Least fit to rule?
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago to Politics
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Glenn Beck was referring to an author this morning who did a study that concluded that Trump's supporters were conservatives who liked authoritarians. That is an interesting contradiction.
Being ruled is anathema.
Conservative, Liberal, left, right these are terms that are used to divide us. The only term we need to use is Constitutionalist or veteran. The Constitution is the exact guide of what the government can, can’t, should and shouldn’t do, simple.
Vote VETERAN someone that puts America before ANY party we come from ALL back grounds.
No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
They are outa their heads...
Very true. They are outa their heads. If they are under 40, they've been massively conditioned in school, in the media, by comedians and movies. The amazing thing is that there any rational younger people left. I shudder to think what will happen when the over 50s are gone.
Post Script: I saw the show and listen to the psyc-on trump. Have to say, I saw the same things...he's not fit to rule either.
She is fit to rule. She is not fit to be an American President. Actually, she is not fit to be a free citizen. If I did what she has done, I'd be writing this from prison -- if they'd let me.
All those competing looters are a problem, too. That's where being POTUS is vital. Executive Orders! Woo-Hoo!
It would be refreshing to have someone in there who understands business and negotiating with foreign countries
What have Trumps investors lost in his four bankruptcies? Billions. And he laughed at them the whole time.
Trump is out for Trump, but he doesn't represent what I want in a leader.
But let us consider the true differences between Hillary/Sanders and "The Donald".
Same:
They both support abortion.
They both support gay marriage.
They both support Kelo v New London (eminent domain).
They both don't have any problem sticking investors with the bill - Trump through his bankruptcies and Hillary/Bernie through government spending.
Both pretend a false connection to religion.
Tax policies: both favor high taxes
Obamacare: Trump was for it before it passed. He's only changed his mind since becoming a candidate.
Different:
Second Amendment. Trump would let you keep your guns.
Immigration. Trump wants to build a wall on the Southern Border. He also wants to stop un-vetted immigration.
The Iran Deal: Trump is against it.
Foreign Policy: Trump says he knows how to turn down a bad deal. All Hillary can make is bad deals.
Religious liberty: Trump says he'll preserve religious liberty. Hillary/Sanders have no such interests.
Unknowns/Questions:
Policy on Middle East: Trump has alluded to the notion of seizing the oil from ISIS.
Putin: Trump says he'll stand up to Putin. Hillary/Obama certainly haven't.
I'm looking, and really not seeing all that much difference between Hillary/Sanders and Trump on some major issues. Trump talks big and he's an outsider, but his policy statements are pretty tough to swallow given his actions.
Will you act only using the specific powers written in the constitution and the Bill of Rights especially this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The federal government has no implied powers whatsoever. If it isn't written clearly as a power to the US then it isn't a federal power and is not allowed unless the states and the people overtly change the constitution with an amendment.
Virtually every government agency created in the past 103 years is unconstitutional (except those created by amendment.).
All those policies that the idiot candidates use to confuse voters are not relevant because all those policies are unconstitutional.
None of the GOP or Dem candidates will keep the oath of constitutionality. None.
Not one is worthy to be president.
2nd amendment was to keep us able to defeat our own government if it came to it.
A southern wall is like closing the door after the cows have left. Issue guest worker permits and cancel welfare for illegals and the problem goes away. The Iran deal is stupid, as is all of Obama's foreign policy actions. He is an idiot. Trump will be much better and will stick up for OUR interests for a change. As long as religion is kept OUT of government, I am in favor of letting people believe what they want.
There are some major issues, mostly relating to the financial running of the country. I think Trumps business background will help there. Also, he tells us when the emperor has no clothes, which is sorely needed. Hillary will just hide what she does. Trump already tells you what he thinks and I say its already sparked a lot of thinking.
Consider that he needs to get elected so he puts out statements designed to get him free publicity. If you think about what he says about immigration and terrorism and foreign relations, its not so bad. When it comes right down to it I trust he will be a lot more reasonable in actual negotiations in order to get things through our government. After all, he is a candidate now, and not privy to all the information that the "insiders" get.
