Embrace Liberty of Vanish Republicans
Not sure if this guy is real, but if more liberty minded candidates can gain some traction (10% of vote) then the Republican Party will have to embrace them or go extinct. This one reason a vote for a 3rd party candidate is not a waste.
If you must vote, then vote for anyone except the R+D party.
We need to start telling them, in large numbers, that they will just have to move to us because we'll never come back to them. An "establishment" (= big-government) Republican candidate is simply an even worse choice than a Democrat, since he will spend just as much, and take just as much of our freedom away -- and the Right will get the blame. Why should we help them make that happen?
I hope your appraisal is accurate and a trend. Many I have occasion to speak with that self identified as TEA party people (having taken a beating in the media) are trying to infiltrate the GOP in a stealthy way. It would seem that they are trying to do what the progressives did to the Democratic party. I voted for Perot twice. I often hear that I "helped elect Clinton."
Whatever... One must vote their conscience.
Respectfully,
O.A.
there's only one problem. Only Ross Perot made the claim about his daughter being threatened. No evidence was ever offered. keep in mind that Ross Perot, despite his business success was a very flawed candidate who didn't always make a lot of sense. No doubt, he also had a unique way sometimes of grasping a point that other politicians failed to see. The bottom line with Perot was that he simply couldn't manage to make people bellieve that he wasn't just a little crazy.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
It's true, he did make sense on some of his commentaries, but when analyzed, he came up short on his solutions. I too liked his ability to cut through the stupidity of government, but his solutions seldom seemed workable.
Did you ever truly listened to what to me often sounded like crackpot ideas. If his name wasn't preceded by the word "billionaire" no one would have ever paid any attention to him. This is not to say that other candidates were any better.
Fred
I certainly can't disagree with the lack of heart and soul part. I would add moral compass and basic integrity as well, at least for the vast majority. he was also easy to caricature and whether we like it or not appearance, both physically and emotionally are indeed factors in winning an election.
Just look at the way Mitt Romney was caricatured during his campaign, perfect hair, strong masculine looks and selfmade wealth. granted, he also had a somewhat privileged background, but he made most of his money on his own based on his intellect and education.
As to Perot, no proof was ever offered for his claims of the Bush family having attempted to kidnap his daughter.
By the way, Perot made most of his money from government contracts when he started Electronic Data systems. No doubt that when he worked for IBM he was their top salesman and saw a market that IBM ignored and he had a vision for a business that they didn't see.
Fred speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
It will not recur.
I think we have a better chance with this than strengthening a 3rd party. Heck, even a D wins, hopefully a strong Republican would have influenced their platform.
I think we all prefer to be able to vote FOR someone with whom we can identify. And I think many of us have identified that unfortunately, those candidates are few and far between - largely because of the Party apparatus which George Washington warned against but which probably was inevitable to a republican form of government.
Me? I will vote FOR someone as much as possible, vote AGAINST someone where necessary, but in no way will I allow someone else to determine my destiny without my say.
Voting has accomplished nothing of consequence in at least half a century.
Someone else has already determined the outcome long before election day.
That being said, I will continue to vote until that right and privilege is taken away from me. Fraud at the ballot box may happen, but at least I can answer myself and say that I didn't give up.
It you want radical change, then politics is unlikely to be a very useful area to spend your time.
But to me, the power apparatus is endemic of the people themselves. The people themselves in sufficient voting quantity think that they are entitled to a fat, dumb, happy life provided by others. The politicians they elect are symptomatic of this problem.
I don't have numbers to back my claim (just trying to get this out before my work-day begins) but it "seems" most libertarians or other 3rd parties typically draw from politicians on the right side.
I would like to see, or at least feel confident, that a 3rd party would draw equally from both parties. There are definite problems with Ds and Rs but I have always allied myself with Rs much more than Ds. Voting for a 3rd seems to hurt Rs much more than Ds and gives the Ds the advantage.
I am registered R, but take the primarys very seriously and vote for the R closest to the 3rd party I would, otherwise vote for. It would seem, if we just pulled the R's to allign with our 3rd party we would get both the R-vote, the 3rd party vote and maybe even some D-vote.
No one denies that there are some good people that happen to be lawyers, but when lawyers are referred to in a disparaging manner, we are talking about the ones that become politicians who tend to be the less moral and honest ones. One of the major flaws in the electorate is that we think of lawyers as being smarter when in fact they seldom are. for the most part they are better educated in the art of prevarication as their very jobs depend upon presenting completely opposite points in an argument. furthermore, it seldom matters which side of an argument a lawyer is asked to take.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Regardless of their ethics, what is common, is their lack of leadership experience. They are well educated and, sure, they know the law better than most but can they lead?
Now, look at our new ebola czar, for example. Is it coincidence that a new government position was opened to a lawyer? More politics with lawyers. No doubt, he was not appointed for his medical experience or even his leadership skills. He was appointed because they hope he will know to say and do things to prevent and/or hide scandles.
Until the Democrat Party cleans up their act and gets rid of the Progressives, I will vote for the Republican running. Even if I have to hold my nose to do it.
We are not a democracy, but there is a large faction in government and within the voting populous that act as if we are. If we keep ignoring this...one day we will wake up as a democracy.
Yeah, some of the candidates on the right stink to high heaven but they are the weapon of choice to throw at this growing threat.
This is not complicated.