Tell em Rand...

[Bubblehead1980]

This is one of the best responses to a Presidential address I can recall.

[Spiced_Rum]

Based on that speech means that there is a politician I could vote for.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Spiced_Rum

Based on that speech means that there is a politician I could vote for.

Absolutely. I hope he does not change and is who he appears to be.Assuming he is like his father, he is the real deal.Definitely more polished than the elder Paul but that is needed to across the certain voters.

[Wolferz]

Rand Paul for president in 2016?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Rand Paul for president in 2016?

I'll take Howdy Doody at this point.

[mapuc]

And whoever that's going to be your president in 2016, you probably going to hate him too. Just because he/she isn't what you had been expecting.

Markus

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'll take Howdy Doody at this point.

Buffalo Bob will pull his strings. I wonder who is pulling the strings on the current puppet?

One thing is for sure, he can't sneak up and punch Assad in the mouth if we all get between them.

[Tchocky]

All good points, Platapus. The relationship with congress has to be a two way street.

Holding 40+ votes to repeal the ACA is a rather clear signifier of how little appetite there is in the House for negotiation.

[Bubblehead1980]

Skybird, I read your post and agree with many aspects of it but then again, I don't. I will respond later this evening when have more time.

Platapus, the problem with negotiation, is if it violates major principles, it is a betrayal of your voters to "do the deal" and the president is supposed to ask congress to do things, certain presidents can't get what they want so they use executive order or use backdoor solutions.Example, cap and trade could not get passed, so obama has went about using the EPA to backdoor cap and trade in.Not the only to do this crap but its what comes to mind.

Honestly, I like what the house has done, they have been the last line of defense.I mean, we saw what happened first two years of obama's presidency with a majority in both houses, we have the monstrosity known as obamacare, the stimulus, Sonia Sotomayor appointed to supreme court etc etc. Honestly, glad American woke up in 2010 because we would have likely suffered even more damage without the house.The house has been the safeguard against obama on many things.They would work with him but you cant expect people to just give him his way, in the name of "compromise", especially if it violates their principles and conscience as well as that of the voters who sent them there.

Also, much of Obama's problems with congress is his own.A complaint even from the Dem side is the president rarely engages them.They expect to feel important and for him to schmooz.Barack Obama is not schmoozer personally.Sure, he can work a room to appeal to certain people out there, come across as sincere to some, read a teleprompter and cue cards fairly well and say what they want to here but it's a facade,Obama is not a guy you want to have a beer with and "shoot the sh...t" with . I am stalking strictly personality, nothing to do with his politics etc. Obama does not play the one on one game well with his peers is what I am saying and that is part of the game. So combined his far left views with a no so great personality when cameras are off, it is a wonder can't get this done.

I could see them working with him on a budget deal if he put real effort to cut spending etc but he has not made any real effort.Also, it's like relationship that has ran its course, two just have irreconcilable differences, just have to let things run their course as no way can agree on anything.The house has been doing that, stall his agenda since it's not good for the country, wait until he is gone.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Platapus, the problem with negotiation, is if it violates major principles, it is a betrayal of your voters to "do the deal" and the president is supposed to ask congress to do things, certain presidents can't get what they want so they use executive order or use backdoor solutions.

It looks like (atleast from this side of the pond) that almost everything is "major principle" that can't be negotiated of.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

It looks like (atleast from this side of the pond) that almost everything is "major principle" that can't be negotiated of.

We don't compromise anymore. We just dig our heels in and duke it out, while trying to make the other guy look bad.

[nikimcbee]

@Platatpus
That was a great post.
I think the big problem is where it becomes a career for them. When it becomes a career, they no longer serve their constituents, but they are more worried about their job security. I think this is a big problem, where there is one party rule. (See Oregon or Utah for examples)
They get hooked on the power and the benefits, then there is no removing them.

I think there should a a one term limit and you're done and/or get rid of all the benefits,perks, goodies, salary, and give them a basic living stipend. Do it like jury duty maybe.




McBee! that is jus crazy! Who will drive me to lunch!?! I AM A QUEEN!!!!!
Where is Mooke? Mookie, don't jus stand there, get me my coffee! Neal, what are you laughing at!?! Get me my lunch!!!

I AM THE CONGRESS WOOOOOMAN! AND YOU WILL RESPECT ME!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Platapus, the problem with negotiation, is if it violates major principles, it is a betrayal of your voters to "do the deal" ....

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Eddie Burke (1774)

Which raises an interesting question. Can a representative serve his or her people and not agree with their opinions?

That is not an easy question to answer.

In our representative government, we empower, through elections, people to make decisions on our behalf not necessarily based on our opinion. If we disagree with the way our elected representative represents us, the citizens can choose not to re-elect them.

It would be swell if what the citizens want and what the representative thinks is right are in agreement. But what if they ain't?

Our country is only a democracy to the point of electing our representatives. After that, the "will of the people" is less important until the next election.

That is the basis of a representative government.

This is why it is so important to really understand the candidate further than a letter after his or her name.