Most sales people sell a product that is more than a negative sum game. Trump has "produced" casinos that overtly steal from its customers, and Trump has overtly taken assistance from other looters. Another "lesser evil" is still evil.
I'd rather have an honest small business merchant instead of Trump. He represents the worst view of business. I wouldn't trust Trump as dog catcher.
In fact he is clueless.
HRM Donnie, prove it or shut up you arrogant windbag.
I don't buy the line that they are going to "fix" things when we have the House, the Senate and the WH. It is already shaping up to be just a little more of the same old same old! I am beginning to believe that the Republican party is just Democrat lite!
You are right about con-gress.. Republicans would never agree to reduce the trillions used for WMDs. Democrats would not agree to reduce their vote buying schemes for IQ's under 100.
Trillions for monuments to the glory of the state, not one penny in defense of liberty. That's what you get from the statist party and their charlatan candidates.
" casinos that overtly steal from its customers" Casinos offer something and people of free will make the choice. That they are, for the most part, not statistically astute, does not change the fact that they make the choice. Caveat emptor.
Just because people choose of their free will to buy a product that is harmful does not forgive the seller for his unethical choice of "product."
If someone wants to gamble that is their choice, but it does not make the casino operator a valid choice for president of the US.
I think Trump's past behavior must be used to predict his future behavior, just as I think the GOP's past behavior should be used to predict their future behavior.
Trump and the GOP deserve each other, but neither deserve anyone's vote or support.
The discussion is about "fit to rule", ethical acceptablility for president, not what products are in the market.
Trump is unacceptable as a president.
I suspect that the computers in the key states are already being rigged.
In other words, there is no candidate worthy? Boy, we are screwed!!!
Could be right about being screwed though ;^)
As for voting for someone who cannot possibly win that means you knowingly and willingly voted for the other side under the winner take all rules. Still your choice.
The next option is joining the 44 - 46% and try to help raise that figures of those who chose not to support evil or show any support whatsoever to the side of what I personally call preordained rigged elections by a one party system . My definition. A percentage I might add that is steadily growing.as people adhere to the adage the only way to win is not play their game.
One thing I will not do is absolve you. That is your decision and your choice and no it is not easy. It takes strict adherence to the third rule of Objectivity. It allows no excuses and then application of moral values. Your choice even if it's choosing to adopt the ethics or lack of set forth or dictated by others. If you knowingly adopt there rules and then define them as evil you have defined yourself. No one else did that you did it/
I use 'you' in general terms not directed at ir1776wg specifically. just to make that plain.
However after the election you can proclaim I voted for evil, I chose to enable evil, I chose to compromise with evil. I chose not to support evil. No where in that range of choices is the word We.
And remember the individual choice you made and take responsibility for it.
The side bet this time is someone I thoroughly despise Donald Trump. He is, to me, a different form of evil but evil none the less. I shall not make that choice. Others see it as a way to judo evil or exchange it for another form. My individual choice is not to play that game.
It's a secular way of saying 'get behind me.' For you religious folks its a repudiation of the devil in which ever religion you profess.
Your choice, your responsibility you absolve yourself. No one else can do it for you.
Consciouos conscience the results are to your credit or your shame but it's your verdict. One man or woman jury.
That's Ayn Rands third law
If you don't vote your conscience then you will get what you deserve. If you do vote your conscience and still get evil, at least you can live with yourself in peace.
I would much prefer to always cast my vote for the one I believe is the "Lesser Evil" because a refusal to vote at all or as you call it "Play the Game" is a vote for the "More Evil" as I see it. In American politics we will have a choice between 2 possible candidates on election day who could possibly win. The outcome will in fact affect us all.
I cast my vote not for the one I wish to win but against the one I refuse to accept as a political leader. I am "Ruled" by no man or woman but I must live by the rules these jerks put in place. If my choice on election day comes down to Clinton against Mickey Mouse then you can be sure I will vote against Hillary but I will vote so it goes to the next viable candidate that has a chance to win and not to any third party guaranteed looser. That's my plan and I am sticking to it!
