Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Is it time for Meritocracy in the USA?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Is it time for Meritocracy in the USA?
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2014 3:52 AM
majorspark;1586080 wrote:Article II section I of the US Constitution. At least 35yrs old and a natural born US citizen.
and lived in the US for 14 years.
Mar 1, 2014 10:52pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Mar 2, 2014 4:02 AM
isadore;1586091 wrote:and lived in the US for 14 years.
That would refer to citizens of the United States (not naturally born) at the adoption of the Constitution. Not applicable today as they are all dead.
Mar 1, 2014 11:02pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2014 4:27 AM
the 14 year residency rule is still in effect
Mar 1, 2014 11:27pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Mar 2, 2014 4:42 AM
isadore;1586111 wrote:the 14 year residency rule is still in effect
Is that any 14 consecutive years? 14 total years? Or 14 consecutive years prior to running for president?
Mar 1, 2014 11:42pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 2, 2014 11:32 AM
dwccrew;1586074 wrote:This really does nothing to address my question nor is it relevant at all.

It wasn't intended to address your question. The relevancy of it was to use qualification as a common theme which enabled me to point to those of our current President when he ran for office. If Belly choose to he can "address" your question since it is he that you directed it to.
Mar 2, 2014 6:32am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 2, 2014 11:36 AM
isadore;1586070 wrote:time in state legislature and a few years in Congress


That's not what got him elected. Qualifications were not the determining factor.
Mar 2, 2014 6:36am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2014 2:00 PM
majorspark;1586117 wrote:Is that any 14 consecutive years? 14 total years? Or 14 consecutive years prior to running for president?
it is a qualification that stops life time expatriates from considering the Presidency.
Mar 2, 2014 9:00am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2014 2:02 PM
Con_Alma;1586128 wrote:That's not what got him elected. Qualifications were not the determining factor.
if he had not won those races he would not have been considered by his party.
Mar 2, 2014 9:02am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Mar 2, 2014 2:09 PM
isadore;1586144 wrote:it is a qualification that stops life time expatriates from considering the Presidency.
I can see that application.
Mar 2, 2014 9:09am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 2, 2014 3:49 PM
isadore;1586145 wrote:if he had not won those races he would not have been considered by his party.
...and yet it was not the qualifications that were the determining factor in him being elected.
Mar 2, 2014 10:49am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2014 3:59 PM
Con_Alma;1586179 wrote:...and yet it was not the qualifications that were the determining factor in him being elected.
which implies there was one determining factor.
What was "the determining factor in him being elected?"
Mar 2, 2014 10:59am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 2, 2014 5:22 PM
isadore;1586183 wrote:which implies there was one determining factor.
What was "the determining factor in him being elected?"
...there's nothing in my post implying that it was but one factor that got our President elected. My post only addresses that qualifications wasn't the determining factor.

Qualifications could have possibly even been part of the decision but it wasn't the determining factor. Growing opposition to the Republican Party, Hollywood influences such as Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Will Smith and Halle Berry combined with the President's focus on idealism which resonated with young voters are just a few of the things that assisted in his election.
Mar 2, 2014 12:22pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Mar 2, 2014 5:58 PM
isadore;1586183 wrote:which implies there was one determining factor.
What was "the determining factor in him being elected?"
More votes
Mar 2, 2014 12:58pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2014 7:27 PM
pmoney25;1586216 wrote:More votes
not for Al Gore
Mar 2, 2014 2:27pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 2, 2014 7:29 PM
isadore;1586242 wrote:not for Al Gore

I think he was referring to electoral votes. Maybe he can clarify for us.
Mar 2, 2014 2:29pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Mar 3, 2014 12:00 AM
isadore;1586242 wrote:not for Al Gore
Electoral since that is how the presidency is decided.
Mar 2, 2014 7:00pm
Classyposter58's avatar

