I am just wondering, why they are fighting so hard. As soon as someone gets to the top, not only do they attack someone during the debates, but so does the media. Why don't they just work on helping they people who will vote for them. I don't think they are doing enough of that. Also, if they really want votes, they should be telling the middle class they will lower their taxes, not just lower the 1% rich peoples taxes.
It's part of the vetting process, voluntarily. And I'm glad. And I wouldn't necessarily call it "attacks" that the Republicans have been doing. I'd call it revealing the Candidates.
For instance, wouldn't you want to know if Herman Cain had a history of asking women for sexual favors in exchange for a job? Wouldn't you want to know Newt Gingrich's past history? Ya know, the kind of thing that Obama still gets protected from? Just because the Democrat Party covers up their Candidate's carp doesn't mean Republicans should cover up theirs. The American people have a right to know a LOT about anyone they put into the highest Office in the land. And the Democrat Party should've been fined or had sanctions of some type imposed upon it for nominating someone who wasn't even a Democrat! Obama's not a Democrat! He's off in some far-Left field that so far remains label-free and obscure. Same situation with Ron Paul, but to a smaller degree. Paul isn't really a Republican, I think.
Uhhh...That would require having a heart to stand up for what is right, being in touch with Americans, Holding to your convictions always, appealing to the American people, and having the ability to think for yourself...without a panel of at least 100 calling the shots for you.
Any politicians out there that fit that bill?
I don't think so, none that I have ever seen. So, there are no answers to my question. Well, exept the one you gave me.
Would you like a research list to know what is going on?
No, what I actually was wondering about, was what is going on in somebody's heart. Do they truely want what is best for the country they love? Do they want the best for the people who live in the country they love?
The way I worded, this hub was incorrect, very incorrect. However, what the people are writting is true.
OK I will answer your question on that plane.
I believe it is FEAR. Because it sure is not coming out of love.
It is also about power, power is sexy power demands respect.
"O" did I say something about Fear. These things are self assuring that they are stronger, safer and don't you just know that most of the voting public sees them as the dominate figure and best protector of the tribe.
This is not to say that Republicans are any worse than Democrats in any way. The socialist deal with their fear in a sense of security in numbers.
They are just as vile if not more so because they don't care about the truth.
So you see they are still coming out of FEAR only they turn their vile nature against the top runner in the opposing party. In a situation of collectivisms that the democrats are about they are trained to collaborate and move like sheeple and always go from the top down. Unfortunately this is counter productive to a healthy republic where we are all part of the process of the way the nation moves. This is best exemplified by looking at how many times Obama engaged in wars already in this term, without bothering to adhere to the constitution and follow the direction of the US Congress in declaring of war. Now if this had been a republican president behaving this way, the Democrats would have been outraged. But sense it is top down and they all collaborate like good sheeple, well there is no problem with the Democratic leader doing it. So you see it is a mater of fear on both sides. By the way, do you know what a herd of sheep is called?
A Mob. Check it out, it's true. a MOB. The question you may want to ask is the intent of the Democrat candidate about love of country ? The Democrat candidate Obama has been doing everything he can to bankrupt this country. I would not say this is a good heart space. Look to see what the Fabian agenda is about in this regard. Their coat of arms is a wolf in sheep's clothing. You want a good heart that is interested in the country?
Vote Ron Paul
You are incorrect on this answer.
" This is best exemplified by looking at how many times Obama engaged in wars already in this term, without bothering to adhere to the constitution and follow the direction of the US Congress in declaring of war."
The U.S.A has been involved in many "wars" not just Obama. They are not supposed to be called wars, however, because it says in the constitution that only Congress has the right to declare war. That is in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.. So, according to that definition, America has only been in five wars.
5) WW 2
Since then we have been in many "wars" some large, some small, but none of them had been declared by congress. They have been called police actions, or aiding civilions, being part of the U.N. Here is another list.
1) Korea- Truman
3) Lebanon- Reagan
4) Grenada- Reagan
5) Panama- George W. Bush
6) Somolia- Clinton
7) Bonia- Clinton
8) Iraq- George Bush
9) Lybia- Obama
Please tell me, which has been worse for this country.
The war in Iraq, Afganistan,etc. Which has been going on over 10 years ( excuse me "police action" maybe, or perhaps " because he was trying to kill my father"?) Or Lybia. Just wondering.
I am not saying Obama is good. He is not. But, he is not the only one.
Ok, the destruction of the Twin Towers was an attack which started that war. But, what would Ron Paul have done? But, Obama is the one who is starting to pull the troops out. Does that also make him the worst?