I'm neck deep in the game. but the veersion I play is for larger stakes is not rigged, and does not offer an easy out. However that's not your playing field any more so enough of that. .
Please don't bother to tell me you would have voted for Ron or Rand Paul. Nice guys, both but also had about a snow balls chance in hell of ever coming close to winning. Just for fun say Trump is the R nominee and Clinton the D so you write in Mickey Mouse or Rand Paul. What good did your vote do other than end up in the circular file and appease your own self centered dislike of the system we have in place. Forget the name calling and evil label bullshit, make me and others here understand what your attitudes are attempting to prove. I am happy to argue where I stand without the name calling crap but you two are not. BTW, I have never yet seen where Not voting or where voting for some third party candidate who had zero chance of coming even remotely close to winning has ever done us any good. Yes, we are in the Gulch but this is fiction. We happen to live in the real world and I want to know how your plan is going to change this BS system we have.
No name calling on my part that I see either.
So-called conservatives have wasted votes on the GOP for decades.
The state gets bigger under every GOP administration, and you whine about third parties having no chance and you continue to support the evil statist party.
The founders of America had no guarantees; you don't get any either.
Realistically the British should have crushed the American revolution, but men of integrity didn't sacrifice their principles.
Voting for evil against your principles is the problem. You are responsible for the massive government, but you want to shift blame to others for your decision to support the statists.
that's what most people thought at the end of GWB's disasterous rule, too. It doesn't get better by repeating the same errors. The GOP offers no glimmer of hope, just another mirage of hype.
Again, if people like you don't desert the GOP's false hope and vote your principles the state will continue to grow, liberty will continue to disappear, just as it has in every regime since 1913.
It is a highly flawed system which is the exact reason I go for who I think is the lesser evil. Some cake is better than no cake. But again, I do agree. I just don't see the tides changing unless we can get all the Non voters off their asses.
I'd rather starve as a free man than eat cake as a slave. You'd rather eat cake than defend your liberty or your principles.
Even after a Civil War with more than 600,000 killed to supposedly end Slavery, there we were back being enslaved again, except it was to be shot, killed, and screwed up for life instead of just working in the field.
You want to go back and do all that nonsense again, go ahead; just don't try to drag the rest of us along with you and if we don't want to go with you, throw us in Fed prison for 10 yrs.
Never mind....you aren't invited.
If you alone vote for the GOP they don't win either. Obviously it takes a lot of GOP supporters to vote for principle instead of voting for evil. Using that as an excuse to continue voting for evil and sacrificing your principles is reprehensible.
Or buy avery big army.
and fall of America: i.e. the Obama years!
Every president has been worse than the one before him since Eisenhower (with the arguable exception of Reagan and anyone who followed Carter had it easy;^)
(Note-this is a repost of an earlier comment with several spelling corrections.)
Here's a scenario: Suppose that, not counting my vote, the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate received an equal number of votes. Suppose also, that I really don't want a Democratic president. Now which of my four choices would result in NOT electing a Democrat? Answer: only one of them - my voting for a Republican. ( My other three choices - voting for a Democrat, voting for a 3d party candidate, or not voting at all - will result in a Democratic win or a tie. )
This is why voting for "the lesser of two evils" is the proper choice. Granted, my scenario will most likely never occur. But if enough people vote like me, it certainly will make it a lot less likely for a Democrat to win.
Voting for the lesser of two evils just sinks you further into slavery.
Your take on the last two are also incorrect. They are part of a group that now holds 44% to 46% of the electorate while Rino left 26% and Dino 29% --- so far 55 percent. All of your choices will result in kissing what's left of the constitution goodbye...and won't affect life as we know it today one little bit. Your three choices are give up, cave, and quit. That's as nice as care to be today. No it won't occur...but even if it did. Are morals, values and ethics any the less valid? When the going gets tough you need more than Charmin.