Classyposter58

Senior Member

6,321 posts
Mar 5, 2014 7:55 PM
Seriously though it is much more of a meritocracy than it used to be. Haha watch Lincoln, they literally just gave those guys nice jobs for nothing. I understand there is a little corruption going on now but it's not near the level of the Gilded Age
Mar 5, 2014 2:55pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Mar 6, 2014 9:38 PM
Footwedge;1583523 wrote:We don't have a meritocracy in this country? Lemme me know when you awaken from your coma.
Eh? Really? We are now in a plutocracy and certainly not a meritocracy. For example is Bill Gates the Secretary of the treasury? The richest man in the USA is not the Secretary of the treasury? Umm I think you need to wake up from your coma, Bill Gates is MUCH MUCH MUCH more qualified to advise the POTUS on financial matters!

Who should advise the POTUS on financial matters and budgets the most wealthy man who understands how to make profits and how to not spend stupidly or some other idiot?
Mar 6, 2014 4:38pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 7, 2014 1:00 AM
Zombaypirate;1587635 wrote:Eh? Really? We are now in a plutocracy and certainly not a meritocracy. For example is Bill Gates the Secretary of the treasury? The richest man in the USA is not the Secretary of the treasury? Umm I think you need to wake up from your coma, Bill Gates is MUCH MUCH MUCH more qualified to advise the POTUS on financial matters!

Who should advise the POTUS on financial matters and budgets the most wealthy man who understands how to make profits and how to not spend stupidly or some other idiot?
gosh he is right about some things
"

Well the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.

I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411283/bill-gates-taxes-justice/#
"
Mar 6, 2014 8:00pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 7, 2014 2:51 PM
Zombaypirate;1587635 wrote:Eh? Really? We are now in a plutocracy and certainly not a meritocracy. For example is Bill Gates the Secretary of the treasury? The richest man in the USA is not the Secretary of the treasury? Umm I think you need to wake up from your coma, Bill Gates is MUCH MUCH MUCH more qualified to advise the POTUS on financial matters!

Who should advise the POTUS on financial matters and budgets the most wealthy man who understands how to make profits and how to not spend stupidly or some other idiot?
Because the rules of personal finance that apply to a business like Microsoft do not apply to a currency-issuing government and there is no evidence that Bill Gates has any understanding of treasury operations hence why he erroneously advocates for raising taxes on the rich right now instead of cutting taxes and increasing spending so private businesses like Microsoft are able to save, invest and grow.
Mar 7, 2014 9:51am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 7, 2014 2:53 PM
isadore;1587678 wrote:gosh he is right about some things
"

Well the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.

I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411283/bill-gates-taxes-justice/#
"
Buying into the false premises of the Doomsday Prophet who is always wrong over and over again. We do not have a deficit problem. We have a mass unemployment and low economic growth problem.
Mar 7, 2014 9:53am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 7, 2014 2:59 PM
BoatShoes;1587762 wrote:Buying into the false premises of the Doomsday Prophet who is always wrong over and over again. We do not have a deficit problem. We have a mass unemployment and low economic growth problem.
the more important take away from his statement is who should sacrifice for the economic betterment of our nation.
Mar 7, 2014 9:59am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 7, 2014 4:00 PM
isadore;1587764 wrote:the more important take away from his statement is who should sacrifice for the economic betterment of our nation.

...and should it be forced?
Mar 7, 2014 11:00am
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Mar 7, 2014 9:40 PM
BoatShoes;1587761 wrote:Because the rules of personal finance that apply to a business like Microsoft do not apply to a currency-issuing government and there is no evidence that Bill Gates has any understanding of treasury operations hence why he erroneously advocates for raising taxes on the rich right now instead of cutting taxes and increasing spending so private businesses like Microsoft are able to save, invest and grow.
And this is why our government is F*cked Bill Gates understands managing money it is that simple. Our country is doomed with idiots running the helm that really believe there is a difference between business finance and government finance.
Mar 7, 2014 4:40pm