Beavers, who would you like to see be the president of this country? It can be anyone, past or present who meets the age and birth requirements for the job, "electability" is no factor to be considered. I'm just curious, as I think a lot of people would like to see someone like Ron Paul in office but doubt his electability, and I think that may be the biggest drawback to his popularity. You clearly dislike him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But who is your guy / gal to hold this office if you could put anyone in that position?
That's a good question, but I hope it doesn't set up a "my guy is better than your guy and you're a fool for supporting so-and-so". I don't have a strong sense of loyalty and attachment to any politician, but I think conservatives and Ron Paul supporters assume that people who disagree with them have that loyalty for Obama, etc. I would say that the politician I find myself agreeing with the most is Kucinich. I also like hearing Bernie Sanders talk. I think the ideal person that I want for president is someone I don't know about. There are thousands that would qualify, but don't go near the political arena because of all the phoniness that goes with it. This person has a wide knowledge base, a deep understanding of history, a respect for the development of new technology, core values of compassion, cooperation, empathy, and respect. Work history would include experience digesting data, maintaining integrity when faced with those values being challenged on a regular basis, collaborating with others, and understanding of individual psychology balanced with the sociology of the group.
Other beliefs my ideal candidate would have would be an unflappable belief that at our core, all humans are good people (and when I say all, I mean ALL). In objective terms, I'm looking for someone who matches my anti-military beliefs, makes decisions based on the long-term and not short sighted, knee-jeer reactions, Funding for education and research are high on my list. They would speak of balance in their proposals, and also live it in their life. He/she would have to rise above the B.S. in order to help balance the budget. There's more, but this is what came off the top of my head.
I just had to know, because I see you take a very adversarial approach with Paul, but I find myself agreeing with what you say often in other threads, so I wonder where is the disconnect? I could vote for Kucinich or somebody like him-- he's principled and seems honest, echoes a similar foreign policy as Ron. Sanders actually introduced Paul's Fed Full Audit Bill in the Senate before compromising on a watered down version of it, so I have some respect for him because it takes BALLS to call out The Fed. Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone likes a lot of what Paul's about including his stances on foreign policy, The Fed and Wall Street Bailouts, but can't vote for him. His biggest reason for it, is sadly, Ron's supporters. Actually, what he said in a recent blog in RS was that he cannot support Ron because of his experience with RAND Paul's supporters. I think this is unfortunate. Yes, some of us are pretty hardcore, and some are over the top know-it-alls. Some have a healthy mistrust of government, and others a not-so-healthy mistrust of government. Anyone who pays close attention to what Paul says should understand that no one knows it all, especially those at the Fed who believe that an economy can be run from the top-down. As expected, I see your choice of candidate is someone I could potentially support, I did NOT figure you for a 100% Obama guy, but I also think that you probably don't think he's all that bad of a president either. Compared to all others in my lifetime, he might be the most likeable as a person for me, although I disagree with most of what he believes. If being anti-militaristic is high on anyone's list, I do not see how Paul can be completely ruled out especially considering that such a small fraction of candidates have ever endorsed these views and have actually meant it. What are your thoughts on Ralph Nader?
I just had to know, because I see you take a very adversarial approach with Paul, but I find myself agreeing with what you say often in other threads, so I wonder where is the disconnect? I could vote for Kucinich or somebody like him-- he's principled and seems honest, echoes a similar foreign policy as Ron. Sanders actually introduced Paul's Fed Full Audit Bill in the Senate before compromising on a watered down version of it, so I have some respect for him because it takes BALLS to call out The Fed. Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone likes a lot of what Paul's about including his stances on foreign policy, The Fed and Wall Street Bailouts, but can't vote for him. His biggest reason for it, is sadly, Ron's supporters. Actually, what he said in a recent blog in RS was that he cannot support Ron because of his experience with RAND Paul's supporters. I think this is unfortunate. Yes, some of us are pretty hardcore, and some are over the top know-it-alls. Some have a healthy mistrust of government, and others a not-so-healthy mistrust of government. Anyone who pays close attention to what Paul says should understand that no one knows it all, especially those at the Fed who believe that an economy can be run from the top-down. As expected, I see your choice of candidate is someone I could potentially support, I did NOT figure you for a 100% Obama guy, but I also think that you probably don't think he's all that bad of a president either. Compared to all others in my lifetime, he might be the most likeable as a person for me, although I disagree with most of what he believes. If being anti-militaristic is high on anyone's list, I do not see how Paul can be completely ruled out especially considering that such a small fraction of candidates have ever endorsed these views and have actually meant it. What are your thoughts on Ralph Nader?
With Ron Paul I see a lot of reliance on the theoretical, and like I said before, there isn't much reality test to it. Putting more power in the state and local governments makes sense on the one hand, but the more I think about it, that would work for some, and be destructive in other areas. I think where there is cronyism, it would only get worse, and the disparity between states would be even greater. I also don't get his whole issue with the Dept. of Education.
With Nader I thought his focus was too narrow. I enjoyed the idea of getting the corporations out of government, but he didn't seem dynamic enough to respond effectively to everything that is on the presidents plate. I actually almost voted for him, but being on the West coast, the election results were coming in before the polls closed and it was too close for me to vote for him. I chose the pragmatic over the values statement.
Comments
I just had to know, because I see you take a very adversarial approach with Paul, but I find myself agreeing with what you say often in other threads, so I wonder where is the disconnect? I could vote for Kucinich or somebody like him-- he's principled and seems honest, echoes a similar foreign policy as Ron. Sanders actually introduced Paul's Fed Full Audit Bill in the Senate before compromising on a watered down version of it, so I have some respect for him because it takes BALLS to call out The Fed. Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone likes a lot of what Paul's about including his stances on foreign policy, The Fed and Wall Street Bailouts, but can't vote for him. His biggest reason for it, is sadly, Ron's supporters. Actually, what he said in a recent blog in RS was that he cannot support Ron because of his experience with RAND Paul's supporters. I think this is unfortunate. Yes, some of us are pretty hardcore, and some are over the top know-it-alls. Some have a healthy mistrust of government, and others a not-so-healthy mistrust of government. Anyone who pays close attention to what Paul says should understand that no one knows it all, especially those at the Fed who believe that an economy can be run from the top-down. As expected, I see your choice of candidate is someone I could potentially support, I did NOT figure you for a 100% Obama guy, but I also think that you probably don't think he's all that bad of a president either. Compared to all others in my lifetime, he might be the most likeable as a person for me, although I disagree with most of what he believes. If being anti-militaristic is high on anyone's list, I do not see how Paul can be completely ruled out especially considering that such a small fraction of candidates have ever endorsed these views and have actually meant it. What are your thoughts on Ralph Nader?
With Ron Paul I see a lot of reliance on the theoretical, and like I said before, there isn't much reality test to it. Putting more power in the state and local governments makes sense on the one hand, but the more I think about it, that would work for some, and be destructive in other areas. I think where there is cronyism, it would only get worse, and the disparity between states would be even greater. I also don't get his whole issue with the Dept. of Education.
With Nader I thought his focus was too narrow. I enjoyed the idea of getting the corporations out of government, but he didn't seem dynamic enough to respond effectively to everything that is on the presidents plate. I actually almost voted for him, but being on the West coast, the election results were coming in before the polls closed and it was too close for me to vote for him. I chose the pragmatic over the values statement.