Why Can't We Elect Presidents of Good Personal Character?

[jwoodie]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dumbing down America

 

[Agit8r]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

Really? Are you sure?

 

[jwoodie]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

Really? Are you sure?

Their actions speak for themselves. When have you heard a recent President take responsibility for unpopular decisions?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Why Can't We Elect Presidents of Good Personal Character?

Possibly because men of good personal character don't seek that kind of power for the sake of it, as an end unto itself?

 

[Mac1958]

.

It's not just Presidents, it's politicians in general. Their top priority is not their constituents, it's their fundraising apparatus and their donors. When they're in Congress, they also have to suck up to party leadership to get plum committee spots. They also have to fight to get teevee time and then suck up to the interviewers, in between working with staffers to get more money from contributors. They have to balance all of the above with each bill they right and each vote they make. Holy freakin' crap.

How in the world can we expect people to be honest while operating in this incredibly distorted system? They're liars and we all know it -- but we forgive and defend them if they have the right letter after their name. So we're no better.

And even more bizarre, why do so many people place such faith and trust in these people, knowing damn well they're lying right to our faces?

.

 

[whitehall]

Just a hunch that the people who whine about American voters not getting the right information about candidates are the first to ridicule the Tea Party who are trying to make a difference in politics.

 

[jwoodie]

Voting on "issues" is a farce. Most of us do not have enough knowledge about the subject matter, let alone political, legislative and administrative processes necessary to enact them. Instead, we should be evaluating candidates on the basis of their personal integrity, if we can find any.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Voting on "issues" is a farce. Most of us do not have enough knowledge about the subject matter, let alone political, legislative and administrative processes necessary to enact them. Instead, we should be evaluating candidates on the basis of their personal integrity, if we can find any.

How can you? Most folks my age (40's) all have a past. The media and opostion will throw anyone under the bus for it no matter how much one changed as they got older.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

It begins with the voter.

In all politics, the politician is much like a toothpaste brand, he wants the most people to vote for him and will try to appeal to the widest demographic possible.

As the newspaper disappears, we are subjected to talking heads talking 'about' the news without even a detailed look at what that news really is. In brief hours of aftermath in the Gabby Gifford shooting, certain media outlets were very quick to "advance" the story, a journalistic technique in which you move the topic, usually as a side bar, to another angle. In that case it was gun control with the direct suggestion that "Republican" over-the-top rhetoric was responsible for the shooting, with an undercurrent that this was somehow the Republicans fault.

UNTIL...that is, it was revealed that the shooter was a Democrat volunteer and knew Gifford. In my day as a journalist, someone would lose their credibility if not their job over that, not for being wrong, but for being one sided and not pointing out the Democrats had just weeks before published a picture of Sarah Palin in the cross hairs of a high powered scope.

Most people are basing their vote on what they hear from people just like them, not bothering to look at the real facts, like that Mitt Romney's platform was almost identical to Obama's, and had more emphasis on the status of women.

99% of the mags at super market check outs are tripe about stars, celebrities, what washed up whore is showing her privates this week...and that is where the decision is made on who to vote for. Obama, the "nice clean"candidate as Joe Biden reminded us, or the fat fuck with "binders full of women" who didn't care about 47% of the population.

The result is the kind of politicians you have today, Harry Reid going to fucking war with "terrorists", "jihadists" and "traitors", never mind the fact he is there to get things done, as majority leader he has a responsibility to bring about consensus, although that word is now no longer on anyone's radar.

Politics is a game of not what is, but what you can make it appear to be, and as long as the electorate is drinking the 144 character cool aid, you get a room full of smoke and such surprises as a $600 million health care computer system that doesn't work and a president suddenly willing to talk about anything but health care.

The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was fond of saying "the people get the kind of government they deserve." He should know he screwed Canada for 15 years.

 

[Mr. H.]

Canned Tuna.

 

[william the wie]

Politicians are the designated liars (polite), bullies (police) and extortioners (tax collectors). That is the job description of "The Prince and "Leviathon". Wanting the smallest competent government possible is a goal, having effective politicians who are not politicians is simply a counterproductive fantasy.

 

[Politico]

Because people don't care about character anymore much less have any themselves.

 

[Sallow]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

Really? Are you sure?

Their actions speak for themselves. When have you heard a recent President take responsibility for unpopular decisions?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]

Like breaking the law and lying about it?

