Is there anyone who is decent enough to actually BE president? Those already throwing their hats into the ring are idiots.
Typically, most rich people aren't that decent.
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
No, you just only hear about the bad ones.Ted wrote:You have to be very rich, and have a lot of rich friends.Kelly Antilles wrote:Is there anyone who is decent enough to actually BE president? Those already throwing their hats into the ring are idiots.
Typically, most rich people aren't that decent.
Look Kelly, stop trying to start a flame war.Kelly Antilles wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/hi4/kantilles/ ... itroll.gifTed wrote:You have to be very rich, and have a lot of rich friends.Kelly Antilles wrote:Is there anyone who is decent enough to actually BE president? Those already throwing their hats into the ring are idiots.
Typically, most rich people aren't that decent.
Senator Edwards, D NC moron.Durandal wrote: John Edwards? The guy that talks to the dead?
Gephardt has been a logical candidate for many years. He just hasn't had a strong enough backing. Maybe this time. *shrug*The most promising candidate, at least from my view, is Gephardt. I don't know much about the Democratic candidates at this point, but Gephardt's very passionate about his views, and he seems like a reasonable guy. He publicly blasted the whole "Freedom Fries" thing, making sure to completely disassociate it from his party (it was a Republican proposal).
You really want Gore representing your country? He's like a dead fish. Hell, a dead fish is more active than he is. I just wish there could be someone out there who would run for office on a decent, logical platform.That said, I really do wish Gore would run again. Yeah, he's got about as much personality as a brick, but he's a well-respected figure world-wide, environmentally conscious, wants campaign finance reform, and he's very intelligent, and I can chalk his professed negative opinion of atheism up to rallying for public opinion (maybe). Basically, he's a squeaky-clean version of Bill Clinton, minus the charisma but with the international respect.
Basically, Gore and Gephardt are two guys I could sit down with and have an intelligent conversation with, and I'd know that they'd be listening to what I had to say. With Dubya, it'd be more like talking to Scoot.
Ever wonder why you only mostly see senators running for president? Because the Senate is basically the Congressional Millionaires' Club. Don't kid yourself. You need media exposure, lobbyists and workers to get your campaign off the ground so that people will donate to it. That isn't cheap.Kelly Antilles wrote:And you do NOT have to be "incredibly" rich to be president. That money all came from donations. You obviously know nothing about it.
In theory, you don't have to be rich, but many politicians are rich anyway. I'm guessing that earning a lot of money helps you get noticed by the major parties.Kelly Antilles wrote:Ted, you had nothing to contribute to the conversation. You didn't even answer my question. I have nothing against you, but you seem to have something against me. Everywhere I turn, you are saying something outrageous when I speak. I don't appreciate your flippant attitude.
And you do NOT have to be "incredibly" rich to be president. That money all came from donations. You obviously know nothing about it.
Truman was not a very wealthy man. He never went to college.Darth Wong wrote:In order to disprove the theory that one must be rich and well-connected in order to be president in the modern era, one need only present an example of a president within the last century who did not fit that profile. Any takers?
Interesting. Was he the last one? And how prosperous was he?Durran Korr wrote:Truman was not a very wealthy man. He never went to college.
He became president only because FDR died. Before that, they didn't even speak. After Truman came into power, he had to be briefed on most major issues, including the Manhattan project.Durran Korr wrote:Truman was not a very wealthy man. He never went to college.Darth Wong wrote:In order to disprove the theory that one must be rich and well-connected in order to be president in the modern era, one need only present an example of a president within the last century who did not fit that profile. Any takers?
Yes, he is the last American president to not go to college. To my knowledge, he was never very rich, and he made his way through the government from the ground up, from the local level to the federal level, not through political connections. He had loads of character too, we haven't had a President in recent years who is half the man Truman was.Darth Wong wrote:Interesting. Was he the last one? And how prosperous was he?Durran Korr wrote:Truman was not a very wealthy man. He never went to college.
The man was re-elected though.fgalkin wrote:He became president only because FDR died. Before that, they didn't even speak. After Truman came into power, he had to be briefed on most major issues, including the Manhattan project.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Winning the election as an incumbent is not the same as running for the first time. See the incumbency reelection rates for the House and the Senate for reference.JediNeophyte wrote:The man was re-elected though.fgalkin wrote:He became president only because FDR died. Before that, they didn't even speak. After Truman came into power, he had to be briefed on most major issues, including the Manhattan project.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
"DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"
The Force tells me you have someone specific in mind. Or maybe it's my turn to be perceptive, for once. I think I might even know who you're talking about, but I don't want to be presumptuous. (Chalk it up to raising my hand and having the wrong answer too many times in school.)Darth Wong wrote:Interesting. Was he the last one? And how prosperous was he?Durran Korr wrote:Truman was not a very wealthy man. He never went to college.
You don't just had off the VPs job off to anyone though. And given the major secrecy surrounding a lot of WW2 matter it's not suprising that Truman didn't have the full picture. No but FDR did.fgalkin wrote:He became president only because FDR died. Before that, they didn't even speak. After Truman came into power, he had to be briefed on most major issues, including the Manhattan project.
If the only criticism you can come up with of Gore is his personality, then you don't have much ground to criticize. Dubya could have the most charismatic personality in the world, and he would still be a fucking idiot. That said, I see nothing wrong with a president who has an all-business, no-bullshit kind of personality like Gore. He has the respect, and if you have that, you could be a bonafide robot, and it wouldn't change anything. Gore has international respect. Bush does not. I just can't make that any clearer.Kelly Antilles wrote:You really want Gore representing your country? He's like a dead fish. Hell, a dead fish is more active than he is. I just wish there could be someone out there who would run for office on a decent, logical platform.
On the contrary, a President must be capable of leading. Gore, whatever his policies, can't. That's something so many democrats don't understand these days, Bush's policies might be flawed but he leads. They just snipe at those who do.If the only criticism you can come up with of Gore is his personality, then you don't have much ground to criticize.
Truman's political career:Stormbringer wrote:You don't just had off the VPs job off to anyone though. And given the major secrecy surrounding a lot of WW2 matter it's not suprising that Truman didn't have the full picture. No but FDR did.fgalkin wrote:He became president only because FDR died. Before that, they didn't even speak. After Truman came into power, he had to be briefed on most major issues, including the Manhattan project.
And he was re-elected as well.
From http://www.americanpresident.org/KoTrai ... _Brief.htmBack home from the War, Truman tried a variety of jobs before standing for election as a county judge in 1922. He served one term, was defeated for a second, and then became presiding judge in 1926. In 1934, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, with help from "Boss" Pendergast, an old-style Kansas City politico. Although Truman was never charged personally with corruption, his foes would raise the specter of the "Boss" repeatedly during Truman’s career.
In his first Senate term Truman became known as a hard worker and an avid supporter of President Roosevelt’s "New Deal" programs. He was pro-labor, pro-common sense, and pro-Roosevelt. Not surprisingly, when FDR needed a new running mate in 1944, Truman got the call. The ticket won in a walk, and after only eighty-two days as vice president, Roosevelt died and Truman was thrust into the presidency.
During his few weeks as Vice President, Harry S. Truman scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."
Are we just talking about people who were BORN rich and well connected (like our current president or Kennedy), or does someone who was born poor or middle class and got rich count too?Darth Wong wrote:In order to disprove the theory that one must be rich and well-connected in order to be president in the modern era, one need only present an example of a recent president who did not fit that profile. Any takers?