That is a bit overkill, in my opinion. I'll go with calling him overly dedicated.

Why would you vote for Ron Paul ........ what IQ is required for an action like that ??

Overly dedicated... I lke that Poozer. Really, we need a national voting system that uses social security cards and green cards (or a national ID). After all, everyone who is a valid voter has a social security number/card or green card. Every single legal citizen has one. Then you could vote anywhere in the US and it could be tied into local elections.

I volunteer to be on the IT team that developsit! Government contracts are, what is the word, lucrative...

@Nigee - play nice, fucktard. He's a better choice than Rmoney. although where is Mike Huckabee when you need him?

Sorry that we don't like one-party states.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

Internet libertarians unite!

is 'fucktard' a real word?
I don't know the value or importance of it, is it rude or just what kids say nowadays?

15 fucktards per metric-fucktonne.

@Nigee - is a WebDip word. We coined it here long before you showed up and is a term of endearment. In short, it means you are so stupid, you don't even know how to use your sexual organs to reproduce. :-) But it's like an insult you throw at friends.

Draugnar, I agree with you in principle. But you must know that green card holders (legal permanent residents) do not have the right to vote in a federal election. Also, anyone who has a job in the US (even temporary non-immigrants like H1 visa holders) gets a SS card, so that's not enough proof. However, considering that voting without having the right to do so is a felony that could get you deported, I guess recording the names or SS numbers for each voter would discourage any non-citizens from doing it.

@Alex - no I didn't know that. Never really followed up on voting rights (in the form of who has them) that close. So, a nation voter registration... Kind of like getting your passport. *Only* US citizens can get a US passport. So have the passport office handle it and fuind them enough people to get it started. Might take a few years, but if we never start, then we never get done.

Ok, I like fucktards then, but I might do it like this 'fucktardz' 'cos it looks cooler.

'We don't like one party states'. You're obviously not a true American then because the US Govt have turned propping up one party states into an art-form.

sar·casm/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun:
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Could be fUqT4RdZ for you Nigee.

You are too kind

Ron Paul for President...... how sweet !!
Where are all the proper candidates, we're talking about the Leader of the Western world here ....... I don't think some people are taking this issue seriously !!

Draug, also of note are the number of people who are disenfranchised due to criminal activity. I don't foresee any major changes to the US Voting system any time soon.

The best candidates for President are making too much money in the private sector and aren't about to give it up to run the country for only 6 figures a year. I mean, come on, 400K a year? That is chump change to a leader of business and industry. No, we are going to get political hacks as long as we don't pay the leader of the US the same kind of money the CEO of a fortune 500 company makes.

You really think Presidential candidates are doing it for the money Draug?

@Poozer - I, personally, don't think felons either incarcerated on still on parole should have any right to vote. They have already proven they have no respect for society, so why should they get to have a say in that which they disdain and disrespect? I'm probably gonna take heat for that, but it's the way I feel. If you disrespect society so much that you willingly commit a felony, then society owes you *nothing* but disrespect back. No vote, no free ride (I believe in prison labor as the one and olny form of involuntary servitude), no nothing! Nadda! Zip! Zilch!

@2WL - no, but the potential candidate sare *not* doing it for the money. Sayign one group won't do it for a given reason doesn't means those who doi it are doing it for that reason. That's bad logic on your part, 2WL.

$400,000 should not be chump change to a business/industry leader. And I'm not saying that from some griping lefty standpoint that people "earn too much" - but rather that companies would not be successful enough to pay CEOs in the multimillions without significant corporate welfare. But yeah they don't do it for the money; hell, Paul is electing to take something like 10% of the Presidential salary if that (median American income, somewhere around 35-40k).

also @Tom, there's some rather stupid stories of bureaucracy (if not out and out fraud) from the caucuses - GOP election workers being explicitly instructed to make it difficult for Paul supporters to caucus. calling caucus meetings earlier and in violation of party policy (happened in GA), arresting Paul supporters and shutting down a caucus for filming it to prevent fraud (in Missouri - remember what Vaftrudner said in the thread with the video I posted earlier about recording bullshit when it happens?), shutting down caucuses in the middle of the process (Nevada, 2008 and 2012), choosing not to count certain caucuses on inane pretenses (Maine), charging a "delegate fee" (WHOO POLL TAXES) and continually moving the deadline for the fee up (Alaska)...

You might think it's crazy to put in that much work, but Paul supporters pretty much have to do so. Otherwise the GOP shuts us down with their bureaucratic BS.

