Posted on May 14, 2014
Who would you rather have as a political candidate?
13.9K
333
128
4
3
1
Politics
President
Responses: 36
0
0
0
I'm a complete advocate of the best man/woman for the job, but I feel military service should be a requirement for the Presidency.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I really dislike politicians. I have always wondered how far one could make it by telling the truth.
Republicans and Democrats argue the same points over and over, neither one of them never fixes any of the issues they say the other party messed up.
Republicans and Democrats argue the same points over and over, neither one of them never fixes any of the issues they say the other party messed up.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
SFC T. I think the Republicans and Democrats intentionally keep it that way. What better way to sneak in secret agendas.
As long as they can keep the voters arguing over issues that will probably not be solved, they can do their real work unknown.
This is the reason I think a couple more Parties in the ring will help expose, and maybe even stifle some of the useless debates.
As long as they can keep the voters arguing over issues that will probably not be solved, they can do their real work unknown.
This is the reason I think a couple more Parties in the ring will help expose, and maybe even stifle some of the useless debates.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Really need this in check boxes so we could choose more than one.
For me I would pick Libertarian if there was even the slightest chance of them winning. Republican is typically my go to vote unless they are just an ass then mickey mouse get another vote.
Being a vet would give a candidate major brownie points but it would all come down to what he/she wanted to do if they won.
For me I would pick Libertarian if there was even the slightest chance of them winning. Republican is typically my go to vote unless they are just an ass then mickey mouse get another vote.
Being a vet would give a candidate major brownie points but it would all come down to what he/she wanted to do if they won.
(0)
(0)
3
0
3
I tend to vote Democrat for the following reasons:
1. I'm old enough to remember how Richard Nixon damn near paralyzed this country with the Watergate scandal, and fired those (eg. Special Prosecutor, Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General) when they tried to do their jobs investigating the matter.
2. I remember how Reagan's empty promises of lower taxes exascerbated Federal budget deficits.
3. Despite his foibles, Clinton returned the Federal budget to a surplus - which was quickly frittered away by the Republicans trying to fight two wars and reduce taxes.
Both parties have enough scandals to sink a ship, so that's a push and doesn't really influence me too much. I'm fortunate enough to have a well paying, steady job. I know many don't and think government has an obligation to the less fortunate vs. padding already fat wallets.
EDIT - seeing these comments and the even split between thumbs up and down is indicative of the polarity gripping this country now. Unless or until that gridlock breaks, this country isn't going to make any meaningful headway.
1. I'm old enough to remember how Richard Nixon damn near paralyzed this country with the Watergate scandal, and fired those (eg. Special Prosecutor, Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General) when they tried to do their jobs investigating the matter.
2. I remember how Reagan's empty promises of lower taxes exascerbated Federal budget deficits.
3. Despite his foibles, Clinton returned the Federal budget to a surplus - which was quickly frittered away by the Republicans trying to fight two wars and reduce taxes.
Both parties have enough scandals to sink a ship, so that's a push and doesn't really influence me too much. I'm fortunate enough to have a well paying, steady job. I know many don't and think government has an obligation to the less fortunate vs. padding already fat wallets.
EDIT - seeing these comments and the even split between thumbs up and down is indicative of the polarity gripping this country now. Unless or until that gridlock breaks, this country isn't going to make any meaningful headway.
(3)
(3)
SFC Gary Fox
I have no idea how old you are 1SG B, but I was in the Army when Watergate broke and I remember it very well. Nixon was a good president. He had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at Watergate nor did he have knowledge it was going to happen. His mistake was trying to cover it up by denying he had any knowledge of it afterward. He did the right thing and resigned. Now a lot of people may hate the idea Ford pardoned Nixon, but it was necessary to heal the nation because it was so greatly divided over Watergate. Had Nixon been prosecuted, it would have created more political and social division as well as an even bigger embarrassment with our allies and foes. The ramifications for the nation would have been much more damaging with prosecuting a president than pardoning him.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
1SG B. With all due respect to you, I have to ask you, Who was responsible for bringing the Soviet Union to it's knees? It was President Reagan. And he did have to resort to Deficit Spending to do it. I would point out though ACCURATELY, that President Reagan Presented a Balanced Budget to Congress ON TIME, EVERY Year, of his Presidency, and that his (Democrat) Congress announced them Dead On Arrival as evidenced by Senator Kennedy's rental of an ambulance to haul it away. Regardless, President Reagan signed those budgets, and bears responsibility.
