Re: Kind of political but mainly football related

quozzel

Ring of Honor [21277]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 12291

Joined: 2002

Jul 16, 2019, 8:04 PM

I'm a registered Republican. I actually voted Perot the first time I ever voted and I've actually never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate; I voted Romney over Obama, for instance, though anybody who was actually paying attention knows both guys were actually fairly moderate. I didn't actually vote this last election because both candidates appalled me.

Call me a "RINO" or "Never-Trumper" if you wanna, that's fine. But I'm economically conservative - my wife calls me "pathologically cheap", but whatever. I largely favor the Second Amendment though I don't want cruise missiles and M-1's available for sale at Wal-Mart. I think entitlement programs almost never work, I favor a bristling and strong military, and I certainly favor less government. I largely favor the Second Amendment though I don't want cruise missiles and M-1's available for sale at Wal-Mart.

I'm what you'd call a "Chic Fil-A Capitalist". I love their economic model. They're in the process of creating 10,000 millionaires instead of one multi-billionaire, which is also about ten million times better for America. Except for some of the earlier owners, each Chic Fil-A is independently owned, by an owner who first worked his way up as a store employee. They don't just share the wealth, they share ownership. They hire the best people and pay them far more than market. And despite the fact that it costs them massive dollars in weekend sales, they're closed Sundays, because they have higher values than just making money. And of course, liberals totally miss the boat on the showpiece economic model Chic Fil-A represents and concentrate instead on the fact that their religious convictions do not always play well with the gay community. (Here is the point I start screaming: Yo, Left Wingers...you wanna see good capitalism, this is what it looks like!)

Trump isn't empowering local ownership. He's stuffing the pockets of big business. And while he's certainly achieving less government, he's doing it by setting fire to the building while we're all still in it. And I question anybody who forgets that as late as 2012, Trump was still a registered Democrat...and now here he is trying to tell all of us what being a Republican actually means. And he does not seem to be reading the same books I always did...actually I get the definite sense he doesn't read at all and just pulls stuff out of his butt as he goes along, and we're supposed to just blindly follow along with it because of party affiliation?

Carry on, but no way, no how. And for those who say "fine, we don't need you"...that's fine too. See how that "we don't need you" approach works out in an actual democracy, which thankfully, we still are...for the moment, anyhow.

Hope that clarifies my "politics".

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

You're going to have to enlighten me on anybody that currently uses RCV in an election of any significant size or importance.

If one of your proofs is the Heisman balloting, the Clemson board is probably not the most responsive place to float this idea.

Voting FOR someone sounds noble, but usually in a democratic republic, we equate that to selecting the campaign promise package that we feel favors us. I don't want campaign giveaways. I want someone who respects American values, and has the guts to defend them. "Playing nice" is not a value, and "just being one of the guys" is not an acceptable national profile. Don't play Chutes and Ladders with people's personal lives, where the guy in charge tilts the board to help his voting bloc and penalizes someone else because they are traditionally hard-working and can be counted on to put off retirement 5 more years.

Ever since Bill Clinton (or Rush Limbaugh, or C-span, or Talk Radio, or the End of the liberal monopoly in media) the American electorate has been too impatient to let legislators debate and discuss issues. In 1992, Perot famously called the political process 'gridlock.' Pretty easy for an industrial dictator to say. Can anyone who voted for Perot in '92 honestly think he would have been better than Trump has been? I mean, how do you think Perot would have behaved in the White House? Does anybody believe Perot would have protected us from the '93 or '01 WTC terror attacks? Does anybody believe he wouldn't have been governing by Twitter if he had it?

I understand why relying on anybody to 'listen to God' seems irresponsible. But I have seen it happen. Proverbs says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will." (For the uninformed, for thousands of years many rivers used to flood their channels and return to a different path almost every spring, so they were not thought of as landmarks until very modern times.) Scripture tells of many pagan kings who made decisions that were according to God's will.

But in America we have a modern hybrid or dual responsibility to live out: Honor God, and his principles of individual freedom and individual generosity and individual responsibility and respect for life; expect our government to be just according to the law; help select the people to run it; and then honor them. And when all seems dark, go back to #1.

In other words, we have to be both active and submissive in their proper times; to stand loudly, stubbornly and stridently if necessary for life and morality and the protection of the innocent; and to support the only person in America who seems to not want to silence us. That's Trump.

Kind of political but mainly football related