reply to post by NoJoker13
Well then from what I gather you are an America-first kind of person and support the current office holder of the presidency as respect of the office
and (by proxy) the person holding the office. You are not afraid to point out mistakes that a president has made once their plan has come to
So do you trust that what may seem questionable at the time policies and stances are due to information that we may not be fully privy to and
therefore what appears odd would seem a logical course of action if we had all the information?
If so, do you feel that those in the position and possess the ability to run for office are the best qualified to make such decisions for us? Is there
something about the kind of person that seeks such power that makes them look out for the best interest of the people that do not?
If not, was this thread a psychological test to stir up the the already angry bears for your amusement or validate a premiss that only 1 in 10
actually think beyond the talking points and party platform mantras? If this is the case, do have a grand notion that perhaps you can reach the other
90% and make them wake up and realize that so long as we are divided and unthinking that nothing will advance beyond their our base ideologies?
Ideologically speaking whenever ten people are introduced to an idea, 2-3 will like it. 2-3 will hate it and the remaining 4-6 will be on the fence.
In a group of 7 it almost always follows a 1-5-1 split. In both cases reaching compromise and agreement depends largely on who presented the idea and
the natural leadership qualities of the people for or opposed to the idea to reach a decision or compromise to enact the idea.
Political leanings are similar to ideologies. Politics are all about reaching the 4-6 or 5 as the case may be. However the 4-6 usually are more
concerned with their own lives. These are the people that do not vote. Obama won the last election primarily by reaching into those 4-6, motivating
them to vote. The right became very offended by this as their reaching was done as it was in the past. Lip service to 4-6.
The problem with empowering "the disenfranchised" the 4-6 is that now no one is sure if they will become involved or go back to disinterested in the
future. Voters tend to vote traditionally. With these new voters voting democrat, odds are they will vote democrat again if they chose to vote at all
in the future. All this means is changing the game plan to account for that possibility. So there is much at stake for the 2010 election cycle for the
right. The right is a bit louder now, not just because they hold no power but to overcome the unknown factor.
Currently the left, realizing how the election was won, is trying to keep those people involved and in the voting process in order to keep their seats
in 2010. Unfortunately, it is in the form of bribes by giving away lots of taxpayer money. Be it the stimulus (that hasn't stimulated much of
anything here on the ground) or free healthcare, the left is bribing the disenfranchised. I fully expect to see, if the healthcare bill passes, the
political ads to be XXX(R) fought hard to prevent the wasting of taxpayer money the expansion of government and XXX(D) worked hard to bring healthcare
to all Americans.
I admit that I am fired up enough to consider a run for the presidency in 2012 on the platform of putting an American in to office as opposed to a
career politician. A two-fisted American to straighten out the corruption of DC, to stop the outsourcing of jobs and one of the few that has actually
read and understands the Constitution to know that the President and the Federal Government works for the the American people and the other way
[edit on 15-8-2009 by Ahabstar]