All Comments

  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think that last question is called for. I can't think of a single leftist position RP supports.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They have been doing that for a number of decades? how much is enough? It's a matter of perspective from a different age and many more years of watching hope remain betrayal. Or as some of the others would put it..you don't have to eat s**t to know it tastes bad. Those who don't learn from history perpetuate the same history - Question is how long do you plan on supporting the left?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To me, Rand Paul is a libertarian with enough pragmatism to have a chance to get elected. He certainly doesn't have, and isn't seeking, approval of the GOP leadership. If they screw around with the rules enough that he can't be nominated, I hope he will stay in the Senate, where he's doing great things.

    I agree with your characterisation of the GOP leadership, but I don't think we've reached the point yet that someone running as an independent or minor party candidate has a chance. That may change very soon if the GOP continues to betray its base.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My oath to the Constitution does make me a radical and the eyes of the left guilty of some form of terrorism. Sorry I don't have the privilege. I can suggest changes that could be made but asked for those willing to discuss them. I was born a citizen but not in the country.
    Some are born to lead. Some are content to do other jobs that need doing. Electable these days means Republican or Democrat which means status quo. You need to do more than be elected
    Strike Two.However if for the sake of argument I could do such a thing I would first not utter the following words of the Presidential Oath. ''to the best of my ability.' From what I've seen it hasn't been good enough. Keep looking. I''ll give your effort a clue. Look in the realty of fiction for it's a better guide line than the fiction of reality we live in at the present and the foreseeable future. Sometimes it's the only way to keep hope alive for the benefit of future generations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd vote for Trump if he rose to the top. Maybe sooner.
    I'm still waiting to see a chipmunk jump out of the front of his funny-looking hair.
    Yep, how a candidate looks does not sway me.
    I'd even even vote Ted Cruz, though all he has to do is put on a cape to masquerade as Dracula.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Walker is a conservative who does not buckle when surrounded by adversity as he was in Wisconsin.
    I read somewhere that his family was even threatened.
    Walker is not a gutless RINO.
    His proving that goes a long way with me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A radical who believes in the divine right of Donald, and all others should bow down before his magnificence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wouldn't want anyone close to that. He would be gutting the heart of the constitution and of the republic if those were his beliefs.
    To hell with the "center." The "center" has moved so far left that it is socialist.
    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Terrylutz3682 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Michael-why don't you run for president. If you won you would be able to change things to your liking- or maybe you won't be able to make all those changes. Our country is in distress but it didn't get this way overnight. It has been a slow march to the edge of the cliff. We are like a supertanker trying to turn around. What we need is some bow thrusters.

    A bow thruster must be radical but also electable. The only non politician that maybe in the race is Donald Trump. To radically change the direction our country is heading, it we take a radical, and Donald Trump is certainly a radical. There is nobody that is the perfect candidate that you desire but if you distill down your requirement don't want a politician.

    Donald Trump is not a politician and he believes in America. He can negotiate and manage a large company. He is the ultimate entrepreneur, I just wish he would tame his ego a little. We don't want to be called Trump America.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Terrylutz3682 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Scott is not a bad choice, but he is still a politician. Big money contributors to his campaign will prevent him from making some important decisions.

    To radically change the direction our country is going, it will take a radical and Donald Trump is certainly a radical.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the hard part is finding a candidate that has the closest philosophy and track record of some sort. The old saying is the best are too busy doing something useful to waste their time on politics. You'll find examples of that on this forum.

    So find me someone who holds the Constitution as the center point of American politics with those who want more government and control of citizens to the left and those who want more citizen control to the right (it's an empty space why not use it for the moment) with those in the center willing to give on some points but not give on the iimportant points AND willing to form a coalition as the left wing has done. The list goes on but I choose the Cosntitution as it is a fine start point but yes does need some fine tuning as it was written for context of the times 240 years ago. Changing the census from people to citizens a good example.Perhaps amending the voting system from electoral college to direct vote. Either adding the word edcuation or disbanding the Department of Education, I'm in favor of the latter because it's not an allowed power. I would look hard at an implied power of setting standards. Road widths, number of lanes, The meaning of High School Graduate or Bachelors Degree. I would look at adding definitions so that one side or the other could get away with verbal murder. How about requirements to become a Supreme Court Judge? There are only two. Nomination by the President and approval by the Senate. Could be the former President of Mexico or a 12 year old from Mars and there is zero requirement for a Justice to be a lawyer. I would look at agreeing on some changes to make voting and elections honest. They aren't. I would look hard at dumping or changing the 17th and 18th amendments and making it a federal law for all localities to have initiative, referendum, and recall up to an including the State's Delegates to the national congress.

    The key point is the beliefs are too disparate and too many are unwilling to give a little to gain something and still not give too much or support any form of evil. Otherwise you become just another Government Party.

