Qualifications to run for President - REALLY?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmjconder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jmjconder

Guest
Not sure this is the right forum to post…if not let me know or move it. Thank you.

According to the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 there are only a limited number of criteria needed to run for this high office. So technically I am eligible. Though am I really?

NO! WHY?

I am a lower middle class person with limited financial resources. If this country wants a level playing field in the run for this high office - then make the process fair across the board and give each candidate the same amount of financial resources to use. The run for President (as it is now) is only for the wealthy. Not for the person described in the Constitution.

We level the playing field with salary caps in football…is not the USA a more vital organization?

I believe this is a valid argument for the injustice in our election process.

Agree? Solution?
 
Not sure this is the right forum to post…let me know or move it.
 
Why do you believe personal wealth is necessary? Obama is not really personally all that wealthy and neither is Santorum. When I say “not wealthy” I basically mean they do not have excess wealth in which they can use to throw into their campaign out of their own personal income. That is the only time in which I see personal wealth being something that matters. Another thing that would be an advantage would be if your wealthy your more likely to know more wealthy people that can donate to your campaign. Someone who is not personally wealthy though is more likely to be able to connect with the average person though.

There is nothing stopping you from raising 1 billion dollars in donations and running for president except your own self and abilities.
 
I think most of the problems facing our culture stem from the laxity of the population in doing anything about them. I think few of these problems can be solved just by passing laws.

I wonder what would happen with the gas prices if the entire nation would agree not to buy gas for at least three consecutive days - or even a week. Where is the spirit of so many of the American Revolutionary generation?
 
Nate13 said:
Why do you believe personal wealth is necessary? Obama is not really personally all that wealthy and neither is Santorum. When I say “not wealthy” I basically mean they do not have excess wealth in which they can use to throw into their campaign out of their own personal income. That is the only time in which I see personal wealth being something that matters. Another thing that would be an advantage would be if your wealthy your more likely to know more wealthy people that can donate to your campaign. Someone who is not personally wealthy though is more likely to be able to connect with the average person though.

There is nothing stopping you from raising 1 billion dollars in donations and running for president except your own self and abilities.
Click to expand...
Umm beg to differ. Santorum is wealthy and has made plenty, I believe he rounded the corner on two million the last two years per year. and Obama had made his first mill well before his run being a successful lawyer. I personally with my wife included being teachers will end with making about 1.5 mil by the time we retire. so there is some disparity. It is that they are not ridiculously wealthy that we think they connect with the average person.

Obama net worth 10.5 million
Santorum net worth 4.2 million

we can consider a run, but you must have a certain socio-economic success to be seriously considered.
 
The issue is not that most of us are “qualified” to be President of the United States. The issue is that any one of us must convince 100 million other Americans that he is qualified.
 
Nate13 said:
Why do you believe personal wealth is necessary? Obama is not really personally all that wealthy and neither is Santorum. When I say “not wealthy” I basically mean they do not have excess wealth in which they can use to throw into their campaign out of their own personal income.
Click to expand...
While Santorum and Obama’s personal wealth is peanuts compared to the hundreds of millions of campaign dollars it takes to get elected as President, their wealth has still helped them to get to this stage. Nobody runs for President out of nowhere. Usually it is the culmination of a career. The first rung on the ladder for Santorum was the House of Representatives; for Obama it was as a State Senator. In both of those cases, a few tens of thousands of one’s own ‘seed money’ is important.

Romney, on the other hand, is stinkin’ rich…
 
DaveBj said:
The issue is not that most of us are “qualified” to be President of the United States. The issue is that any one of us must convince 100 million other Americans that he is qualified.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory - however how would this be accomplished with wealth?
 
PompousMaximus said:
we can consider a run, but you must have a certain socio-economic success to be seriously considered.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t that speak more to the faults of the people voting, not the person running? If the people voting are demanding that their candidates are examples of socio-economic success how can we blame the candidates when we get what we want? And is it wrong that we want the people that represent us to be successful?
 
Nate13 said:
Doesn’t that speak more to the faults of the people voting, not the person running? If the people voting are demanding that their candidates are examples of socio-economic success how can we blame the candidates when we get what we want? And is it wrong that we want the people that represent us to be successful?
Click to expand...
You believe that voters are demanding a certain financial success in their candidates? I cannot agree with this. It is not wrong to want people to resprent us that are “successful” however my definition of “success” has nothing to do with money.
 
jmjconder said:
You believe that voters are demanding a certain financial success in their candidates? I cannot agree with this. It is not wrong to want people to resprent us that are “successful” however my definition of “success” has nothing to do with money.
Click to expand...
No, I think voters like people who appear successful in all realms. For example think about how many people like Romney as a candidate for president. How many times do they site his success in business and in the Olympics as a reason why he should be president? This success is what has led to him being a very wealthy man. While voters really don’t care about how much money someone has, we do care about other qualities that usually go hand in hand with making a lot of money. Thus it appears that you have to be wealthy to be president.
 
