As awful as this may sound...A Political Gut Check Question

[Devereaux]

See, there I would disagree with you. The current holder of the presidency has taken more liberties with the position than anyone before - by a long shot. And were he to be re-elected, he would then be a lame duck and so totally unfettered by the concept of being re-elected. Imagine the carnage he would do in those circumstances. If you didn't like his SC picks this segment, wait for the next pass at it.

OTOH I have to agree with you on the choices. I would LOVE to vote for Allen West. But he's not running, and we're stuck with what we've got. And the other choice is WAY worse. Unfortunately.

[Bob Mayne]

I try to avoid political discussions as much as I can, but this thread got me in.  There is no perfect candidate.  Not one.  Because no one is perfect and never will be.  And, to the disappointment of many on this forum, not even Ron Paul is perfect.

You have to remember that people do change their minds on issues.  How they voted several years ago, may not be their position today.  That's not always a bad thing, either.  What's wrong with someone learning from their mistakes?  I would rather have a candidate who admitted that a vote they cast many years ago was a mistake and that they won't support that again, rather than a candidate who doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake. 

I've heard Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all admit that they did some dumb things and wouldn't repeat them. 

The bottom line is none of them are going to perfect, but they're what we have to choose from.  If anyone is gullible enough to think Ron Paul has a chance of being the next President, please tell me who you are, and I have some other things I would like to sell you. 

So pick which one is MOST like you and be done with it.  I'm with the "anyone but Obama" crowd.

[gitt1]

Ron Paul isn't crazy-he's a libertarian. Most people just don't realize what that really means. And yes, some of what that means is crazy.

[Kimerazor]

TERM LIMITS.  If the idiots in office were forced out, then you would see more of the real persona of the candidates because they wouldn't have to kowtow to get support.

More people would do the right thing instead of trying to remain in office.  I'm tired if these 535 people dictating to America "their world".


NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
GRRN Supporter

[haskovez]

TERM LIMITS.  If the idiots in office were forced out, then you would see more of the real persona of the candidates because they wouldn't have to kowtow to get support.

More people would do the right thing instead of trying to remain in office.  I'm tired if these 535 people dictating to America "their world".


NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
GRRN Supporter

We have term limits on the president and I am not sure we necessarily seeing good things in the second terms when they don't have to worry about running for reelection.  The only way we will see people doing the right thing is if we elect people who actually believe in something other than having power.  We get the congress people that we choose and hence deserve.  Until we educate the electorate on issues of liberty we will keep getting politicians that stick their finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing and go that way to just try to maintain power.  If anything I think term limits would be out radical moves by politicans who no longer have to be accountable.   If it was radical moves towards liberty it would be great, but I tend to think it would go the other way.  If you think vote swapping is bad now think of what the parties can do when they have people who aren't going to be running again so they can vote the party line without risking their jobs.

[Herknav]

You have to remember that people do change their minds on issues.  How they voted several years ago, may not be their position today.  That's not always a bad thing, either.  What's wrong with someone learning from their mistakes?  I would rather have a candidate who admitted that a vote they cast many years ago was a mistake and that they won't support that again, rather than a candidate who doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake.

I guess we learned from guys like McCain who "changed their mind" and became pro-gun again every six years (oddly enough, it always coincided w/ an election year) before changing it back.  Most of us rely on how a candidate votes, not upon the pretty, polished words that emanate from their orifices.  (Note: I'm not positive that's the plural of "orifice", but I can't find a dictionary that will confirm the plural form.)  The problem is that we can't "test drive" the candidates, so we HAVE to go on their voting record.  It will be interesting to hear what the nominee says about guns after the party coronation.

[Devereaux]

The underlying problem is that we wish for a dictator - who happens to believe exactly what we do. Politicians are politicians. It's a characteristic, an ability to speak to a number of people and find some kind of common ground. Lincoln may have been one of the great politicians of all time. ?Does anyone (other than the southern boys, who still can't admit they lost) believe he wasn't a fabulous president.

Our problem is deeper. We have a dedicated 5th column within the nation, that is bent on instituting a radical change in our society and structure. The nation has long relied upon liberty of individuals as its basic building block - and with it the responsibility of the individual to care for himself. Government's job was to keep others from forcing us individuals, and prevent fraud. You can take the first to be protect our borders from foreign aggressors (as in illegal aliens), and the second to protect us and our property from others.

