Jump to content

Photo

I, Me, My


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,247 posts
446
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 July 2014 - 06:51 PM

I know if there were term limits it would make a huge difference! Politicians seem to only vote for what will keep them in office forever versus standing for what they said they would do once elected. Always maker the safer vote. one term they're out for every office POTUS on down! No lifetime benefits.



#22 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,065 posts
5,246
Excellent

Posted 14 July 2014 - 07:32 PM

That's the difference between politicians and statesmen. The statesman is there to serve while the politician is there for their own gain.

 

The high pay and many perks and benefits were not in the original design. Those in political office were expected to live and work for little pay. If they wanted or needed more, they were expected to work for it outside of their political office.

 

The only way to end career politicians and thus career political actions is to eliminate the high pay, eliminate the benefits and perks. That's not going to happen since they vote for their own pay.

 

Remember, today half or more of the country receives government benefits from these people so they aren't going to vote them out or demand reforms that might diminish or eliminate their government handouts.

 

Most voters today vote based upon what they think is in it for them; not upon what they think is best for the country.



#23 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,406 posts
892
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 09:01 AM

God provides choices. This is the saving choice, Jesus Christ or not. 

 

God provided several wicked men for choice as servants of His will or not. Citizens chose the greater wickedness or were complacent by not choosing the least likely to perform wickedness.

 

Last election, the NRA backed Sen. Rob Portman, for election. Portman backs 2nd Amd rights (yea) and NOW same sex normalization/marriage (nay). Portman changed his position on same sex since election (his son announced he was homosexual). He will not get my vote, even if his opponent is against guns. Which is the "more correct way for me to vote; for me it's to get rid of Portman.

 

I added this to my daily prayers: "God will provide choices for the election this fall who oppose abortion and homosexuality, who support our constitution and have no hidden discrepancies or agendas." 



#24 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts
285
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 15 July 2014 - 09:33 AM

so if God is going to appoint who he is going to appoint why bother voting?

Then you would get the worst of the basest of men.



#25 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,512 posts
1,914
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 09:46 AM

I'm kind of on the fence with term limits.  I think it's a good thing right now with POTUS, because we could not handle, as a country, another term of BO (although the way things are going, I honestly do wonder if we'll have another presidential election...).  Voting has always served as a way of imposing term limits on individuals.  If they didn't do what they should, they were voted out.  

 

The US Senate was set up by our founders so that senators were chosen by each state legislature. If said senator did not toe the line, the state legislature could recall them in a heartbeat and appoint another.  Since their terms are for 6 years, that was a great thing so that they did not inflict their nonsense on the country for all 6 years (of course, some states legislatures would let issues go by...but that is where state citizens needed to be aware and elect the right people to their state offices).  However, that changed with the addition of the 17th amendment in 1912 (adopted May, 1913).

 

By making US senatorial elections popular vote, the progressives (and they are the ones who were pushing it) won a victory toward socialism.  Yes, I know, many people will say that is extreme, but it is truth.  A good example of this is Harry Reid.  Were he to be elected by his state legislature rather than by the whole state's people, there's a good possibility he would not still be there.  Representative government was given to us for a good reason by the founders.  States were to choose their legislators with the thought in mind that they would in turn choose the two senators who would go to DC to complement the House, which has always been elected by popular vote.  The intent of the founders was that states and the people were to be the authority, and not a behemoth federal government.  Once we started getting away from that, the behemoth began to grow...

 

John is absolutely right that originally there was to be low pay.  And Congress was not to be in session year round, with a couple of monthly breaks scattered throughout.  They were to be in session for a short period of time, resolve issues, and then go home to their constituents, work the jobs they had when they came to office, and after their time in DC was done, go back to being a private citizen (not go around making 6-figures for their idiotic speeches, spawning children who make $75,000 for speeches and 6-figures annually for appearing on a tv station once in a while...ala Clinton).

 

While I do not think we would ever get back to that, I think we should try.  But we won't be able to as long as people continue to elect those who promise them free stuff, all the while robbing them blind.  There are some good people running - and have been some good people elected.  But corruption is rife, and it's because (first of all most of them don't know Christ) they get away with it.

 

A classic example is the recent "election" in Mississippi.  Thad Cochran (an old man who should have been retired years ago) had a young opponent named Chris McDaniel. Now, Thad is GOP.  But he is the old guard - those who want to continue the status quo.  Chris is just one of many young politicians who actually would be statesmen. He is a Christian, and is unashamed to let folks know that. He is married and has two (really cute) little boys.  And he is tired of Washington doing what it's doing to us (while we let it...). So he ran for office. In the original primary, he was ahead of Cochran, but neither of them got 50% of the vote, so they had to have a runoff.  Now here's where it gets interesting (and ugly).

