Your ideal candidate?

P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
I have pretty much given up on finding someone that wholey reflects my ideals. I know a candidate cannot be everything to everyone, but what would be your ideal candidate?

I would love it find a candidate (man or woman) that...

-Recognizes the need for a strong world stance but still protects the viability of the American workforce against cheap overseas labor...

-Understands the desire of non-citizens to enter our country but realizes the needed limits on such things...

-Understands the need for taxes but tries to spread the burden as fairly and equitably as possible...

-Is a strong leader but can admit mistakes...

-Holds an anti-abortion opinion but respect the right of a woman to choose...

-Believes in a persons right to love who they chose and receive the same govt benefits and pitfalls but also respects a churches right to limit who it extends the mantle of marriage to and to who not to extend it...

-Is compassionate to the plights of the less fortunate but still believes in personal responsibility...

-Follows no single religion but respects all religions and every citizens rights to follow them...

-Understands the need for healthcare for all but also realizes that the best solution is not necessarily govt run healthcare...

-Believes in being fair and just but also realizes that you cannot be kind to eveyone such as illegals and criminals

and of course understand the need for an armed and capable society to defend against a corrupt govt as well as foreign invaders.

I guess if I want these attributes in a candidate, along with a ton of others, I will just have to run self. Anyone have about $120,000,000 I can borrow (and someone good at making questionable decisions in my past disappear)? :)
 
If you don't mind - I'll parse a few of those. Not by how I think you mean them, but by how they could be interpreted by twisted individuals such as myself. :D
-Recognizes the need for a strong world stance but still protects the viability of the American workforce against cheap overseas labor...
Click to expand...
Translation: Central control of prices - doesn't trust the market to regulate itself.


-Understands the need for taxes but tries to spread the burden as fairly and equitably as possible...
Click to expand...
Translation: DANGER - These are code-words that often mean tax the rich and give it to those who are unwilling to work for a living.


-Holds an anti-abortion opinion but respect the right of a woman to choose...
Click to expand...
Translation: Believes that abortion is murder and will let women get away with it as often as they want.


-Believes in a persons right to love who they chose and receive the same govt benefits and pitfalls but also respects a churches right to limit who it extends the mantle of marriage to and to who not to extend it...
Click to expand...
Translation: Someone who will recognize The Church of the Myopic Porcine Duodenum's right to marry me to a manatee and let my loveranimal cash my social security check when I die. :eek:


-Is compassionate to the plights of the less fortunate but still believes in personal responsibility...
Click to expand...
Translation: Talks out of both sides of his mouth.


-Follows no single religion but respects all religions and every citizens rights to follow them...
Click to expand...
Translation: Believes in nothing and will fall for anything.
 
Wow. Those are some of the most unfair characterizations I've read since... Well, since Playboypenguin tried to stir up heck about Huckabee's religious convictions. Today.

Hmmmmmm... But I still have to get in his corner on this one, BluesMan. Quite unfair.
 
I'll parse a few of those. Not by how I think you mean them, but by how they could be interpreted by twisted individuals such as myself.
Click to expand...
You are right, those are very perverted distortions. :)

It is also a kind of black and white view of things with no room for individual thought.
 
I clearly stated in my first post that they are somewhat twisted translations (some more than others). I also stated that I don't think this is how PBP means them, but rather how they could be construed. I guess I should bold that part so folks won't miss 'em like CDFT did.

PBP - If you feel this is unfair to you in any way, I'll edit my post. I mean you no personal malice.

-Dave
 
In the end I've found that the best quality of a man is his ability to get diverse thinking people to all pull in the same direction.

To that end, the man must be articulate, focused on the end game but play flexible in that pursuit, he has to have a thick hide, he's part con-man, he's a flirt, you have no doubt that he will cut off your foot if he thinks you're standing on a quarter, and finally, he will, in fact, cut off your foot. At the end of the day even his enemies admire him.

If I am to be lead, I want to be lead by a man like Sonny Barger, and that is only because I hear the real Sonny's retired.
 
One of the reasons why I oppose the "woman's right to choose" is because
there is no "man's right to choose."
And the whole purpose of changing the traditional definition of marriage is for
the purpose of receiving government or employer provided benefits. IMHO
such liaisons have no more validity than the "Green Card" marriage some aliens engage in or the sham marriages military personnel engage in to
recieve those benefits singles don't receive. And what about polygamists
and polyandrists-who gets the Social Security check there?
 