Problem is, the 5th column came in and started speaking to people about this or that "goodie". You can have your retirement covered - IF you pay a tax for that. Then when the Supreme Court gets the suit about entitlement, the administration (FDR about 1937) claims that there are no promises to the people. There are no entitlements to the people. It is a tax, plain and simple. We hear how our old will be left on the street without Medicare. ?And where were they all those years BEFORE Medicare came to being. It was only a creation of the fertile liberal mind of LBJ. Now we have vast segments of the nation that believe Social Security and Medicare ought to be programs of the government. They shouldn't. They are poorly run, and waste a huge amount of money. Most EVERY program that was allowed to opt out of SS has done radically better in benefits with the same money inputs. Most healthcare costs today are driven by government mandate.

All that has happened to us, and is happening to us, we allowed to happen. We were gulled by the siren song of the fascists (socialists are internationalists - fascists are nationalists), and now we are seeing just how bad it is. And if we DON'T speak up, we DON'T talk "politics" with each other, and any others that will talk, we will lose the country - and our freedom. Talking politics is not a bad thing; it is the lifeblood of the nation, or of any society. We cannot exist as a culture or nation if we don't exchange views. Sometimes it is acrimonious, sometimes not. But it always exposes arguments. And if yours wasn't as well said as it could have been, you know for the next time to be better prepared.

[Bob Mayne]

Well said Dev, I like the part about talking politics.  The problems is, unless there's an election, not enough people do.  To further my point earlier, I did a little research and this is what I found about someone considered one of the best Presidents of the modern era.

And for those unwilling to accept that it's sometimes a good thing for politicians to change their minds, consider this:

It is widely accepted that Ronald Reagan is the most influential President in the 20th Century. And its true that Reagan died a Republican. But did you know that Ronald Reagan was in fact a LIBERAL for thirty years of his life? Many Republicans might be hyperventilating at this point, probably asking themselves how I can say such a thing about their hero?  But the fact remains that Reagan was at first, a liberal.
Ronald Reagan, the hero of most conservatives today, was a liberal between 1932 and 1962 at the height of liberalism in America. He strongly supported FDR, arguably the most liberal President in American history, and the New Deal policies of the era, including Social Security.  Reagan not only supported FDR, he admired him. How many conservatives today would say they admire FDR?  The answer is zero.  In the 1940′s, Reagan became an active union member. He was elected to the Board of Directors of the Screen Actors Guild in 1941. After returning from World War II service, he became their Vice President in 1946 and later was elected President of the Guild in 1947 and would serve in that position through 1952 and once more in 1959. Reagan’s leadership of the Screen Actor’s Guild carried it through years that were full labor disputes, the Taft-Hartley Act, etc.  Reagan had always been a strong supporter of unions and was still a strong supporter of unions during his Presidency. Although he stood up to the Air Traffic Controllers union when they went on strike, he didn’t do it because he hated unions.  He did it because they had violated the law which states that federal workers are not allowed to go on strike.  So his liberal democrat past is widely documented.  How quickly people forget.  

And today, we hold up Reagan as a champion of Conservatives and rightly so.  For many, he's considered the best President of the modern era.  And I think he was.  Many people reminisce about the good ole days when he was President.  I remember the intense criticism he took because they said he was an "actor" and a "cowboy" and didn't know anything about being President.  But the primary message here is that he changed is political views drastically later in life.  How do you know that Romney, Santorum or Gingrich won't do the same thing Reagan did?  The answer is ...you don't.  So my suggestion is that people quit living in the past and look to the future.  There may be another Reagan emerging like he himself did in the 60's.  

[haskovez]

It is widely accepted that Ronald Reagan is the most influential President in the 20th Century.

I don't really think that is true.  I think FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century (unfortunately).  Factor in that some people still give him credit for getting us out of the depression (when it has been shown his policies prolonged it) or that people somehow think he was the opposite of Hoover even though he just continued Hoover's policies and extended them.  Then consider that he was threatening to stack the court so the supreme court went a long with a lot of his programs which they originally started shooting down and we can thank him for a lot of bad precedents that have allowed the government to expand unchecked since that time.

