1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Serious Political Question

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by bigdogtx, Oct 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    While I have voted in a few elections and feel that I am more informed about govenment workings than most, I have a question about international experience. Palin gets slammed about not having any foreign affairs experience. Just what foreign experience does any senator or representative have? Going to a foreign country and having dinner and pictures does not make you an expert, diplomat or well versed to what goes on behind closed doors with treaty making or negotiations.

    Ronald Reagan was a governor and was excellent at dealing with foreign leaders. Even Bill Clinton, a govenor, had no experience with foreign leaders that I know of.

    Please tell me what and how much experince that ANY congressman, senator or govenor has PRIOR to becoming POTUS? Also, what source of information is there? Thanks.
     
  2. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    You've hit the nail on the head. Very few governors or congressmen/senators have any foreign experience, save for a few business junkets and those on certain committees like Foreign Affairs and military committees.<br>
    <br>
    The main point here is - Obama goes to Germany, makes a speech, and suddenly he's "credentialed". So now Palin is fair game. It's a double standard not based on fact or reality, and it's wrong. It's part of the liberal "win at any cost" situational ethics.<br>
    <br>
    Going further, the media has been over Palin with a fine toothed comb, yet all they've found are a few minor "discrepencies" and have tried to blow them out of proportion, all while ignoring the money Obama was taking from the mortgage industry and his shady dealings in Chicago. Another situational ethics double standard.<br>
    <br>
    Or how about Hillary, who raised a daughter in the White House and as a senator. Yet no one questions whether she's a good mother. On the other hand, that ol' situational ethics double standard is calling Palin into questions for daring to have a job and a family. The worst part is NOW should be screaming about how discriminatory this is, yet they remain silent, allowing situational ethics to take command because Palin is a conservative woman.<br>
    <br>
    The Democrats are morally bankrupt.
     
  3. JH

    JH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,359
    No, it is more than left-wing moral decay, double-standards, prejudice, malice, ruthlessness....it is a form of FASCISM!

    Our American media is no better than a government controlled totalitarian mouthpiece similar to North Korea....the difference being, it is rich left wingers not a dictator, who seek to impose their dysfunctional value system on the rest of us....

    Who do you want as Commander in Chief: A WEASEL OR A HERO?
     
  4. Big Jack

    Big Jack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,735
    Location:
    Erie, Pa
    Oxymoron for the day.."Serious Political Question" Not the way the political discussion has been going on this site. But he that will steal the least and provide for the masses deserves consideration. Heck, I'm already ashamed of the financial hole I'm leaving for my grandchildren to try to crawl out of. And it started its downward spiral long before the Bush leadership.
     
  5. Gold E

    Gold E TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    481
    No one has experience in being the President except the current President and past Presidents.

    No one has experience in being the Vice President except the current Vice President and past Vice Presidents.

    The best that WE can do is to judge who is MOST LIKELY to do the best job in each position based on their behavior in the past.

    McCain/Palin for me!
     
  6. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    More than anything else, the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates should have leadership backgrounds. Historically, the best candidates do not come from the House or Senate. The legislative branch is one of bargaining and horse trading, from the very outset of one's term(s).

    It's been pointed out here, and other places, that McCain's first instinct is to compromise, instead of lead. Make a deal, instead of make a decision. That's the nature of legislative politics. Yesterday's vote is a prime example. In McCain's campaign, he's promised to veto, and name names when pork-barrel and earmarks arise when he is elected President. He could have named names, but he used the cover of a crisis to go along with 74 others.

    Senators draw 99 (434 - House) other members to give them cover, something that's impossible to get in the oval office (governor's or mayor's mansion). Since no single vote is the difference most of the time, the branch itself provides cover.

    The only place to get leadership experience is the gubernatorial arena, or corporate America. States, in many instances are miniatures of the Federal government, with all the problems inherent - taxes, budgets, "the buck stops here" decisions, etc. The larger the government, the more complex the decision-making, although states are but a microcosm of the whole country.

    California (Reagan) New York (Roosevelt), and Texas (Bush) have large, complex operations. Those make good breeding grounds for leaders.

    From corporate America, there could be a lot of great Presidents. However, most don't want to undergo the rectal exam of having every personal detail of one's life exposed to the public. Besides, why so much work for so little pay? The down side to corporate America is that a lot of those at the top are managers and not leaders. Managers don't do well, since they too often work toward management consensus, and not leadership.

    YMMV

    Best,
    Dennis
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.