Yeah..great guy.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why? Simple...........................because too many people are too busy with their own lives and won't take the time out to research if the person is a decent person or not, as it's easier to just listen to the attack ads put out by your own party rather than think for yourself.

I find it kind of a shame actually, especially because of the fact that you can have information and news about almost any subject at your fingertips if you have an internet connection.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

Reagan? Really?

I think you should re-read your history concerning Reagan.

 

[freedombecki]

Really? Are you sure?

Their actions speak for themselves. When have you heard a recent President take responsibility for unpopular decisions?

Regan You Tube above at link

Like breaking the law and lying about it?

Yeah..great guy.

"What difference does it make?"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Their actions speak for themselves. When have you heard a recent President take responsibility for unpopular decisions?

Regan You Tube above at link

Like breaking the law and lying about it?

Yeah..great guy.

"What difference does it make?"

What difference does it make? Simple.............the OP said that Reagan was one of the last presidents to have any kind of good character, yet he told a large lie to the American people.

Unless...................of course.................you think that lying to the American People while you're president demonstrates "good character".

 

[Sallow]

The last two I can recall are Truman and Reagan. What the hell are we doing??

It begins with the voter.

In all politics, the politician is much like a toothpaste brand, he wants the most people to vote for him and will try to appeal to the widest demographic possible.

As the newspaper disappears, we are subjected to talking heads talking 'about' the news without even a detailed look at what that news really is. In brief hours of aftermath in the Gabby Gifford shooting, certain media outlets were very quick to "advance" the story, a journalistic technique in which you move the topic, usually as a side bar, to another angle. In that case it was gun control with the direct suggestion that "Republican" over-the-top rhetoric was responsible for the shooting, with an undercurrent that this was somehow the Republicans fault.

UNTIL...that is, it was revealed that the shooter was a Democrat volunteer and knew Gifford. In my day as a journalist, someone would lose their credibility if not their job over that, not for being wrong, but for being one sided and not pointing out the Democrats had just weeks before published a picture of Sarah Palin in the cross hairs of a high powered scope.

Most people are basing their vote on what they hear from people just like them, not bothering to look at the real facts, like that Mitt Romney's platform was almost identical to Obama's, and had more emphasis on the status of women.

99% of the mags at super market check outs are tripe about stars, celebrities, what washed up whore is showing her privates this week...and that is where the decision is made on who to vote for. Obama, the "nice clean"candidate as Joe Biden reminded us, or the fat fuck with "binders full of women" who didn't care about 47% of the population.

The result is the kind of politicians you have today, Harry Reid going to fucking war with "terrorists", "jihadists" and "traitors", never mind the fact he is there to get things done, as majority leader he has a responsibility to bring about consensus, although that word is now no longer on anyone's radar.

Politics is a game of not what is, but what you can make it appear to be, and as long as the electorate is drinking the 144 character cool aid, you get a room full of smoke and such surprises as a $600 million health care computer system that doesn't work and a president suddenly willing to talk about anything but health care.

The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was fond of saying "the people get the kind of government they deserve." He should know he screwed Canada for 15 years.

Yeah?

When did that happen.

He was a Democrat who shot Democrats?

Views on politics[edit]

Records show that Loughner was registered as an Independent and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010.[39][40] A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was linked to Loughner. (There have been numerous copies of 'impostor accounts' such as 'JaredLoughner' and 'Classitup1O'.)[41][42]

Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[17] A former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007, prior to his personality transformation, as "left wing, quite liberal,"[43] "radical."[44]

In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways" – for instance, in the belief that the government used the control of language and grammar to brainwash people, the notion that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, or the assertion that NASA was faking spaceflights.[45]

Dislike for Gabrielle Giffords[edit]

According to a former friend, Bryce Tierney, Loughner had expressed a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords. Tierney recalled that Loughner had often said that women should not hold positions of power.[46][47] He repeatedly derided Giffords as a "fake". This belief intensified after he attended her August 25, 2007 event when she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: "What is government if words have no meaning?"[19] Loughner kept Giffords' form letter, which thanked him for attending the 2007 event, in the same box as an envelope which was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made".[48] Zane Gutierrez, a friend, later told the New York Times that Loughner's anger would also "well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."[47]
Jared Lee Loughner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Their actions speak for themselves. When have you heard a recent President take responsibility for unpopular decisions?

Regan You Tube above at link

Like breaking the law and lying about it?

Yeah..great guy.

"What difference does it make?"

Hillary was never President.

And that context of that was the ridiculous allegations by the investigation to quantify words and engage in "gotchas".