I'll reiterate my opinion that my roommate is crazy, since the only reason he is driving that far to vote is because he neglected to file proper change of address paperwork when we moved last year. Don't make this an issue of you and your fellow Paul supporters being cast as outsiders in the political process.

@Eden - Whether it should or shouldn't be chump change is irrelavent. Fact is,, Fortune 500 CEOs make millions per year. For most, $400,000 is a couple months salary, if that. I'm not judging right or worng. Merely stating fact. and the fact is those folks value money. They value their stocks and stock options and their golden parachutes and their performance bonuses and their salaries. They coudl do the job and do it well, but *most* are unwilling to take the pay cut. Ron Paul is, sure. so was Ross Perot (the last truly fiscal conservative to run for office). But these gems are few and far between. Huckabee has his talk show making way more than the office of the President makes. Gates, Ballmer, and Buffet? Good God! They'd have to literally sell off their controlling stakes in theri own companies to avoid the appearance of impropriety *and* take the huge paycut.

No, until we make it worthwhile for the leaders of industry, *most* of them will never consider public office, even the presidency.

"I'll reiterate my opinion that my roommate is crazy, since the only reason he is driving that far to vote is because he neglected to file proper change of address paperwork when we moved last year. Don't make this an issue of you and your fellow Paul supporters being cast as outsiders in the political process."

I understand that he dun goofed on paper work. My point is that due to being outsiders (and thanks, we're not "cast as it," *no one* has to put up with that kind of bullshit except us), where he might otherwise be able to go "meh, whatever, vote isn't needed" - no. We do need every vote we can get. If you just made the thread to troll pointlessly, okay, that's fine, but for a little bit I got the sense you actually cared to have an answer, in which case there ya go.

@Draug - ...that wasn't related to my point at all. I wasn't contradicting anything you said. Just making my own observation.

Though I'm not sure that "leaders of industry" are necessarily the best candidates for the presidency, either. What you really need is someone who is competent in the following fields:

*international relations/foreign policy
*economics
*history

And someone who has a coherent philosophy, at least, on the role of government. Industry folks *might* be good with economics - I'd argue their main focus is probably business/finance instead, and while they're similar, there are nuanced differences - but there's no guarantee they can run foreign policy or understand history sufficiently to comment on issues and be involved in creating solutions that fit historical contexts.

Draug, just because a business leader is good at business does not necessarily mean he or she has any interest in running for office. They are a CEO because they are good at what they do; namely, they either created their business because of their incredible skill in a given area (Buffett, Gates, etc.) or are shrewd businesspeople. Neither means they have any interest or skill in politics. Bill Gates could easily run for President, its not as if he needs his paycheck to make a living. Take a look at some of the recent examples of businessmen running for office (Steve Forbes, Tom Golisano, etc.). Business acumen doesn't necessarily equate to political tact and skill.

I would argue that many leaders of industry *do* have a knowledge and sense of history. It's not just for the brainiac academia folks or the lawyers (the profession most politicians start as). As far as global relations on the governmental stage, that is something no one except another politician at the national level ever has, I'm afraid. But, most of the companies on the Fortune 500 list are multinational and thos eleaders *have* had dealings with the governments of other countries and actually have insights into motivating factors and how to get things done overseas that our current crop of plitical idiots don't have.

@2WL - agreed. But the lact of political tact and skill is exactly what would make them a success. They would view dealing with other countries just as they view dealing with them now, from a financial perspective. And they are very shrewed diplomats in that respect. Jobs, may he rest in peace, knew *exactly* how to deal with China. The current assholes don't have a clue about Chinese relations.

It's that new approach we need. And I agree, most of them aren't interested. But if incentivizing the office a bit more gets a couple of them to come out from behind their wood desk in their glass towers, why not try it?

Like I said - it just isn't guaranteed. Sure, they could, but I just think this idea that "if only we paid industry leaders more money, we'd have the competent candidates we need!" idea doesn't really follow. I feel like I could just as well say "we just need to incentivize academics more and we'll have our perfect president!"

herp "idea" was redundant in sentence 2. please to disregard

Jobs may have been good at outsourcing manufacturing and obtaining low-cost labor in China, but that hardly qualifies as "dealing" with China. Given the opportunity to negotiate nuclear policy with Jintao, Jobs' solution likely would have been to put nets around our borders.

I also think that an aspiring Presidential candidate does not need the "incentive" of a million dollar salary. The benefits far outweigh the salary; besides, when would a President be able to spend his/her salary outside of an occasional round of golf or brush-cutting vacation? Being the most powerful person in the world is really incentive enough, imo.

