~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Picking a best candidate would mean that I can predict what they would do in the future. It is a gamble. I cannot even predict what I will do next in the present. But one thing is clear to me, I an sick and tired of the deal making political boring brain dead. There is a war on. I want someone to walk into Dodge and clean it up. I do not want another politician who will say big words and then fall asleep.
So, who do I see as the fighters and non politicians today? In order: Trump. Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Cruz, and in the years to come Rubio, who is too young to even scare Putin's cat today.
So four people with a youngster on the bench. If any of those four get the nomination, I might care. I might have hope that someone actually gives a darn. I would like all four of them, actually. Four people walked into the OK Corral with guns on a mission. The US is larger than the OK corral, say I. I would love those four to team together as the "anti politician group," decide on who gets what job when the four get in, and then get their guns, and then ... time to walk into Dodge. One could take business, or two, Trump and Fiorina, Ben Carson could take Domestic affairs, and Cruz could take international, or something like that. But perhaps they all meet and talk before anything big. And they all dismantle the IRS, EPA and other lawless groups. Some people see things that are screwed up and ask why. I see a political grouping that never was, and ask why not? (Apologies to George Bernard Shaw who wrote something similar in his "Sword and the Serpent," and no, Bobby Kennedy did not write it, but apparently knew that Shaw did.)
RN, I agree that nobody can predict with absolute certainty what any of the candidates will do. My point, and I must be woefully inept at making it, is that past actions can be indicative of future performance. Hence, Walker succeeding in the face of domestic adversity like none other, has prevailed. I ask you.. do you choose a fighter, or a fighter who has also won?
Trump has won. If I take his numbers, 100 of the 106 companies he founded were successful and 6 failed. I believe having some failures is also learning. Trump has likely created more infrastructure and more jobs that any of the others - at least at a personal level. Trump in 100 of his companies proved that he knows how to balance the budget. He also would know what went wrong in the other 6. Why people blast Trump amazes me. He has created and done more and seen more success than most anyone in America. Yes, Apple, and Facebook did well as well.
Walker I was fond of. But now he seems to have become political and not want to give an opinion on some things. That scares me. He could just become another political dish rag and make deals and agree that stupidity stays. I am sick and tired of politics and people who abide by stupidity so "they can get ahead." That is not what Lincoln did. Lincoln did not placate the South or Slavery. He knew that something was wrong.
Anyway, that is my opinion. The GOP just had gotten done running two gentlemen for office, McCain and Romney. They both lost. They both stood by while people in the same room were lying and screaming. I am tired of sending in people with squirt guns to an AK47 gun battle.
Ha ha. My opinion.
I second your thoughts RN.
I like your thinking Brenton Joe, or should that just be Joe?. I would vote in a flash for that ticket. But I also wonder if having two business people is a bit heavy on that side? I would also suggest somehow getting Ben Carson in there, for medical and people issues. Now that could be a plus, Carly and Ben Carson, a female and a Black man, when Obama was really only half Black. News flash! Obama's mother was found to be White! Trump and Carson are also fine with me, if they hire Carly in some high up position, or put her in charge of the IRS or Fed or something. Hey! I like that. Any of that grouping actually. But I would also suggest, that they give a good job to the odd person out. It takes more than 1 or 2 to run a government.
Welcome, Brenton Joe! We appreciate that you see our site name as a mission of sorts!
If Trump is the nominee, he needs someone other than Carly. Any of the others, IMO, need Carly. As RN said, they both bring similar skill set to the table.
Welcome Brenton Joe (I was taught to never trust anyone with 2 first names :p).
Have to point out that laws need more than Congress (the Senate and House) to be laws, and as long as POTUS "I have a pen and a phone [and Iran can call me on the phone any time, even while on vacation and I am ready to serve the Muslim State]" Obama stands in the way of Congressional action, as was intended, but only to a point, thus why they can override a veto (as this shows the Supreme power rests in the people and is bolstered by the States when these can agree, per how the Senate was originally set up, that the POTUS is to be overruled by the Will of the People and their respective States).
Obama uses nuances of the Constitution to bypass Congress, knowing full well the vast number of other countries who want to see America go down.
Between just these 2 things Congress is stuck in a less capable and defensive position. There is nothing Congress, even both houses, can do alone but a Joint Resolution, that is at best a statement of Congressional policy (or at least used that way) and nothing more.