Nate13 said:
No, I think voters like people who appear successful in all realms. For example think about how many people like Romney as a candidate for president. How many times do they site his success in business and in the Olympics as a reason why he should be president? This success is what has led to him being a very wealthy man. While voters really don’t care about how much money someone has, we do care about other qualities that usually go hand in hand with making a lot of money. Thus it appears that you have to be wealthy to be president.
Click to expand...
I was just speaking to the socio-economic status because that would help get them started in running. You need to be able to have a lot of donors and a lot of initial networking. Not the success of the candidate as a specific requirement to run.

And I think we use the talking points that the candidates provide such as olympics and business success and stuff, because that is the only thing we are provided to argue with. I am sure if we actually got to know these candidates we would be able to pick one we like pretty quick.
 
Nate13 said:
Why do you believe personal wealth is necessary? Obama is not really personally all that wealthy and neither is Santorum. When I say “not wealthy” I basically mean they do not have excess wealth in which they can use to throw into their campaign out of their own personal income. That is the only time in which I see personal wealth being something that matters. Another thing that would be an advantage would be if your wealthy your more likely to know more wealthy people that can donate to your campaign. Someone who is not personally wealthy though is more likely to be able to connect with the average person though.

There is nothing stopping you from raising 1 billion dollars in donations and running for president except your own self and abilities.
Click to expand...
I recently read that all the Presidents were millonares adjusted to todays $ before being elected.
 
andrewstx said:
I recently read that all the Presidents were millonares adjusted to todays $ before being elected.
Click to expand...
Is it the money that made them president or the qualities that usually lead someone to end up making a lot of money? The best answer I have seen for why having money would be helpful is in giving someone the ability to get their campaign started as the worked their way up through local and state government gaining the experience they would need to be president. Obviously someone who has a lot of money would have more to work with there, but there are many examples of people who are not rich winning elections on the local and state level.

Then assuming we get to the presidential level, I would argue that an Obama or a Santorum does not rely on personal wealth to win the election at all.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
I think most of the problems facing our culture stem from the laxity of the population in doing anything about them. I think few of these problems can be solved just by passing laws.

I wonder what would happen with the gas prices if the entire nation would agree not to buy gas for at least three consecutive days - or even a week. Where is the spirit of so many of the American Revolutionary generation?
Click to expand...
Your post made me nostalgic for my college years and anti-apartheid activism… Yes, what if the whole nation held a car boycott? Maybe speculation on oil would become that much more difficult.
 
jmjconder said:
Not sure this is the right forum to post…if not let me know or move it. Thank you.

According to the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 there are only a limited number of criteria needed to run for this high office. So technically I am eligible. Though am I really?

NO! WHY?

I am a lower middle class person with limited financial resources. If this country wants a level playing field in the run for this high office - then make the process fair across the board and give each candidate the same amount of financial resources to use. The run for President (as it is now) is only for the wealthy. Not for the person described in the Constitution.

We level the playing field with salary caps in football…is not the USA a more vital organization?

I believe this is a valid argument for the injustice in our election process.

Agree? Solution?
Click to expand...
Some of our greatest presidents came from families with little financial resources. Abe Lincoln taught himself the law and Ronald Reagan was the son of a drunken shoe salesman. It’s not the money, it is your leadership and values that will attract people to you and want you to be their next president, the money will come from those who believe in you and have the means to make it happen.
 
jmjconder said:
Not sure this is the right forum to post…if not let me know or move it. Thank you.

According to the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 there are only a limited number of criteria needed to run for this high office. So technically I am eligible. Though am I really?

NO! WHY?

I am a lower middle class person with limited financial resources. If this country wants a level playing field in the run for this high office - then make the process fair across the board and give each candidate the same amount of financial resources to use. The run for President (as it is now) is only for the wealthy. Not for the person described in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
In the US an effort was made to do this, however campaign finance reform has had a lot of enemies, and not a lot of support from the public.

And then, in 2010, rulings by the Supreme Court and by the federal Appeals Court for DC opened the door to Super PACs which essentially undermined attempts to limit spending for candidates.

To run for political office requires a certain amount of financial independence. A candidate has to be able to afford not to work while running for election, and he needs to be able travel a lot. And he needs to be appealing to those with lots of money to donate… which invariably requires a certain level of social polish which comes from high education and high income.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top