PBP - If you feel this is unfair to you in any way, I'll edit my post. I mean you no personal malice.
Click to expand...
No, no, no...I do not see anything wrong with it at all. I actually see it as a pretty funny tongue-in-cheek testament to how some people will try and turn anything that can be construed as free thinking and rational practice as week or subversive.

Unless you were trying to be a jerk, then I am very offended and I am going to go up to my room, put on my jammies and cry while eating a whole tub of ice cream. :)
 
This statement you made:...
-Understands the need for taxes but tries to spread the burden as fairly and equitably as possible...
Click to expand...
...could mean tax the rich and give more $$$ to the poor, or it could mean a flat-tax. Which, if either, do you support?

BTW, I strongly believe in exactly ONE of my above translations, but only one. Well... Maybe one and a half. :D ;)
 
One of the reasons why I oppose the "woman's right to choose" is because
there is no "man's right to choose."
Click to expand...
I agree with that. A father should have the right to stop an abortion also. It should have to be a joint decision or he should have the right to assume all parental responsibility after the birth if the mother does not want to be involved.
And the whole purpose of changing the traditional definition of marriage is for
the purpose of receiving government or employer provided benefits.
Click to expand...
Which is the part I support. I am not pro gay marriage but I believe any committed couple, gay or straight, should have the right to enter into a legal union that carries the same benefits of marriage...but I believe marriage itself belongs to the church.
 
Or a man should have the right to reject all responsibility for a child he doesn't want and whose abortion he would have gladly paid for-and even
recorded, that seems to be the modern thing to do.
And I might acquiesce in the legal recognition of non traditional "marriages" or other unions
provided the legal requirements for dissolving such unions were strict enough to discourage a
frivolous approach to them.
 
Well, in my defense, while you admitted that they were twisted, you still said that's how you could interpret them.

Come on, like any post where I poke fun at the person I'm defending is written with me totally having a stick up my rear end. :cool:
 
Or a man should have the right to reject all responsibility for a child he doesn't want and whose abortion he would have gladly paid for-and even
recorded, that seems to be the modern thing to do.
Click to expand...
That is a defendable position.
 
I think the phrase "be careful what you wish for; you just might get it" applies. I don't know that even my own ideal candidate would be truly ideal; some of what I want to see out of our government might not work out real well in practice.

But, for the sake of discussion, here's mine:

1) Believes in the Bill of Rights. Not just lip service, but truly practices it. Especially the concepts of freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
2) Believes and practices "that government which governs best governs least." When in doubt, the person allows things to proceed without government intervention.
3) Places our nation's interests before those of other nations. We should not allow ourselves to be injured physically or economically in order to keep from hurting somebody else's feelings.
4) On religion, even though I am a Christian, I don't really care what religion a candidate follows (if any), so long as they respect the right of people to follow their own without government interference. I'll settle for somebody who believes that lying is morally wrong and has a strong sense of obligation in their elected position, rather than someone who will tell people what they want to hear and having a sense of entitlement. I want integrity.
5) I want someone who is a good communicator. Speaking truth is not terriblely useful if it is not communicated well. This cannot replace a commitment to the truth, but should supplement it.
6) I want someone who recognizes that their power is derived solely from the consent of the governed. The candidate should ensure that whatever they have authority over (be it members of Congress or the head of the executive branch) is to treat the people as citizens, and make their duty to safeguard their rights, not safeguard their power.

Unfortunately, people like that tend to avoid politics.
 
Some of the things the OP said I'd agree with although I'd take it a step further and want a candidate that does not have anti-abortion ideas at all, rather one that believes choice is more important. And one that would take the government out of marriage completely but wouldn't claim that churches have sole ownership of the mere word. But most importantly I'd want a candidate that prefers the cold hard facts of science to superstition and myth.
 
yeah, it's rather unfortunate. as a wise man once said, "the mob isn't usually in the habit of electing ungodly apostates who denigrate people of faith"
 
I'd want a candidate that prefers the cold hard facts of science to superstition and myth.
Click to expand...
I want a candidate who doesn't denigrate people's faith by calling their religion "superstition and myth."

I want members who post on TFL to do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top