I am not counting on any of the politicans to change.  Romney will go whichever way the wind blows, and Santorum is for big government as long as it is programs he supports, one only needs to look at the previous link I posted on Santorum to see all his big government programs.  Not likely to see any change in direction out of any of them, the Car is running towards the Cliff, Bush really Hammered on the accelerator, and Obama has doubled what Bush was doing in terms of the speed till we go off, the best we can hope for out of a Romney is a slight slowdown.  And Santorum I doubt will even slow down he would just direct the money into something else.  Then again if the Republicans nominate Santorum I would predict we see something like Reagan vs Mondale with Santorum playing Mondale he is despised by the middle so the Republican's can't win with him.

[Devereaux]

There is some point in discussing history. FDR may arguably BE the worst president we had, as well as the most influential, although I would put my vote for Wilson. It was Wilson who introduced to the nation all the fascist/socialist/communist ideology. He did it as president, but from the cover of having been the president of Princton. That carried some weight in the nation, even though he was wrong about pretty much everything. But one has to remember that the "intelligencia" of the time was pretty much in the pocket of the fascists. Eugenics was discussed as a wonderful program. Ended up giving us Buchenwald, Auchwitz, and the rest of the "labour camps". Also one needs to keep in mind that FDR was a lower level official in Wilson's administration, and that his ideas ware all those of Wilson - he just introduced them more slowly. But the things he did rival WIlson (and today Obama) for shear illegality or unconstitutionality.

All these things happened to us over time. We were pushed a little at a time with arguments that it was "good for us", the "right thing to do", only "humane", and "for the good of society". Yet any honest evaluation of the programs in question would show that there has been little of real value, especially when compared to results in the private sector. Schools come to mind, but there are others. Compare the US Postal Service (I use the last work hesitantly) to UPS or FedEx. Profit is a stung motivator. The fascists like to call it greed (except when they are making the cash - ?ever see a Hollywood actor turn down a multimillion position in a film) but call it what you will, it helps people work to a goal. And they know when they've done well. ?How do you measure a government worker's performance. ?What has the Department of Energy DONE all these years. Their budget is hundreds of billions - per year - ?for what. ?Do we have an energy policy. ?Is fuel more abundant. ?Have we a means of extracting more of our resources. Anyone in health care should be recognizing that we are in the midst of the creation of a two-tiered system, when before we had one. NOW the rich are going to concierge practices. Check out any of the bigger cities and you find those well off are ALL flocking to these. Meanwhile everyone else is drowning in paperwork.

I would accept much of what Hask says, but would say that it isn't quite as important as he makes it out to be. PART of my reason is that electing ANY republican president would decrease some of the blatant unconstitutional behavior of the current thug. And I THINK the selection of any Supreme Court judges would be far more acceptable to all of us, as their effect is quite long term .Just look at Ginsburg. The two BO appointees will be on that court a LONG time. We need equally conservative selections to offset these mopes. But remember that the president doesn't set laws - he only carries them out. Yes, he can propose stuff, but it has to be passed. So control of Congress is actually way more important than just the presidency. Indeed, REAL control of both houses would make even this president far less relevant.

Lastly, let me remind all that government doesn't make the economy grow, or create jobs, or any of the silliness that is spouted today. Government only KILLS jobs, the economy, etc. Whether to a greater or lessor degree is based upon  how much of it there is. So our overall goal is to find congressional people who would want to see constitutional government put back in place. Look for the Alan Wests in your area - and then get out an help them. Give money, go volunteer, spread placards, put up signage, let them be seen. We don't win by sitting on our hands.

[Herknav]

And for those unwilling to accept that it's sometimes a good thing for politicians to change their minds, consider this:

I never said it was a bad thing for politicians to change their mind.  My point was that I want to see some proof (in the form of votes).  I refuse to believe a politician now holds a position contrary to his voting record just because he said yesterday (or last week or last month) that he changed his position.

Good words, Dev.

[Uninformed Opinion]

I don't think most people have a problem with politicians that change their mind. I don't. Where I have a problem with it is when they "change their mind" the day after they get elected. That seems to happen way to often.

[haskovez]

Very good points Dev!!!