 

The old guard of the GOP gave Cochran thousands of dollars - and I do means thousands. The GOP senator from my state (who should never have been allowed to run because he lived in Virginia!!!!) gave $10,000 to Cochran for his runoff.  And he was only one of over 20 who gave thousands.  And what did Cochran do with it?  Well, he bought votes, of course!  Yep...And he ran ads painting McDaniel as a racist.  The votes he bought?  Thousands of black - get ready for this - democrats!  Oh, yeah. These Dems had already voted in the first primary - as Democrats.  But here they got to vote again - for a Republican...McDaniel's people have found evidence of voter fraud in more than one county.  It wouldn't hurt to pray that his challenge will be successful and Cochran tossed...I've been urging Chris to run as an independent in the fall because, to be honest, it won't matter if Cochran or the Democrat wins, America will lose. Yes, each state chooses their US Congressmen.  But each state's choices affect everyone in this country.

 

That's just one man who would be a great addition to our US Congress. There are many others who are running - and many of them poll well ahead of their opponents.  Some have won their primaries.  Others have lost with suspicious results...and still others have simply lost for one reason or another (in SC, Lindsay Graham "won" because there were too many people who wouldn't leave the race - most of them good people, but in a primary, the strongest person should be left to run against someone who needs to be removed...had ego not gotten in the way, Graham would be a lame duck right now...and that, along with booting Cochran, would be good for the country.  Even if Dems won their seats, the voting would be no different...).

 

Anyway...term limits might or might not be the answer (we all know that Jesus is the ultimate answer to all of our problems, but polity is still needed while here on the earth).  I'd like to see some booted out. But others are constitutional and I'd like to see them stay - unless their replacement would be constitutional as well.

 

I do agree that there should be something to stop these folks from making this a career.  Removing pensions would be a good start. Not one of them deserves to be supported from the public's taxes for the rest of their lives for "serving" in DC.  Not even the POTUS. Eight years and he's set for life?  Nah, that's just wrong.  We've allowed ourselves to be duped into serving a king, even though our founders set us up as kings.  Shame on Americans.  Shame, especially, on Christian Americans!



#26 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,512 posts
1,914
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 09:47 AM

Then you would get the worst of the basest of men.

Which is what has been happening as more and more people quit voting...



#27 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,065 posts
5,246
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:21 PM

One of the main problems is that few voters would be willing to follow Dave's course. Those who most often tend to vote either voter Party, paycheck, pet issue or personality. A certain percentage of voters are going to vote Dem or Repub no matter who the candidate is or what they stand for. A larger percentage will vote according to who they think will somehow put more money in their pocket. Then there are those who have a pet issue and they will vote for any candidate who takes their side on that issue regardless of their position on other issues. The personality voters vary in percentage, with a surge of such voters who voted Obama, especially in his first run. These voters cast their votes based more on feelings than substance.

 

For decades we've watched the Republican Party continually moving more towards the Left and yet Christians and so called conservatives alike have been nearly unanimous in their declarations that if a candidate has a "R" by their name we must vote for them even if we disagree with them. We can see where that has got us.

 

An even bigger problem comes in trying to get folks to cast ballots when they carry so much more weight and importance than even a general election ballot; and that's in primaries. LuAnne made mention of a primary above. Far fewer vote in primaries which means those few votes really count. Sometimes 10-20% of registered voters is all who vote in a primary and they are the ones who are actually selecting the candidate who will appear on the general election ballot.

 

Incumbents continue in office, despite their poor performance, simply because they have more money, more connections and manage to use these to get their supporters to vote in a primary. Meanwhile, any challenger, even if he's a great candidate, has to fight an uphill battle. Often if just a few percentage more voters would vote in a primary for the best candidate, that candidate would win. Instead, too many sit out the primaries and then complain about the terrible choices in the general election.

 

Two presidential cycles ago the GOP had something like nearly a dozen candidates competing in the primaries for president. Had even a simple majority of so-called conservative and Christian voters chosen any one of those candidates to give their full support from the beginning they could have seen their choice as the GOP candidate in the general election. Instead they argued, split their votes between several candidates, jumped from supporting one candidate to another at the slightest hint their candidate may have made a misstep or the media convinced them their candidate couldn't win against the Dems. This allowed the liberal and "moderate" voters to give us a liberal minded compromiser candidate who had no chance against a charismatic, solidly leftist Dem.