Hows that for being nice! It's a real world view;
If enough people like you stuck to ethical principles and voted for the third party the statist party would lose, and individual liberty and free markets would be resurrected.
The state gets bigger under every GOP administration, and all you do is whine about third parties having no chance and continue to support the evil statist party.
The founders of America had no guarantees; you don't get any either.
Realistically the British should have crushed the American revolution.
Your votes for evil are the problem. You are responsible for the massive government, but all you do is whine and make irrational excuses for the statists you support.
Much better to have the lesser of two evils than the greater. And you can hardly hold hold me responsible for what the majority voted in. I guess you are becoming like the retards you detest - you aren't willing to use logic, hold on to your irrational beliefs in spite of the evidence, and refuse to recognize it when you're wrong!
And BTW, I'm not supporting statists. I'm simply trying to prevent the greater statist from winning. And also, BTW, I haven't voted for president in over 45 years, since we are not permitted to do so in the US Virgin Islands. But I definitely have an interest in the election, since the result influences our lives here in the islands.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is an excellent example of Einsiein's definition of insanity: Repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.
The current Obamanation is not my fault. Why?
I did not voting day twice sit on my hands.
A caustic continuation of White House socialism, albeit Bolshevik BS Bernie or a Bungling Bloody Billary, will not be my fault either.
This "old dino" will vote AGAINST such wanton wreckage of what used to look like the America I thought I was growing up in..
One may view my voting as an exercise in futility since my Birmingham area is a blue speck in a red state.
Nevertheless, I have always viewed voting as my patriotic duty even if the choice sucks.
I have myself to live with. So for me there it is. Call me old-fashioned if you will.
The way things are going possession is nine points of ten and Cruz doesn't have one.
Besides he's a Pelosi tax supporter and that's a deal killer if ever was.
The citizen thing is just noise. Dem's can't do anything with it because of Obummer.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Some lead angle is very helpful.
The problem with republicans is they are all religious zealots. However, Cruz is the only one also seeking small government...the only one. Wait, let me think, yep... the only one.
Trump, the respecter of Putin, lover of eminent domain, patron of politicians, builder of giant walls isn't one of them. If he were really a businessman and not an actor, he'd have gotten someone to explain some basics of what we can actually do to solve problems, versus railing like a child and appealing to fools at Walmart.
I am no supporter of religion, as many here will attest. However, Cruz's zealotry contributes to exactly what that would be in his power? If he votes with Congress, with bills starting in the Ryan House, we might actually, for the first time in...forever...
Trump tosses out his views in a bombastic way in my opinion to get free notoriety, but when you think about what he actually says a few weeks later, its not so bad. Who wants muslims around if you cant tell the difference between the violent ones and the sane ones? Figure that out before you let in thousands of syrian muslims that WE have to pay for.
Getting respect from foreign countries requires strength. He already got respect from Putin, which is more than Obama can claim.
None of the presidential candidates who are actually electable are perfect by any means. A perfect one would never get elected in this day and age.
I do agree, America needs better than Obama
and better than Bush
and better than Clinton
and better than Bush
and better than Reagan
and better than Carter
and better than Ford
and better than Nixon
and better than Johnson
and better than Kennedy
and better than Eisenhower
and better than Truman
and better than Roosevelt
and better than Hoover
and better than Coolidge
and better than Harding
and better than Wilson
We desperately need a Thomas Jefferson.
Neither party today would let a Jefferson join, much less run.
Sorry, for the obscure note, but the beer I had was wonderful!
http://www.stonebrewing.com/beer/ston...
Wonderful strong ale with raisins, vanilla and a lovely sweet finish. 2x 20 oz, second in the hot tub at 24 degrees outside, and I was in a good place.
i will get started again when I get to Atlantis (or a facsimile thereof.)
First he could immediately pardon all inmates in federal prisons convicted on victimless crimes charges. He could then order his Attorney General to not enforce any victimless crimes laws. There goes the cruel war on individuals who put things in their bodies which others disapprove of. Violent crime would be cut probably in half as would the "criminal justice" budget. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on now vastly overpriced prohibited substances would be available for more urgent uses.