President Clinton, on the other hand deserves credit, Like President Reagan, for recognizing the fact that the House of Representatives originates ALL SPENDING BILLS, Constitutionally. And while Pres Reagan had a Democrat House Run by Tip O'Neil, he had to reluctantly accept deficit spending to bring the Soviet Union to it's knees. Conversely, President Clinton, reluctantly had to wisely accept the balanced budgets proposed by his (Republican) House of Representatives.
Oh... SFC Fox... I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that President Nixon was a good President. He tried to implement socialist policies such as price AND wage controls, leading to predictably disastrous results. He did plenty to inhibit freedom of the press, and also let his paranoia over the election lead him to approve illegal activities that ultimately proved to be his demise.
Lastly 1SG B. President Obama and his Democrat AND Republican Congress' have made President Reagan's deficit spending look miniscule compared to his apparent Deficit building scheme. What of President Obama's record setting Deficits? And what of President Obama's apparent comfort with subverting the Constitution and using unwarranted Executive powers to circumvent the Constitutional mandate of the House of Representatives originating all spending bills?
President Clinton, on the other hand deserves credit, Like President Reagan, for recognizing the fact that the House of Representatives originates ALL SPENDING BILLS, Constitutionally. And while Pres Reagan had a Democrat House Run by Tip O'Neil, he had to reluctantly accept deficit spending to bring the Soviet Union to it's knees. Conversely, President Clinton, reluctantly had to wisely accept the balanced budgets proposed by his (Republican) House of Representatives.
Oh... SFC Fox... I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that President Nixon was a good President. He tried to implement socialist policies such as price AND wage controls, leading to predictably disastrous results. He did plenty to inhibit freedom of the press, and also let his paranoia over the election lead him to approve illegal activities that ultimately proved to be his demise.
Lastly 1SG B. President Obama and his Democrat AND Republican Congress' have made President Reagan's deficit spending look miniscule compared to his apparent Deficit building scheme. What of President Obama's record setting Deficits? And what of President Obama's apparent comfort with subverting the Constitution and using unwarranted Executive powers to circumvent the Constitutional mandate of the House of Representatives originating all spending bills?
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SPC Charles Brown
Might as well elect Bozo the Clown for president as Colbert. In my opinion there wouldn't be much of a difference.
(3)
(0)
0
-1
1
This is a terribly crafted question and indicative of a larger problem not just among the military but among the general population. We have become such a "Twitter Society" that we try to compress all of the important information about our political candidates into 142 characters or short sound bites that can be played on CNN and Fox. Politicians -- ALL POLITICIANS -- are complex and multifaceted individuals.
The terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are just labels for the two currently dominant political parties (among many). Those parties are comprised of people who fall all over the political spectrum. As several people have mentioned above, those labels say absolutely nothing about an individual candidate's beliefs or platform. There are conservative democrats and there are liberal republicans. The word "independent" is equally, if not more nebulous. Some people use it to mean a person who is not a republican or a democrat. Other people use it to mean a person who does not belong to any political party. In other words, it's impossible to know what a person believes in, will vote for, or will support if they label themselves as "independent." Of all the options, at least libertarianism is a political philosophy, but even those candidates who consider themselves to be libertarian widely vary when it comes to how they would implement libertarian policies if elected (which is a bit of an oxymoron to say the least).
In reality you will never -- yes, I said NEVER -- find one candidate that encompasses all of your beliefs. It's just not going to happen. So that means that you will need to make compromises when you decide to whom you're going to give your vote. In order to make those compromises you need to understand who the candidate is and how they have acted historically in order to make a calculated decision with respect to how you anticipate they will act in the future if voted into office. You are never going to be able to do that if you rely upon labels such as democrat or republican.
