Let me return to my role as Mr. Confusion. I know people are speaking plainly here, but I'm having trouble following the words to a conclusion. Let me explain my confusion and you can straighten me out. I'm pretty sure I won't get all my questions into one post, but at least I'll start.
The points about being a leader and not being divisive strike me. Who, in this country, would unite us into one people? Reagan had a good run at it, bringing in much of the southern Democrats and union members, but since? Could someone keep the country happy by following a middle-of-the-road compromise policy? I don't think so, and Obama bears some of the blame. To the right, his policies need to be stopped before we go over the cliff to final destruction. To the left, his executive actions and unwillingness to compromise promise the vision of marching on in an unstoppable way to the final victory, and compromise or slowing down would be unacceptable.
Both sides seem to feel the end is near, and the economic, social and foreign situations seem to bear that out. McCain and Romney, no matter how they were painted, were pragmatic, establishment, "go along to get along" types, and were soundly rejected.
Obama is amazingly divisive and it has worked for him. The left is excited and the right is panicky. Choosing a moderate now will anger both sides. That would be uniting the country, but only in hatred for the president. People who believe that we're going the right way will be upset by a moderate compromiser, slowing down "progress." People who believe the country is going the wrong way will be upset at further movement along that road, even if it is slower.
It seems that the Republicans will have to choose a representative of the right, not the middle. There are some candidates from the right, but the press is playing up Jeb Bush who is likely to lose for several reasons, including his name. But if he did win, he doesn't appear to want to challenge the general direction of government or some of Obama's policies. If the left has to lose an election, there are other people less likely to worry them.
Family? I recall that Obama insisted that his family was "off-limits." The press supported him in that and criticized even a mention of his children, let alone vile attacks. And I still remember the video of him leaving a press conference by kicking a door open, and his restriction of the media which even correspondents complain about for being secretive.
Are we making up standards for Palin that other presidents aren't expected to meet?
(So that I'm not misunderstood, Palin wouldn't be my choice, but for other reasons.)
(So that I'm not misunderstood, Palin wouldn't be my choice, but for other reasons.)"
Personally I think Palin is under a set of standards no one could live up to. Nothing appears to be off limits to the press and the left. Even to the point of making things up. How can you live up to a standard of perpetuating myths from comedy skits? "I can see Russia from my house" is said to be something she said form a SNL skit. How does one go about proving that negative? Even the Republican party never spoke up for her, yet she has the class to continue stumping for them. She is invited to every conference to speak. The democrat left has a viscous machine in place to use the media to pervert the truth, and eliminate the competition.
The boob tube has proven to be an perfect delivery device for the political perversion of America to Americans. Take your blue pill drink this purple Koolaid and we will talk again tomorrow. This is Rachel Maddow for CNBC "If there is no drama we will make some up".
You know, I wouldn't even care what the gender or color of the skin of a person would be in a presidential election. Those things shouldn't be a measure in a person's character, ability, wisdom, compassion, or intellect. Those are the traits that should be sought in any political candidate irrespective of race, religion or gender.
What's the old saying? Don't judge a book by its cover. Measure it by its content, I say.
Who's to say I am, or any one, are judging the aforementioned politicians? It has nothing to do with race, religion, gender, or economic status. I am not that narrow minded. Based on the their politics they are both terrible candidates. They are not leaders. I feel like they would not be able to get the job done if the worse happens.
Society, as a whole, doesn't vote on issues. They don't vote on what the candidate has done. They don't even vote for the best candidate for the job. Our society votes because of a candidates race, religion, political party, education received, empty promises, and "free" programs they support. There is no accountability for their actions. There is theft, lies, corruption, and scandals on both sides of the political fence. And I will agree with you that that it is wrong.
The sad part of all this is....
How many people voted for Obama because of his race? a lot How many people voted to Romney because his race and/or religious belief? a lot How many people were going vote for Hilary because of her gender? a lot How many people voted for Bush because he was a republican? a lot How many people voted for Clinton because he was democrat? a lot
There is reason why they talk about getting the black vote or the Latino vote, or the evangelical vote. They don't care about us as people. The see us more as sheep to be led where they want us to go. We have been manipulated into think we have no other options then the two major parties. Which is a lie.
And what have those candidates done for We the People? Did they deliver? Did the lead our time of need? Did they keep us strong? The answer is No. Because if any of those people did there job they were elected to do, this country wouldn't be were it is today. Hidden agendas, closed meeting, back door polices, pork spending, greasing palms, not "have sexual relations with that woman", not inhaling, ambassadors dying, hidden taxes, endless wars for political/monitory gain .....
Could any of the last 10 presidents been able to drop a bomb on any US city to keep a deadly virus from spreading? no....... They'd give some political correct bs answer and more people would die while waiting for big government to do something.
Some time the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. People have forgotten that. What's good for one person doesn't mean it's the right thing for this nation as a whole.
We have a big problem with the way our government is set up and it's only going to get worse if nothing is done.
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2015 23:59:02 GMT -6 by blackcatmagic
Hernando's Hideaway Plank Owner
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." -Confucius
I just hate the way they treated Palin, I always stood up for her did a lot of research and she isn't really dumb, just folksy.
I don't know what to think anymore, but I am pretty sure she loves her country.
Now,,,, I remember why I liked you so much,,,,,,,Yes, Palin was just a Person, a People Person,,,,who could get dinner on the table and a make a nice pair of shoes too. Nothing Wrong with this Woman at all! 113
Stromdancer777, I'm Very Glad You've Joined Our Family,,,,,, if you need help,,,, just ask. guohua