 

The Christian Right is becoming smaller and the GOP leadership has noted this as they have called for dropping issues that mainly appeal to the Christian Right. As they have reasoned, either the Christian Right will vote for them anyway, or if they don't they won't be voting Dem, so who cares.

 

When the Christian Right had the influence to do so they should have come up with a list of key or core principles they would not compromise on. They should have made it clear they wouldn't vote for any candidate who didn't hold to and vote for those points. Then they should have stuck to such.

 

Unfortunately, things went the other direction.



#28 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts
285
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:21 PM

Which is what has been happening as more and more people quit voting...

That is exactly what took place in 2012.  We should vote to try and get the best and the least basest person in.



#29 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts
285
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:25 PM

One of the main problems is that few voters would be willing to follow Dave's course. Those who most often tend to vote either voter Party, paycheck, pet issue or personality. A certain percentage of voters are going to vote Dem or Repub no matter who the candidate is or what they stand for. A larger percentage will vote according to who they think will somehow put more money in their pocket. Then there are those who have a pet issue and they will vote for any candidate who takes their side on that issue regardless of their position on other issues. The personality voters vary in percentage, with a surge of such voters who voted Obama, especially in his first run. These voters cast their votes based more on feelings than substance.

 

For decades we've watched the Republican Party continually moving more towards the Left and yet Christians and so called conservatives alike have been nearly unanimous in their declarations that if a candidate has a "R" by their name we must vote for them even if we disagree with them. We can see where that has got us.

 

An even bigger problem comes in trying to get folks to cast ballots when they carry so much more weight and importance than even a general election ballot; and that's in primaries. LuAnne made mention of a primary above. Far fewer vote in primaries which means those few votes really count. Sometimes 10-20% of registered voters is all who vote in a primary and they are the ones who are actually selecting the candidate who will appear on the general election ballot.

 

Incumbents continue in office, despite their poor performance, simply because they have more money, more connections and manage to use these to get their supporters to vote in a primary. Meanwhile, any challenger, even if he's a great candidate, has to fight an uphill battle. Often if just a few percentage more voters would vote in a primary for the best candidate, that candidate would win. Instead, too many sit out the primaries and then complain about the terrible choices in the general election.

 

Two presidential cycles ago the GOP had something like nearly a dozen candidates competing in the primaries for president. Had even a simple majority of so-called conservative and Christian voters chosen any one of those candidates to give their full support from the beginning they could have seen their choice as the GOP candidate in the general election. Instead they argued, split their votes between several candidates, jumped from supporting one candidate to another at the slightest hint their candidate may have made a misstep or the media convinced them their candidate couldn't win against the Dems. This allowed the liberal and "moderate" voters to give us a liberal minded compromiser candidate who had no chance against a charismatic, solidly leftist Dem.

 

The Christian Right is becoming smaller and the GOP leadership has noted this as they have called for dropping issues that mainly appeal to the Christian Right. As they have reasoned, either the Christian Right will vote for them anyway, or if they don't they won't be voting Dem, so who cares.

 

When the Christian Right had the influence to do so they should have come up with a list of key or core principles they would not compromise on. They should have made it clear they wouldn't vote for any candidate who didn't hold to and vote for those points. Then they should have stuck to such.

 

Unfortunately, things went the other direction.

We need to vote for the one most qualified and Obama was not qualified in anyway, it was a racial vote by all voters who voted for him.  So the next election is important that we vote not on party line but on who will do the best for our country.

 

I would vote for a candidate like Rubio, Crux and even Rand because they have a desire to serve the country above an agenda and they are not hooked into the machine politics.



#30 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
611
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:44 PM

I would vote for a candidate like Rubio, Crux and even Rand because they have a desire to serve the country above an agenda and they are not hooked into the machine politics.

The only way any of those three will be on the general election ballot is if they make promises to "machine".  There will be no real choice come election day. 

The "machine" will control the outcome  as usual and the nation will continue on the path to depression and war.

 

No I am not a tea leaf reader, I am just a student of history.  Some say history repeats itself, some say it rhymes, I think it kinda goes around in circles like a whirlpool.  Our nation is in one, ever spiraling down into oblivion.

 

I better stop now before I spiral into depression. :badday:

 

God bless,

Larry






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500