Being the Commander in Chief, the new President could dismantle the economy-killing overseas Empire with a single command to bring all the overseas troops home and to shut down the 1,000 or so military bases in foreign countries. Say hello to peace and prosperity.
The new President could next pardon everyone imprisoned on violation of legal tender laws. Since legal tender laws are unconstitutional, he could order his Attorney General to no longer enforce these laws. Commodity based free market competing currencies would quickly emerge. There goes the Federal Reserve and the unbacked fiat dollar. Say goodbye to inflation.
Next the new President could pardon everyone imprisoned for using non FDA approved medical therapies and order his Attorney General to no longer prosecute such witch hunts. The foot-dragging FDA would wither away as life extension research exploded and competing private companies emerged to certify the safety and efficacy of new therapies.
Finally the new President could announce that he will refuse to spend any money allocated by Congress to federal agencies not specifically authorized in the Constitution. Say goodbye to a long list of unconstitutional alphabet agencies bossing us around.
Should Congress threaten to impeach the new President for showing more interest in the freedom and prosperity of Americans than in the interests of crony capitalists, he could exercise some of those powers which Congress foolishly gave the President and legally have Congress arrested and detained without due process. Congress is largely superfluous since all it does is pass laws, and there are already far too many laws and regulations crippling commerce and robbing productive people of their wealth.
All these freedom promoting actions could be taken care of in the new President's first morning in office. He would then be entitled to a very long vacation while leaving Americans to get busy rebuilding their lives and the national economy in an environment of individual liberty.
site, I can assert that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has --
according to reporting today -- done far worse than anything
General Petraeus did, and does not qualify to be president. -- j
.
told us about yesterday. . the IRS became enemies of ours
as did those who perpetrated "fast and furious" ... without
betraying national secrets. -- j
.
no right to the name, these days. . Hillary belongs
in jail for her actions. -- j
.
But I'm not sure about the presidential ballot.
If the primary is set up properly it will require a majority of 50% plus one or reverted in None of these candidates gets 50% plus one.
What the poll is measuring is the real percentage of hell no votes. They had another question that asked about why certain candidates were not chosen. Two answers were too far left and too far right. Another was...Candidate doesn't support the Constitution. So? Not all but some of the right questions are being answered to some extent.
wanted to know for awhile. . Thank You, FFA!
please note, however, that Saddam Hussein did send
many of his WMDs to Syria, and among those which remained
was the one which killed my brother-in-law by ruining
his lungs. . the "lie-based" statement is itself based
on media hype. -- j
.
Ever since there have been rulers, there have either been power brokers pulling the ruler's strings or wannabes vying to take the ruler's place. Add to that the discontented citizens who realize that they are being ruled and don't like it and you are suddenly illuminated as to why the king, dictator, socialist-in-charge, keeps a loyal army that eliminates dissenters by whatever means they can get away with. Is Hillary fit to "rule?" Yes, as a ruler. Is she fit to be the president? Absolutely not, and for the above reason for starters. One of the things liberals remind me of can be found in "The Walrus and the Carpenter" a poem from "Alice In Wonderland." The Walrus cried for the demise of the poor oysters as he ate them all up.
It didn't quit work out for her, but that seems to be the pattern of her "accomplishments."
I didn't say it was a good or logical reason. ;)
Trump is the least worst choice to make, I fear.
Road Runners live in a smaller range than snakes.
Rattlesnakes only show up where there are rats.
Rats only show up for edible garbage.
Edible Garbage is caused by humans.
Unknown for Road Runner
Trump and Hillary representing looters/moochers
Politicians for Rats
Voters.for Enablers
This is a fill in the blank metaphor.
If you don't have a Road Runner why are you settling for Snakes and Rats?
Can anyone who is fit, justify funding a campaign given the tendency of the voters to insanity and ignorance?
Has Johnson joined the race as Libertarian?
rules!! Sickening to say the very least....
And two that need a court decision.
(But we have already had this discussion, term2, just had to put in my opinion, too;^)