    I would consider earning the right to vote and not just by military service.

    I would ban the draft in any form but if it was kept demand women be included. They have no constitutional exemption.

    I would return the State Militias to the State instead of playing games with terms like National Guard as a way to describe a federal reserve force. They pay the bill they get first call.

    I would interpret the Second Amendment as it is written. a mechanism for the states to arm their state militias. by allowing any citizen to own a weapon which then automatically makes them a member (active, reserve, or on call) of the state militias.

    I would favor banning abortions at some point in the third trimester when competent medcial authority deems the dependent fetus is at a viable stage sufficient to be a candidate for premature birth and then grant it the same rights of protection of all citizens.

    But what I would insist on our some of the key points.

    Find me a candidate for that. So far they don't exist or don't care to participate or are too far to the left or the right (which is anarchism as long as I'm borrowing the unused area to define those who want citizen control of government as a base line.

    Number One. Have any beliefs you want as long as you keep one foot int he center, the constitution and be willing to work for change by amendment rather than letting some two bit Chicago shyster rule by edict, by ignoring the law and worse getting away with it. I guarantee such a person will publicly disavow all connection with the two current fiascos or better yet have never belonged.

    Find me someone even fairly close to that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 12 months ago
    Yes. I love the quote attributed to Washington. As he says, we have four candidates and no one standing up for reducing the drug war, increasing legal immigration, and reducing trade barriers.

    "Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia’s border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others."

    When he says "all three", though, I would say "all four" because I am not confident Hillary Clinton would significantly reduce the military industrial complex any more the President Obama has.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Lifelong politician with no business experience and a member of the GOP disqualify Walker for anything above dog catcher for me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    IMO, Scot Walker is a fighter who is what all the GOP should be but woefully is not.
    He successfully fixes things screwed up by libtards and weathers the uproars they create to stop him.
    Walker is the POTUS the USA sorely needs yesterday, since it may already be too late.

    http://www.biography.com/people/scott-wa...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So is Rand Paul a Libertarian, a Republican or just goes with the wind?

    As for getting Obeyme impeached if taking the Oath twice then immediately announcing each time his intent to ignore and doing so isn't enough. I don't think the subject was even raised when the Constitutional Scholar showed his only knowledge was how not to support and defend the law of the land.Where were all the so called second party Republicans then? Noses in the trough? Two party system my ass. One party with two faces.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Is Scott Walker A Republican, a Democrat or???. Sorry to have to ask. Where I live we are not bombarded senseless on a daily basis. It's often easier just to ask and along the way find out way from reputable sources.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Half way for you may be as far as I'm going to go.
    I will vote for someone like Scott Walker.
    I do not view that as a compromise with evil.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    See you are half way there. Rino is half the battle. Now for the Dino. Not doing as bad as you thought. Just a bit of positive encouragement. Once you have broken free of the Government Party things become much clearer and the choices far easier.The best thing is you don't have to choose any kind of evil anymore. Never again.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My conclusions are simple and in plain site. Those folks who want free stuff vote for those that take from hard workers and give to the welfare state. My neighborhood has them, my family has them. I have friends with that affinity no matter how much I try to explain the truth. They don't see the greater good of freedoms and liberties as being paramount. They only see what is in it for themselves without having to do anything but vote for Santa. They don't understand the idea of America.

    I have watched people of conscience vote for good people people who were champions of the Constitution and I watched their vote go for nothing. I have always attempted to vote for the most Conservative of candidates that put the Constitution ahead of big Gov't. I look for those candidates that aren't career politicians and I watched my vote go for nothing.

    I research all candidates to find those that espouse more for Liberty and Freedom and less for the welfare state. It may take longer but I believe it is doable if more people of conscience do the same. It works for me. I see not voting for anyone because they are not truly aligned with my views as not an option. Nor is staying out of the process an option. Attempting to educate my circle of friends and family seems to be a better option. It is frustrating at times but it is a task that needs to be done.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You conclude that people are 'somewhat' evil becasue they vote for evil candidates, but you give no basis to make the conclusion. What is your rational basis for that conclusion?

    I have clearly stated that voting for either Dems or GOP is voting for evil based on the results of the past 100 years. One should not vote for the DemReps. Therefore, one who rationally considers the results of the past 100 years of being ruled by statists in the DemRep party should vote for a candidate outside the DemRep party, unless one wants to have less liberty and a more oppressive state.
    Unless people of conscience break the habit of voting for the lesser of two evils (usually promoted by the GOP) only evil will be elected, statists will continue to rule, and peaceful liberty in America will perish.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Old dino does not view voting per se as a disease or an affliction.
    Feeling forced to consistently voter for the lesser of two evils every four years could perhaps be characterized as such.
    This time I refuse to vote for a RINO such as Jeb Bush.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo