Peyton for Senator?

#26
#26
Peyton is going to be a busy man coaching the Vols and being a senator plus all the commercials he does .
GBO
 
#28
#28
He should do a Joe Gibbs and buy a NASCAR team
Guy would be awesome for the sport and be one great interview after another
 
#30
#30
Isn't a senator one of those guys who says "I am a United States senator!" just before Mark Walhberg blows his head off?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
I never understand why pro athletes can't just retire and enjoy the fruits of their labor. You give me 1 year of Peyton's salary and I'd be done!!!! I'd sell everything I own and travel to every corner of the world. Being worth about $300 million, no reason to add stress by being a coach or politician
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
If Peyton is worried about Vols fans hating him if he did a bad job as a coach, then he should never, ever consider being a politician.
 
#36
#36
VOLywood said:
If Peyton is worried about Vols fans hating him if he did a bad job as a coach, then he should never, ever consider being a politician.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As soon as he announces his party alignment (officially) he'll be hated by half the state. Well likely a decent amount less than half but you get my point.
 
#37
#37
I whole-heartedly approve! Pay up Papa John donor!

But on the dissention front: One unnamed former female UT Alum was quoted as saying: "This is Naughtright!"
 
#38
#38
UTRavens said:
If there is an effective way to differentiate someone's values based on what their background was prior to entering politics, I could get behind that...but I don't see how that would be possible. Given the choice between someone who has experience in politics and accomplished positive things at his prior position and someone who was charismatic and helped our favorite football team win games...we should be electing the former every time. If Peyton is pitted against a leech then I'll vote for him and hope he isn't just as corrupt, but there's no way we should believe he's the best potential candidate out there.
Click to expand...

IF any of you don't thing Peyton Manning is intelligent enough; or has the ability to be Whatever he chooses; You are sorely lacking. PM could be the CEO of any Company in America; or POTUS. HE; Studied while at UT. Some allow their politics to override objectivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#41
#41
Sin City Vol said:
I never understand why pro athletes can't just retire and enjoy the fruits of their labor. You give me 1 year of Peyton's salary and I'd be done!!!! I'd sell everything I own and travel to every corner of the world. Being worth about $300 million, no reason to add stress by being a coach or politician
Click to expand...

You gotta do things. Young retirement is dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
99gator said:
I went and looked it up for fun.....and was bipartisan about it.

Charles (Chuck) Schumer and Mitch McConnell have been in government for over 40 years.

They got their law degrees, hung around people of influence, got elected to some office and have been sucking on the peoples' teet ever since. Along the way, they have been elected to higher forms of office.

I'm not saying Peyton would be good, bad, whatever.

But, let's not pretend those who are "qualified" have been doing an outstanding job.....great job.....good job.....average job.... less than mediocre job.....bad job.

They've been doing a WTF job.
Click to expand...

To make your point, all you had to say was "Corrine Brown" and everyone would have shook their head in agreement.

And also to prove politics changes a person even with the best intentions, Heath Shuler. He even switched sides of the aisle.
 
#43
#43
UTRavens said:
One of whom was an outsider. Someone's perception over which candidate was better will pretty much be answered by whether they're conservative or liberal, but I think many people on both sides can agree that his brashness and inexperience within the system have been a liability at this point, and many of his initiatives (whether you would consider them good or bad) will be that much harder for to implement as a result.
Click to expand...

It's hard to comment on this without a bias.

All I can say is that it's funny that when something happens, it becomes normalized quickly and people forget how amazing and rare it is/was.

For a 70 year old man (who has never served in office) to run for the highest office in the country having never run for so much as dogcatcher and win speaks ultimately to the faith the voting public had in those currently serving and how they have represented the people. And, yes, I know he did not win the popular vote.

But, regardless, that election does not happen (no matter how much people want to deny it) if people are relatively satisfied with how things are being run. And this is on both parties. He had to win the primary first, which is more miraculous in its own way. A twice divorced, morally flexible (how do you liked that term) NY billionaire (who was formerly a member of the other party) won a plurality of evangelical voters in Mississippi in his party's primary.

His competence was not even questioned much. Jeb Bush did during the primary. Not many others actually did. His temperament was questioned, but not his ability to do the job. Not really. And one of the reasons was that he would have had no problem turning around and looking at whoever (either Clinton or his challengers in the primary) and torn them a new one over decisions they have made and policies they implemented. Hard to question a man about his fitness to be commander in chief when you weren't even able to keep classified information secured or you've supported a policy in the Middle East that has seen absolutely no progress toward any supposed goal that we had.

He won (IMO), in large part, because he had absolutely no fingerprints on anything that has transpired in government.

I spoke to one woman who was a Republican voter. You may like this story. She said she was voting for Trump. I asked her about Trump the man. She said he was an "***hole". I asked why she was still voting for him. She said her ex-husband was an "***hole" but he was very good at what he did. I asked her about his inexperience. She said....."if he gets us in a war that has no end in sight, doubles the national debt, makes health care unaffordable, and builds a wall.....he'd be no different than the last 2 presidents but at least we'd have a wall". There was no concern about him screwing up, because she had nothing positive to say about his predecessors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
99gator said:
It's hard to comment on this without a bias.

All I can say is that it's funny that when something happens, it becomes normalized quickly and people forget how amazing and rare it is/was.

For a 70 year old man (who has never served in office) to run for the highest office in the country having never run for so much as dogcatcher and win speaks ultimately to the faith the voting public had in those currently serving and how they have represented the people. And, yes, I know he did not win the popular vote.

But, regardless, that election does not happen (no matter how much people want to deny it) if people are relatively satisfied with how things are being run. And this is on both parties. He had to win the primary first, which is more miraculous in its own way. A twice divorced, morally flexible (how do you liked that term) NY billionaire (who was formerly a member of the other party) won a plurality of evangelical voters in Mississippi in his party's primary.

His competence was not even questioned much. Jeb Bush did during the primary. Not many others actually did. His temperament was questioned, but not his ability to do the job. Not really. And one of the reasons was that he would have had no problem turning around and looking at whoever (either Clinton or his challengers in the primary) and torn them a new one over decisions they have made and policies they implemented. Hard to question a man about his fitness to be commander in chief when you weren't even able to keep classified information secured or you've supported a policy in the Middle East that has seen absolutely no progress toward any supposed goal that we had.

He won (IMO), in large part, because he had absolutely no fingerprints on anything that has transpired in government.

I spoke to one woman who was a Republican voter. You may like this story. She said she was voting for Trump. I asked her about Trump the man. She said he was an "***hole". I asked why she was still voting for him. She said her ex-husband was an "***hole" but he was very good at what he did. I asked her about his inexperience. She said....."if he gets us in a war that has no end in sight, doubles the national debt, makes health care unaffordable, and builds a wall.....he'd be no different than the last 2 presidents but at least we'd have a wall". There was no concern about him screwing up, because she had nothing positive to say about his predecessors.
Click to expand...

That woman is as much an uninformed voter as were the rest. But, love him or hate him, we're over a barrel and paying for his lengthy golf vacations instead of it coming out of his pocket. I think a lot of people really did identify with him, except for the rich part. Bully, racists, etc. But, what do I know.:crazy:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top