The twin towers was probably a "false flag" operation masterminded by war mongering military assh@!es
I have thought that also, but it will always be kept secret.
In response to the current dialog I would once again encourage you to research the Fabians and also the BUSH FAMILY EUGENICS AGENDA .
To back up a step about Obama involving US in illegal military action,
I am sighting Egypt, and Syria as well. These actions are based on an assumption that the UN has authority over the USA! THIS IS NOT SO.
Now it I were running for president and another candidate were to assume or support this notion, I would attack that. I would support a presidential
candidate and VOTE them if they did denounce the UN / and the UN agenda 21 and you can find info about that in THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN ACTION. I can go on and on at length.
Soon I am going to result to just giving you a study list. That includes the great apostasy. If you don't take time to research the things I have referred to it gets difficult to go on.
I can tell you are objective in you views and I do appreciate that. Thank you for your considerations. Off for Christmas holiday now. Marry Christmas all.
Thank you Unavailable. I appreciate everything you have written. It is a good study list. It is also good you can give me this information without insulting me. Not everybody can do that. I am going to take the time to research because I always want to know the answers. I have sometimes even changed my mind because of the results of the studies.
Merry Christmas to you also.
The US Congress DID sanction / declared the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know the Left has tried to ignore this and it has effected the rest of US public at large.
This was part of the post 9/11 raw raw patriotic hysteria.
True, they did change the way the president could make our troops go into other countries.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_congress_ … t_in_a_war
TV ratings and a desire to keep the sponsorship money rolling in?
There is a major difference between candidates.
Ron Paul +
Rick Santorum +
Michelle Bachman are much different then Mitt or Newt.
That is true, but some seem like they do not know much, and others seem like they only care for the rich. Newt cares for the rich.
Whats happening now in the GOP happens as well with the dems! Unfortunately all we see nowadays are these ignorant attempts to lower the other persons image in a media driven popularity charade ! Does anyone ever find it interesting that the incumbant has no competition from his own party! This is all such a game ! As a more often GOP voter ,I see absolutely no one but the lower tier of candidates worthy of the job! Newt - please ! Romney the 'Image'! Paul a dreamer! America does not want a leader ---we want an American Idol" star!
I also agree with most of that! And the actual things that are "attacks" are of course instigated by the opposition Party or their proponents. Like the personal attacks against Bachmann, etc.
Yep, many people only look at the "rock star status" of the Candidate, in both Parties instead of actually listening to where they stand on all issues. But that was never more evident than in the last Election. Obama was made into an icon by the Left, called "brilliant" and a "savior" and all that; and maybe Newt and Romney too, to a certain degree, are looked at on the surface more than in-depth.
I was just about to refer to the Democrat's lack of competition within the Dem Party too! Someone did mention a couple of other Candidates somewhere....
There's a guy named Randall Terry who's running against Obama supposedly. I guess everyone else is scared to stand against him. Why, I have no clue.
Hi Brenda , we really need term limits now, and the two party system works against progressive political action. Are we as Americans so devoted to one of only two idealist parties that we cannot compromise ? We need change and we need it soon. I don't see a viable , a worthy candidate on either side ! And I have never seen that before!
I don't see it as a problem with the two-Party system.
Ask yourself why this is the first time you've never seen a viable Candidate on either side? What's changed?
The only thing that's changed was that in the last Election the Democrats nominated someone who wasn't even a Democrat; he was an activist with no loyalty to either Party.
I believe if we get Obama outta there, things can return to normal. And by normal, I mean normally Constitutional. He and his cronies are the ones who've tried to shred the Constitution. I'm appalled that even the Democrat Party has allowed that.
I think it would be putting the cart before the horse to make a third Party rise up.
Well, you know me---I'm not for compromising on the main issues. If we must choose between two Candidates, it should be choosing from the best two, not having to choose between good and evil. Let them argue about who can build better bridges or appoint better bridge-builders instead of violating our American foundation.
Hi ahorseback I agee with you about term limits, we really need them. They also should have to be in Obamacare, have the same medicare, pay the same taxes as the rest of us. Since we vote and have thus hired them, why can't we decide what their salary is? If they miss a meeting, can their pay be docked?
You gave an excellent reply!
Why do Republican Candidates attack each other? Ignorance. For the same reason Democrats attack each other...ignorance.
It just goes to show you that none of them have a lick of integrity to hold the office in which they are attempting to get their hands on.
Although low in the polls Rick Santorum has not really engaged in the fray. He was a fighter in Congress and in my eyes has integrity and honor. Even more then him, Gary Johnson has remained true to his views.
