Who should be the next POTUS?

[Darkwind]

It begins when the future POTUS is a child, for the child is the father of the man.

Maybe all of us should read biographies of past Presidents, and even those who lost to them, as we look ahead to 2016. Both the job and the man or women who is to occupy the Oval Office need to be serious, curious and committed to preserving our Union and making sure that our nation remains focused on this vision statement written over two centuries ago:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Read the words and consider what they mean in this, the Twenty-First Century. And please, don't vote for a Charlatan or Demagogue; there are too many with too much ambition and too little vision to be given the power and prestige of the office of President of the United States.

DEMAGOGUE: a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

CHARLATAN: a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Missed the point, did you?

The left and anyone they would put on the ballot will not differ in any tangible way from the current occupant.

That clear things up for you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Missed the point, did you?

The left and anyone they would put on the ballot will not differ in any tangible way from the current occupant.

That clear things up for you?

Considering President Obama "the left" is another example of your ignorance or your dishonesty.

 

[rdean]

Perhaps I should run.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Missed the point, did you?

The left and anyone they would put on the ballot will not differ in any tangible way from the current occupant.

That clear things up for you?

Considering President Obama "the left" is another example of your ignorance.

Not recognizing that there are degrees of left is your ignorance

 

[Wry Catcher]

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

You may now call me a partisan as well cause I consider Obama a total fraud. He was unqualified to hold the position. Never even held a real damn job. No connection to the lives of average Americans. He ran on "I'm the opposite of Bush" then when he won and changed little of Bush's policies he was given a pass. I guess that makes his supporters frauds as well.

Partisan indeed.

Yep, you are a partisan. Please, define a real job?

 

[Antares]

It begins when the future POTUS is a child, for the child is the father of the man.

Maybe all of us should read biographies of past Presidents, and even those who lost to them, as we look ahead to 2016. Both the job and the man or women who is to occupy the Oval Office need to be serious, curious and committed to preserving our Union and making sure that our nation remains focused on this vision statement written over two centuries ago:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Read the words and consider what they mean in this, the Twenty-First Century. And please, don't vote for a Charlatan or Demagogue; there are too many with too much ambition and too little vision to be given the power and prestige of the office of President of the United States.

DEMAGOGUE: a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

CHARLATAN: a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Well except for the Prez of course YOU don't mind his extreme partisanship at all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Missed the point, did you?

The left and anyone they would put on the ballot will not differ in any tangible way from the current occupant.

That clear things up for you?

Considering President Obama "the left" is another example of your ignorance.

Not recognizing that there are degrees of left is your ignorance

Really. Please edify me.

 

[Ava]

I agree, unfortunately he is black also. And a black conservative stands little chance against a media that would want to destroy him.
I believe he is going to run. And just wait, we will see "Palin'sk" style of vitriolic ganging up by the media who will never stand for a minority/woman conservative to be elected nationally.

Just look at what happened to Herman Cain.

Herman Cain actually had skeletons in his closet that im glad the vetting was done. And I was an ardent supporter of his early on.

Carson seems very straight forward though.

I am happy Cain is still invited to offer his assessment of the political environment, as I respect his common-sense and his business-sense. I feel the same way about Carson, though I don't feel he has the passion needed in debate, to secure the nomination.

 

[Avorysuds]

A fiscally conservative candidate who supports most if not all of the following actions
Balanced budget amendment
Full government spending audit
Flat tax without exemption, exception, floor, or ceiling on every dollar earned by every citizen
Elimination of government programs and agencies that are not a result of specific power given in the constitution

I'm sure there are several who will promise you all of the above, and then when faced with leading our nation will 'succumb' to the pragmatic for to succeed they will need to recognize that leading by ideology alone isn't possible.

I fully agree, most politicians claim to be fiscally conservative and then when in office go full progressive and destroy everything... Like Bush, and Obama.

 

[natstew]

I agree, unfortunately he is black also. And a black conservative stands little chance against a media that would want to destroy him.
I believe he is going to run. And just wait, we will see "Palin'sk" style of vitriolic ganging up by the media who will never stand for a minority/woman conservative to be elected nationally.

Just look at what happened to Herman Cain.