To me a Joint Resolution should be used by Congress, and accepted generally, as useable in a direct rebuttal to Presidential Executive Orders, as that would give Joint Resolutions the force of regulatory authority to counter, nullify, and undermine Executive Orders, and, would bring Executive Orders to a similar purpose, both of course subject to the Constitutional Authority of their respective branches, meaning both would carry out perfectly what is within the objects entrusted to them by the Constitution, but would have no force nor effect on anything outside that, to which *poof* a rightful use of the Supreme Court of the United States to settle disputes between them would bring the government's focus upon itself, instead of regulating us to death. Yes a rant/ramble to as accurately as possible engender the objective view of government with a subjective view of protecting our Individual Liberty and Freedom, while explaining why parties aren't worth caring about at all unless you want to help America be a retro Soviet Union hahaha
As may be a reiteration, but for a good cause: The only way America is a Democracy is by the political parties who've violated, ignored, and trespassed beyond the boundaries of the Constitution in a zeal to access and control our property, and thereby, our Freedom. It is by the parties we in self-government are led astray and thereby government in total.
It would be a good idea to look at Carly again. There is baggage with her.
They all have baggage, save Ben Carson. And, let's face it, over time, something will be spun to be baggage, to be a part of some bitter perception demographically, no matter how untrue.
They taught us "Our Founders were uncaring white slave masters," which, in reality is untrue, the Constitution intended to end slavery by 1808, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html.
They taught us that Republicans are racist, another lie, http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-Civil-... - notice it is Dems stripping voting rights from blacks, since, at that time, blacks voted Republican - and, KKK Robert Byrd's filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ends, http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Fil.... Amazingly, you'll find Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader of the Senate who stripped those voting rights in 1957 for his party, who then, as President, is the signor of the Civil Rights Act where voting rights are given to the very same class of people (Government giving rights should be raising more bells, whistles, and red flags than anything else in this to me, for, government doesn't give rights to the Free, only to those who are either wards of the State or its slaves.).
The result of this is that when we speak at all about cutting anything in government, we're racists. If we speak of cutting taxes, or an equal proportion of taxes, or getting rid of the Progressive tax structure, yes we're racists. All the while all of this is so that two political parties can fight for majority rule, can rule the United States of America without the Constitution (since the people can't unite) and instead as a Party run Democracy, where neither party is opposed to bigger government and wields its own version of an iron fist against whoever doesn't agree with the majority party's use of power.
This reality we live in is the result of spin, that is baggage hanging around our necks for at least 3 generations, a millstone of stupidity and ignorance of "you can't fight city hall" and handing the government proxy by our failure to do anything about it -- American history spun to meet government's agenda, ends up our baggage because we fell for it.
So I am not all that concerned with baggage. What's important is if they know the Constitution, and in Carly's case, the medieval history major is a great start -- she knows the history of the world, the oppressive socialist Feudal system ruling everywhere prior to the existence of the United States of America. And, should you see any candidate can learn, and learn quickly how to be forthright and honest with us, this is indicative that they are listening to us, another attribute wanted in a public servant: that they know their role is to serve, not rule, in a phrase, "They rule on our behalf and at Our Pleasure" (and why impeachment applies to everyone in government not just the President).
Lastly, and unintended in length reply, so apologies, I'd rather have someone who can learn from their mistakes. To me that's more important than anything else. "Baggage" then has an opportunity to take its rightful place, to be that life changing event that brought that person to realize something significant, to learn some incredible lesson, and to become worthy of respect for their own capacity to arrive and deal with circumstances well, even when they'd been wrong and made a mistake. This doesn't mean we necessarily agree with the outcome, for it's not about subjective agreement, but objective capacity in the person who will be confronted with myriad issues and problems that will lead them to act, to make mistakes....Will they be Bill/Hillary Clinton in that instance, a hider claiming "I am being transparent," who denies all wrong doing and declares nothing is wrong by language games to hide the truth, or our loyal public servant who accepts the mistake and corrects it almost as instantly as it was made, and will put forth that answer without hesitation when questioned, with absolutely no regrets.
May we wake up and realize integrity, or lack of it, isn't found in the media spin of the latest "breaking news."
Maybe these things mean nothing to you, and that's fine, but for me, they are paramount to turning the nation around, they are the genuine humbleness of a person at one with themselves and mankind, who has attained a pro-American resolve that led them to want to serve the American People. Anything else is voting in a Madison Avenue package along with all the pay-off corruption to silence the truth about the person that goes with it, which will only perpetuate what we already have: Oppression/Tyranny, interchangeable really.
Folks better wake up. The one we pick should be someone that is conservative and loves country and will return constitution to our daily life. It is not about who is minority. We need best candidate not someone just to piss the liberals off. Lets put country first before our own petty ideas.