What is interesting about not engaging in the fray, is that is exactly what Jimmy Carter did. While the others were tearing each other apart he stayed quiet for a while. That is very interesting.
It is a two party system - winner take all. Anything else is an illusion. It is a beautiful system for empire however.
Two parties alone make otherwise bright people chose between only two choices ,thereby alienating the other half immediately. As voters do the same ,so do the workings of the legislative system.Just play out the party role and be reelected safely = rhetorical nothingness !
You could get a politician who says - "hey there are six of us who could all be leader. What a wonderful talented party we are". - And then go on to explain where the internal fault lines lie and why they are the best.
But you get publicity by saying "X is a moron, Fred has his hands in the till, Susie is a flake, and Ron Paul is a whacko - vote for me".
Ron Paul interests all thinking people because he has a clear political position that is internally consistent. He spends his time promoting his political programme and lets the others bite each other.
In an election between Paul and Obama the military industrial complex would probably have to support Obama. That would be fun!
This is nothing new, even though some folks seem to think so. Hillary and Obama went after each other pretty hard. American votes seem to have short memories. lol
Even if they have limited choices and short memories, they have the internet. They can look up what the canditates have done in the past. What they have voted on, what their choices were, things like that.
They would have to break them selves away from the broadcast news first.
Take personal responsibility for finding out. It sounds like too much work
and I would rather not know anyway. This is an example of where a country gets the government it deserves.
They do it because they are desperate to find a viable candidate who isn't Mitt Romney. The biggest problem is they can't protect the candidates from each other and from the press at the same time.
Rick Perry was out in front until he faltered badly in several debates. Herman Cain took the lead until his sexual escapades made Bill Clinton look like an amateur. Newt Gingrich was on top until people realized he was the same Newt Gingrich who was sanctioned by the House of Representatives for ethics violations and had such a poor public image that Republicans forced him out as Speaker of the House. When you're actually considering Newt Gingrich as a potential presidential candidate, you're not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're clawing through the dirt under that barrel.
Ron Paul seems to be the current top not-Romney candidate, and the attacks have already started. From the racist remarks made in a newsletter published by him back in the 1990's to his going against the party line on military spending, I can't see Paul finding much success past Iowa. The deep pockets supporting the GOP do not seem to favor him.
True. In my neck of the woods, people seem to want ABO (anyone but Obama) or ABM (anyone but Mitt). lol
Plus he got beat up by a girl which doesn't help. He runs away crying from Gloria Borger but thinks he can stand toe to toe with Obama?
Here, Ron Paul makes little children cry:
Good thing the girl's dad was white. Otherwise Paul would have left him over there to keep him off welfare.
He is denying that now. Or saying somebody else wrote it.
And I'm sure they did; I don't think he's a racist. If he is truly so incompetent though that this stuff could be published under his name without his knowledge, how can he manage the duties required as POTUS? The more likely answer is that he did know what was being written and by whom and made a political decision to let it continue. He knew he could always pull the old man who forgets things routine later when needed.
A president who lets thing happen without his knowledge? Or one who continues to let things happen then pretends to "forget" later? I think he did know what was being written and by whom. One or the other, do not make a good choice for president.
"I don't think he's a racist"
Ok, then I'll ignore all the "Ron Paul is racist" comments you will be making in the next few months!
Only to you. Needling Libertarians and watching them combust is great sport.
It's actually a three party system. Everybody forgets about the Independents. But mudslinging is still mudslinging. Politicians feel the need to do this because they don't have an original thought in their puny little brains.
by Brenda Durham 8 years ago
Are they still so enamored of Obama that he's the only candidate they'll consider?Is there no other Democrat who wants to run for President, and if so, why do you think that is?
by Readmikenow 6 months ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
by Kathryn L Hill 4 months ago
Really? Prove it! What do democrats NOT agree with as far as socialism? What principles DO the democrats stand with?Wondering!
by Yves 2 years ago
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Republican Party?Trump has been a Democrat most of his life. He brags that he can buy politicians, having given millions to Hillary's campaign and well as her Foundation. He scammed thousands of people out of millions of...
by Brenda Durham 6 years ago
Where is it?and What is it?Is it now the Activist Party?The Homosexual Party?The Vengeance Party?The Obama Worshippers Party?There seems to be little semblance left of what it used to be. Before 2008, it still held to at least SOME core moral values and SOME sense of manners. ...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 months ago
In your estimation, has the Democrat Party become the party of LOSERS, WHINERS, & those who are IRRESPONSIBLE? Why? Why not?
Copyright © 2019 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|