Herman Cain actually had skeletons in his closet that im glad the vetting was done. And I was an ardent supporter of his early on.

Carson seems very straight forward though.

Clinton had far worse 'skeletons' no media exposure there
Obama had far worse skeletons, no media exposure there.

 

[DiamondDave]

A fiscally conservative candidate who supports most if not all of the following actions
Balanced budget amendment
Full government spending audit
Flat tax without exemption, exception, floor, or ceiling on every dollar earned by every citizen
Elimination of government programs and agencies that are not a result of specific power given in the constitution

I'm sure there are several who will promise you all of the above, and then when faced with leading our nation will 'succumb' to the pragmatic for to succeed they will need to recognize that leading by ideology alone isn't possible.

I fully agree, most politicians claim to be fiscally conservative and then when in office go full progressive and destroy everything... Like Bush, and Obama.

Correct.. many pay lip service and collapse under the pressure of power and greed... politics the game takes over...

And I am all for voting them out if they do not live up to promises.. just I am not one to vote for some big prog dem if a REP or self proclaimed conservative goes against their promises.. I will vote for a 3rd party with conservative stances before ever voting for a current liberal candidate

 

[natstew]

It begins when the future POTUS is a child, for the child is the father of the man.

Maybe all of us should read biographies of past Presidents, and even those who lost to them, as we look ahead to 2016. Both the job and the man or women who is to occupy the Oval Office need to be serious, curious and committed to preserving our Union and making sure that our nation remains focused on this vision statement written over two centuries ago:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Read the words and consider what they mean in this, the Twenty-First Century. And please, don't vote for a Charlatan or Demagogue; there are too many with too much ambition and too little vision to be given the power and prestige of the office of President of the United States.

DEMAGOGUE: a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

CHARLATAN: a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Obama not a Demagogue? You're goddam delusional!!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Obumbler is running out of time to get the Constitution amended to make a third term possible.

Of course, he might just sign an Executive Order. Maybe he'll call it an Executive Amendment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Obama not a Demagogue? You're goddam delusional!!

Really? Gee, thanks for the reality check, I'm always open to examining the posts of those who attack others personally.

How would you describe Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obumbler is running out of time to get the Constitution amended to make a third term possible.

Of course, he might just sign an Executive Order. Maybe he'll call it an Executive Amendment.

I rarely agree with you, but what is this ^^^? Are you channeling CrusaderFrank or Stephanie?

 

[FJO]

"Who should be the next POTUS?"

Someone, whatever gender, whatever ethnic persuasion who is not blinded by power or quest thereof, a person who can not be bought, one who is honest and keeps his/her word.

And the most important requirement: NEVER HAVING SERVED ANY POLITICAL OFFICE!

 

[natstew]

IN other words, the current occupant...

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Obama not a Demagogue? You're goddam delusional!!

Merriam-Webster-
1dem·a·gogue noun \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg\
: a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason

Do you have the gall to say Obama hasn't done these things, and isn't still doing them?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The current POTUS isn't on the ballot in 2016 and to consider him either a Demagogue or a Charlatan is nothing more than an example of your partisan ignorance. That aside, it's fine to disagree with his politics, but in doing so one must have an understanding of the real world, and not frame everything within a narrow ideology.

Obama not a Demagogue? You're goddam delusional!!

Merriam-Webster-
1dem·a·gogue noun \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg\
: a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason

Do you have the gall to say Obama hasn't done these things, and isn't still doing them?

He does and he is not ashamed.

 

[kaz]

Who should be the next POTUS

Democrats: Last time they picked the black who agrees with every other Democrat on every issue, this time they plan to go with the woman who agrees with every other Democrat on every issue because they want to be diverse...

Republicans: No clue, I have no idea what goes through their minds when they pick a candidate. I suspect they don't either, which is why they are so bad at it

Libertarians: Whoever will get them the most attention

Greens: Ralph Nader, whether or not he runs

 

[natstew]

"Who should be the next POTUS?"

Someone, whatever gender, whatever ethnic persuasion who is not blinded by power or quest thereof, a person who can not be bought, one who is honest and keeps his/her word.

And the most important requirement: NEVER HAVING SERVED ANY POLITICAL OFFICE!

In other words, the person who least wants it.