Jonathan Krohn, the alleged child prodigy who was slated to be a future Republican President, now, at the age of 17, has switched sides, and describes his previous conservative beliefs as childish. It's quite telling.
How about the famous liberals who switched sides?
Just a few, Were they childish?
17, you have got to be kidding, you cannot not seriously be touting the decision making paradigms of a 17 year old as an example for people to follow.
At 17 boys barely comprehend the difference between a bra strap and a bowl of nachos. Once he is exposed to academia he’ll either end up an anarchist or a quiz show host.
You libs will grasp at anything
Could you please address what he actually said? He said he was simply spouting things he had heard, and that had no connection with reality when he was a conservative.
I bet you were gung ho about him when he was 13, if you knew he existed. If not, then just ignore the second half of this response.
Come on, I know you are smarter than that. I know exactly who this kid is and I put as much stock into what he said then as what he says now. Zero
This is supposed to be a thread about him, but apparently it's getting off topic in multiple places.
Just so we are clear, I'm not arguing that just because he said something it's therefore right. I am just using it as a thought-provoking article.
For whom? Other impressionable, politically uneducated, inexperienced kids to sway to the liberal pont of view?
I don't find anything in the article that is thought-provoking.
A 13 year old boy made a huge impression on people. So what? People that age are always surprising adults, either with their minds or body.
For this particular kid to be 17 now and claim that he is switching sides because he has grown a whole 4 years, and somehow came to a revelation about his old beliefs..isn't thought provoking.
Even on a political side, it's not even thought provoking. It's a mere mouth piece who wants attention.
well said, but it's simple to figure out at first he said what he parents taught him, now as a teenager he repeats what he hears in school from liberal teachers. Wow now that is earth shattering news, a kid rebels against his parents
It's just an interesting article that shows a very bright student who wrote a book at 14 changed his mind. He isn't the typical 17 year old.
And I'm not the typical 43 year old either. There's nothing typical about anything of anyone.
Normal? A misguided attempt to create divisions of people, so as to better control them through distortion and misinformation.
Every human being is different than another, but yet we are all human beings. All politics and religion aside, there's no such thing as normal.
It's impossible because it's a completely subjective view based on ignorance hidden by ego.
Based on the typical behavior of most 14 year olds, they are not authors, and they are not speakers at major political conferences. That's all I was saying.
I totally understand.........this young man is quite prodigious and is probably in the top 1 percentile in terms of intellect. Most 14 year olds....well are navigating life between late childhood and early adolescence! In other words, they are more children than adolescents.
I understand that Sooner. I get it, I really do. But, to me, it's not a surprise.
That's what I am saying.
Big whoop- people change parties all the time. Doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
This whole rigid bipartisan thinking (my party is better than yours) is going to get our country in trouble one day.
One day? Don't you mean create trouble everyday?
I have a gay brother. I have a sister with spina bifida.
Which party, do you think, should I vote for based on those two aspects alone?
Totally. I need to vote for people in favor of a theocracy, and who don't think my sister has a right to be covered if the money is not available. Perhaps my brother and sister need to just toughen up....
THAT'S WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IN NOVEMBER!
It never ceases to baffle me how the theocracy of a religion that states:
Prov. 19:17 When you help the poor you are lending to the Lord--and he pays wonderful interest on your loan!
1 John 3:17 But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him--how can God's love be within him ?
Is quite content to argue that Obamacare is bad...
If they were arguing it's a giveaway to the insurance industry, and doesn't have the cost control mechanisms everyone hoped for, then it might make more sense.
Instead, they want more exploitation. How can a country that calls itself Christian act in such a way?
Your problem there Sooner is you don't realize it won't make a difference which party is in power as relates to those situations.
There's not a dimes worth of difference.
If his sister needs health care it's a hundred thousand dollars a year difference for him and well the democrats support giving people the right to choose who they want to marry to a much greater extent, your statement is obviously wrong.
No they will get the same thing. The Republicans just won't make a photo op out of it.
I don't care who you vote for, or why, but I'm so blasted sick and tired of the "Conservatives are evil. Every last thing they do will always be evil and terrible and not a single thing Liberal's do is ever wrong" (and vica versa) mentality that so many American's have these days. There's good and bad in both parties, and I pity the people too blind, stubborn or stupid to see that.
This didn't answer the question. Both parties are war mongers, and both are willing to spy and accept bribes from campaign donors. But that's hardly a penetrating analysis.
Some issues are real and the parties differ on them. It's a blasted oversimplification to say both parties are the same. Would Obamacare have passed if McCain won? Would DADT have been repealed? Would a sitting President came out in favor of gay marriage? No, no, no.
I didn't care to answer your question, because I frankly don't care to tell you who you should and shouldn't vote for. Nor do I really care (sorry, but it's true) about your family's personal life and its bearing on your political choice. I found it irrelevant to the point I was making.
I addressed your point about one party not being better than another, and you call it irrelevant because you don't like what I have to say. I'm sorry for having a gay brother and a disabled sister. Maybe I just need to pray harder.
I also addressed your point about some very positive things that would NOT HAVE been done if the conservative candidate had been elected. Thanks for telling me how you really feel though. I will keep that in mind for future reference.
What the heck? Pray harder? What does that have to do with anything-- why did you even say that?
You seem to have no care for people who are part of certain groups you deem "irrelevant." There are millions of others who would fall under the situation I described for myself. But it is what it is.
Lots of sick people, and lots of gay people, but you claim those issues are irrelevant. So the only recourse I have to fix the problem, since the Democrats doing something about those issues isn't worth anything to you, no matter how many people are directly affected, is to pray and hope that circumstances change.
