|
I agree, these are the two most important issues for America's immediate future. We need to lock down the border, switch to a flat fixed consumer tax and dismantle the social programs (we need to be tapered off of social security completely). Then we need to ditch the Federal Reserve.
Dismantling all the social programs would be ideal, however, a simple ON/OFF switch can not be applied to them without a gross injustice being done to millions of our people. Take Social Security, many millions of people have paid into it for the majority of their working lives. They are owed this service in their retirement years. They are depending on it, and depending on it legitimately because they had no choice their entire working lives whether to contribute to it. Its not their fault that the government used it as a slush fund for all these decades. SS would have to be phased out slowly, with at least a couple of generations being grandfathered in. And those who participated for a decade or less being given a one time payment to "buy them out" so to speak. But at this point, talking about a complete burial of the New Deal is premature. The Boomers are going to be around for another 25+ years, there's a lot of them, they vote, and they will not take kindly to their SS being ripped from them. I could talk about other programs but time constrains. Bottom line is, you gotta start somewhere, and these programs are not the place to start. Concerning the FED. I agree 100%. And many of our founding fathers warned us repeatedly about having a Central Bank. But A. Hamilton gave us one anyway. Fortunately, it failed, was replaced with another, and A. Jackson did away with it by not renewing its charter. Famously, Jackson said," The Bank is trying to kill me--but I will kill it!" (lol, that always cracked me up.) Lincoln avoided the bankers with his green back dollars but after his demise, those were scrapped too. Sadly, W. Wilson, another do-gooder religious type, gave us the Federal Reserve while America was asleep and we've been slaves to it ever since. Even sadder, doing away with the Fed is even more untouchable than social programs. They'll let Ron Paul squawk about it because he is not powerful or effective, but let a Speaker of the House or, egad, a sitting president discuss ending the Fed? Well, they probably won't live too long. Some people speculate that it was executive order 11110 that got Kennedy served up like a Christmas turkey in downtown Dallas. I think JFK's assassination was more complicated than that, but trying to return America's monetary policy back to its rightful place, the US treasury, surely didn't make him any new friends before he passed. Whoever gets rid of the Fed, if its ever gotten rid of, will have to get all their ducks in a row first, then do it with stealth. You can't announce something like that before the fact or even run a campaign based on that idea. This is war. You gotta pull that particular rug out from under them before they know what hits them.
===
But I don't see any candidate doing that. What was Romney's solution for Obamacare? Romney care. They just want to exchange socialized commerce for socialized commerce. Its the coke-pepsi challenge of socialism.
Well, now you're getting to the nub of the matter. The current and last Republican controlled congresses have shown without out a doubt, to anyone who cares to look, that the two party system has become a UNI-party system. There's a handful in both parties that actually have some integrity, but most of them get paid to vote "yes" or paid to vote "no" and that's all that really concerns them: leaving office much richer than when they entered. Just look up the net worth of many of our ex congress people before they entered office compared to when they left. Considering that the job doesn't pay that much, relatively speaking, and they have to maintain two residences, its astounding how rich most of them are when they come out. Just remember, with all the lobbyists up yonder on Capitol Hill, the political class can get paid to vote either "yes" or "no" any day of the week. Then, every two or four years they have to "explain" their positions to their constituencies back home with some mealy mouth speech, usually wrapping themselves in the flag while advocating the benefits of clean air, clean water, children, and apple pie. Its so sickening. lol. Its hard for me to stay in fellowship with God while paying attention to them. Unfortunately, I was born to look. lol
Concerning Romney, all I can say is, no one will ever convince me he didn't throw that election. Trump has echoed this sentiment in recent months two or three times as well, which, for a presidential candidate is simply astounding.
To be honest, I really don't know much about any candidates' economic or border stance. I know Rand is pretty libertarian, and I like that, but I don't know if I believe a word he say.
I think Trump will say just about anything for the spotlight, I mean he was a democratic up until 2009. Why the sudden change?
Concerning the border. If Trump hadn't made it one of the major focuses of his campaign, nobody else would hardly be talking about it at all. All the other candidates, while distancing themselves from Trump, are trying to ape his border stance as much as their big donors will allow them to, yet without committing themselves too much. Even Jeb Bush, who infamously called illegal immigration an "act of love" several months back, has now back pedaled a bit.
All I will offer to say about Rand is that he is not his father, except in one way: they both lack the charisma and smarts to ever be effective in office as a president, let alone get elected to it.
Trump has no need of the spot light for the spot light's sake. He's been in it for over 30 years. I'm pretty sure the "new" has worn off. He's a professional at getting media attention now, not some doe eyed young rock star. People pay Trump millions of dollars just to put his name on their buildings whether he built them or not. That's a master brander, not the work of a rising star trying to get more face time. Trump knows what he's doing. He is saving millions of dollars in political advertising by being a showman. Every news network makes oodles of money by having him on their program. So, other than the price of his jet fuel, he has spent next to nothing to get exposure for his message. That's smart. Being media savvy is not a negative in this day and age for anyone doing business or running for office; in fact, its essential. And love him or hate him, he's the best at it. Don't know how old you are, but Reagan, in his own way, had the ability to use the press to talk over the media talking heads and directly to the people. Reagan's showmanship was part of what made him such an effective president. Now personality wise, Trump is about as far removed from Reagan as possible, but he is probably better at doing this kind of thing than even Reagan was. Reagan didn't have YT and Twitter. lol
Concerning Trump's political associations. Nobody in New York City gets to do business on a grand scale without giving money to the democrat party. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he's had to pay the Mafia off too. I mean, really, in that kind of political environment, what's the difference?
Trump has changed a few of his positions down through the years, but all in all, he's remained remarkably consistent. I've changed my positions more in the last 30 years than he has. Just go look at footage of him on Oprah from the 80s. Youtube it. He's basically the same guy he's always been.
Carson, not too sure about him. He's said things about guns (like restricting rights) in the past that I don't like.
Until I learn more, it looks like Rand for me. I like his dad better though.[/quote]
I'm going to be polite and not comment on Carson, except to say, he's not what I'm looking for. And again, we agree about Rand.
We are in a horrible scenario in this country if we are patriotic. The deck is stacked against American values in America. The socialists, commies, satanists and bed wetters of all varieties have seen to that. In order for someone representing the best interests of this country to get elected and be effective, they will have to be a fighter. Someone not afraid to scrap and get their hands dirty. The last time we got a boy scout we were stuck with Jimmy Carter. Religion is poison. Religion has a sister called Political Correctness. Those gals both worship the Devil.
But everything I'm addressing is just the mechanics of how this all plays out on a human level. Ultimately, according to your original post, we should vote for God, whether it is an election year or not. The current calamity in this country is our own damn fault. And I'm talking about Christians. The churches in this country have gone full blown apostate in my life time. We, as a group, are not worth our salt. If we were, we wouldn't be in this mess. God only knows how few of us are actually holding this thing together with our positive volition towards Him. Some days, I feel like Abraham asking, "If there's only this many (believers) will you destroy the city?"
_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ
"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot
|
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