Here's an example - in the 2000 presidential election you had GW Bush (arguably an Air Nat'l Guard vet) running against Al Gore (an army Vietnam vet). This is a bit of an over-simplification, but both candidates pledged to increase pay to troops and modernize military technology and equipment -- the big difference was that one proposed increasing the defense budget by $45 billion over the following 10 years (exclusive of costs associated with an anti-missile defense program) while the other proposed increasing it by $100 billion over the same time period. If you had to guess which candidate proposed higher defense spending and troop pay you would assume that it would have been the republican, Bush. You would be wrong.
I'm not saying that military personnel should have voted for Gore over Bush. There are lots of factors that could, and should go into deciding who to vote for, and for many people military budgets are just one of those factors. The bigger point is that we cannot rely upon the labels that politicians, candidates, pundits, and putative news outlets use to give us headlines. If you want to be an informed voter you need to do more work than that. You need to educate yourself about the individual candidate's positions, and then make a rational judgment about whether you believe they will and can accomplish those goals given their history and the current political environment.
The terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are just labels for the two currently dominant political parties (among many). Those parties are comprised of people who fall all over the political spectrum. As several people have mentioned above, those labels say absolutely nothing about an individual candidate's beliefs or platform. There are conservative democrats and there are liberal republicans. The word "independent" is equally, if not more nebulous. Some people use it to mean a person who is not a republican or a democrat. Other people use it to mean a person who does not belong to any political party. In other words, it's impossible to know what a person believes in, will vote for, or will support if they label themselves as "independent." Of all the options, at least libertarianism is a political philosophy, but even those candidates who consider themselves to be libertarian widely vary when it comes to how they would implement libertarian policies if elected (which is a bit of an oxymoron to say the least).
In reality you will never -- yes, I said NEVER -- find one candidate that encompasses all of your beliefs. It's just not going to happen. So that means that you will need to make compromises when you decide to whom you're going to give your vote. In order to make those compromises you need to understand who the candidate is and how they have acted historically in order to make a calculated decision with respect to how you anticipate they will act in the future if voted into office. You are never going to be able to do that if you rely upon labels such as democrat or republican.
Here's an example - in the 2000 presidential election you had GW Bush (arguably an Air Nat'l Guard vet) running against Al Gore (an army Vietnam vet). This is a bit of an over-simplification, but both candidates pledged to increase pay to troops and modernize military technology and equipment -- the big difference was that one proposed increasing the defense budget by $45 billion over the following 10 years (exclusive of costs associated with an anti-missile defense program) while the other proposed increasing it by $100 billion over the same time period. If you had to guess which candidate proposed higher defense spending and troop pay you would assume that it would have been the republican, Bush. You would be wrong.
I'm not saying that military personnel should have voted for Gore over Bush. There are lots of factors that could, and should go into deciding who to vote for, and for many people military budgets are just one of those factors. The bigger point is that we cannot rely upon the labels that politicians, candidates, pundits, and putative news outlets use to give us headlines. If you want to be an informed voter you need to do more work than that. You need to educate yourself about the individual candidate's positions, and then make a rational judgment about whether you believe they will and can accomplish those goals given their history and the current political environment.
(0)
(1)
SPC Charles Brown
I have read your response, and I understand what you are saying. However, you only looked at the way I began this topic and decided to vote me down without even checking out what I stand for. That is one of the bigger problems in this country, apathy of idealism. It is your way or the highway. Given those options I take the highway. I am not associated with any of the political parties you mentioned. In fact if I had to choose a party to belong to it would have to be the "Me for America Party". Until you have checked out my stance don't pass judgment on me for my opening statement.
(1)
(0)
SGT Tj West
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but I'm not passing judgment on you. The down vote relates to the question posed, which was whether I would rather see a dem, rep, ind, lib, or vet as a political candidate. If there is a connection between what you've written on RP and what your FB page says then please revise your question and I'm happy to reconsider my response. Your FB page isn't popping up on Google when I run a search for your name, so if you could share a link to the page you're talking about that would be helpful.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I have to agree with CPL Brown on the down vote. It's not based on facts but suppositions. CPL Brown just asked a question with multiple choices. The fact his FB isn't popping up isn't grounds for a down vote. Many things happen that disallows a link to come up to no fault of the person. If he had posted a singular phrase like Dems/Repubs/Libertarians are the best, or something demeaning then I can see a downvote since it is an emotional comment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google