What the heck (again)? You're going off of a lot of assumptions here: "You seem; you claim"
First off-- don't say anything about me based off of "you seem". Because it's probably wrong (you know what they say about people who assume!).
Secondly-- I've claimed nothing, other than the fact that I think the way our nation is so polarized by political party is going to be a big problem for us in the future. It already is-- nobody on EITHER side is willing to cross the line toed in the middle and work together.
That's all I'm claiming. That's the point I'm making. I'm claiming nothing else and making no other points. I'm saying nothing else. It was really more of a general comment on the state of politics that happened to land in your forum.
What am I supposed to think when you refuse to address my specific response to your specific point? ONE PARTY DOES MORE THAN THE OTHER FOR CERTAIN DISADVANTAGED MEMBERS OF THE POPULATION. You painted with too broad of a brush, and you keep refusing to address my response pointing this out.
No one is disagreeing with your second point. I already agreed with you on that. But why polarization? The Republican party in the 90s pushed the individual mandate. They pushed cap and trade (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir … lican-idea and Romney too!) as an alternative to the Democrats who wanted to just limit CO2 emissions directly and quickly. Many Republicans loved the idea of a debt commission, and until McCain decided to run in 2008, he thought the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea.
Obama gets elected, and everything changes. The individual mandate is socialism, cap and trade is government control of life, and any tax increase anywhere is the gravest destruction of liberty imaginable. They've done an about face on many issues where there was bipartisan support.
Do you see now why it's an oversimplification to claim both parties are equally guilty?
Refusing to engage in dialogue doesn't help either one of us, but I'm not going to push if you wish to stop.
Stick to your guns Kiddo. Old, tired liberal a tactic when their talking point gets crushed, they can’t win the discussion so they attack the individual.
Hey Ready, do try and remember, it cuts both ways. Neither side is better than the other.
They are all equally guilty. Corruption in Congress is the problem. And until more citizens wake up to the fact, the same junk/garbage elected will dole out the same junk/garbage to the citizens.
Looking for Integrity in a politician is like looking for a specific star in the galaxy. A joke.
probably so, we need more constitutional conservatives. just telling Shanna to keep pounding on them, her armor is too strong to wilt under a personal attack
I don't think even that is going to work. The problem is that when you vote people into office you're allowing people to make decisions that they are not morally allowed to make. Who is a politician to decide who much to tax me and where that tax money goes? What if I disagree with the amount or to the uses which my money is put towards? What is stopping a politician from using tax money to reward political supporters using public money? Is it even possible to set up a government that is not inherently corrupt? Aren't most, if not all, politicians parasites at heart? What do they really provide us?
Great now we have to re-write the constitution, i'd rather some folks just read it and follow it
I still don't think you understand. Government, by its very nature violates the rights of the people in its territory. The only reason government exists, is so that the leadership of these artificial constructs can tax the population. The leadership then skims off the taxes to justify their own existence. I can't think of a better definition of a parasite. One of the problems with our current form of government is that it allows transfer of wealth. This is theft, pure and simple. One of the mistakes the founders made was that instead of decreasing the power of the states, they created a superstate which became the federal government and immediately began growing in size and power. This was a step backward, not a step forward. It's interesting to read the anti-Federalist papers because most of what they predicted came true. Their opposition to the Constitution was that it would grow into a superstate and become a tyranny to the people of this nation. Well, it looks like we actually made it to that date.
Apparently you, like those in office, spent too much time listening to liberal political science professors rail against the evils of government. The difference appears to be you may have learned to see the pitfalls, the politicians learned to employ and exploit them.
The problem with the nation and the reason politicians can abuse the governed is because too few comprehend the meaning of the Constitution and have allowed it by their vote to be misapplied and the tenets skewed, ie the Robert's opinion on the powers of taxation upholding the health care bill.
Our original governmental system is not really at issue, the mistreatment and twisted definitions of it is
Bingo, the Democratic party, of course. The Republicans will leave you out to dry. Or rather yet, they will demonize the gay brother, believing him to be in need of some deep and earnest prayer!
Maybe when he is 27 he might realize that both sides are childish.
I wonder about the phrase "power corrupts". It seems to me that those who get into politics are those who have the greatest desire for power. If I wanted to get into politics I would look at all the time, effort and money it takes, and decide against it. Someone with an extreme desire for power would probably try to make a go of it. So I don't think power corrupts once you have it; you have to be corrupt in the first place to try to get it.
Ok, bit of a divergent rant there. Like people are saying, both sides are the same. If someone swtiches to the "other side" then they still haven't realised that both sides are the same anyway.
And, I'll gladly tell that the underlying cause is a lack of character within that person. Power is power. It will test a person's true character and reveal any lies.
Yes, political power, but don't forget increased wealth. Not from the payment alone, but other avenues opened because of being elected.
And what exactly does that say about you, as an individual? Just pointing it out. Take no offense. I have no desire to go into politics either, however, I do want to make my company a political nightmare for government. Btw- the only reason I pointed it out was because honest politicians who want change and not power is something missing in Congress.
You would have to be of extremely low character or none at all to be corrupted by power. My hub clears it up better than I can do here.
Correct. It's just another distraction.
by Onusonus18 hours ago
Are liberals having second thoughts about how they interpret the second amendment? Do you still think that government, police, and military should be the only ones with guns?
by GA Anderson42 hours ago
Our Presidential Inauguration event is symbolic of our Democratic process. In this case, the peaceful transfer of power. Even as an event that highlights Donald Trump as our new president, I do not think it is a...
by donotfear6 years ago
Did you give your parents a hard time? Were you the kid who always got in trouble, the instigator of all neighborhood wars, the wild child? Were you the 'black sheep' of the family while all your siblings...
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ouseholds/
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.