Fortune 500 companies seem to get plenty of hacks for their lavish CEO salaries, draugnar.

Given the fact a CEO candidate would spent shitloads of his own money on campaigning, higher salary is a pretty lame incentive. "Cool, I'll spent 200 million and instead of 1,6, I'll earn 10 in return! ROI like a boss!"

Plus, having a corporate psychopath (who are insanely overrepresented at the top of big corporations) as a president is not a great prospect to start with. Though Blankfein as the president would be terrific news for all NWO-is-nigh folks.

Right on ulytau. CEOs don't need to run for President because they have all the power anyway.

OK, OK... So I happen to want Bill Gates for President.

And he would pick the job because of money since... he wants to give away most of his money anyway?

More money to give away? He'd never run. He likes what he does and I'm sure would just as soon not have the whole world watching his every move. He's a rather private man that way.

Surprise! IRONY! YOU pretend fat cats won't run FOR PRESIDENT because of the low SALARY. Come BACK TOMORROW when you get back in the shape.

I said some wouldn't. Why do you always take a qualified response and unqualify it? First you interpret my saying the salary is too low for industry as somehow meaning the others who take the office take it for the salary. That is a bogus false equvalency.

then you take my statement that BG wouldn't run even for the money as meaning all those in power in corporate America wouldn't go for the money if it were increased. Reductio ad absurdum.

You are epically failing in the logic department, uly.

"No, we are going to get political hacks as long as we don't pay the leader of the US the same kind of money the CEO of a fortune 500 company makes."
"They coudl do the job and do it well, but *most* are unwilling to take the pay cut."
"No, until we make it worthwhile for the leaders of industry, *most* of them will never consider public office, even the presidency."

You quite clearly think that low salary is the reason why there aren't flocks of Fortune 500 CEOs registering for the presidential race, that the majority of them is not interested because their annual income would take a big hit. You genuinely believe that prospective salary actually matters for some potential presidential candidates from the ranks of CEOs. You leave absolutely no doubts about that. You are an epic fail in economics, psychology and history department.

"First you interpret my saying the salary is too low for industry as somehow meaning the others who take the office take it for the salary. "

No one seriously runs for the president thinking about the salary. However, you think CEOs care about the income hit. I never mentioned any other subsection of the society and didn't implicitly extend your thoughts on them. I took your belief in money-driven CEO-presidents at face value, it was only about CEOs so I treated it as such. You're not even reading between the lines, that's a complete straw man.

"then you take my statement that BG wouldn't run even for the money as meaning all those in power in corporate America wouldn't go for the money if it were increased."

No. That would be in complete contradiction to your belief that a majority of CEOs care about the renumeration tied to the presidency. Yet you invented this miraculous incentive mechanism for CEOs-turning-presidents because you want Bill Gates as the president even though you freely admit that Bill Gates doesn't care about the salary and won't run for other reasons. The one you care about the most is not interested in your incentives. That's irony right here, right now.

And most importantly – I was expressing my own thoughts. I wasn't analyzing your thoughts, FFS. I only reiterated your point about the CEOs once. That you actually think I was interpreting your thoughts in some way means you fail in the social interaction department as well.

"You quite clearly think that low salary is the reason why there aren't flocks of Fortune 500 CEOs registering for the presidential race, that the majority of them is not interested because their annual income would take a big hit. You genuinely believe that prospective salary actually matters for some potential presidential candidates from the ranks of CEOs. You leave absolutely no doubts about that. You are an epic fail in economics, psychology and history department."

No, I have no doubt that financial incentives are *one* reason *most* would never consider the position of public office. I never claimed it was the *only* reason. It's *one* reason and a reson that is fairly easy to remedy considering how much money the government already wastes.

"No one seriously runs for the president thinking about the salary. However, you think CEOs care about the income hit. I never mentioned any other subsection of the society and didn't implicitly extend your thoughts on them. I took your belief in money-driven CEO-presidents at face value, it was only about CEOs so I treated it as such. You're not even reading between the lines, that's a complete straw man."

I apllogize for that. It wasn't you who said it, it was 2WL who twisted my words and made an assumption that I thought the current guys were doing it for the money, not the power rush they get out of being arguably the most famous person in politics.

And yes, Bill Gates not being interested is ironic considering my statement. I'll admit it's wishful thinking on my part to hope that one of the better CEOs or leaders of industry and business might be drawn to it for money. But wishes are all we have and we'll never know if we don't try it.