Jump to content

Politics 2016 (election edition)


Recommended Posts

No, not all governors are great presidents, but it's quite possible they weren't great governors either.  That would be an interesting study.

 

To clarify, running a state with its immediate budget to balance, its own senate and congress to balance, real citizens counting on your action-

it's just a lot more like being a president to me than glad handing with your fellow senators and calculating how and when to vote on one particular bill.  More things tend to unfold in real time in the governors office and the white house than in the legislative branch.

 

Yes, as smart people you can find war time powers, emergency budgets are exceptions to what I'm saying but I'm generalizing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Remember too that not all governors are equal either.  SOme governors have much more power than other's simply by virtue of the way their particular state has set up the office.

 

Also I've asked this of others, but has there been any successful governors or presidents who had no previous government experience? Business people.  ( i consider generals to have had government experience as the military is part of the government.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember too that not all governors are equal either. SOme governors have much more power than other's simply by virtue of the way their particular state has set up the office.

 

Also I've asked this of others, but has there been any successful governors or presidents who had no previous government experience? Business people. ( i consider generals to have had government experience as the military is part of the government.)

As I said a few posts before, there has been no president that hasn't had some political experience. I don't know about governors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True.  However, I doubt the DNC would allow her being part of the debate. Clinton is much more controlling about who questions her than Trump.

 

So is that just your feeling or do you actually have facts to back up that statement?

 

The DNC would never have FoxNews host a Democratic debate.  I am not sure that is from direction by Clinton, or just a long standing rule.  

 

This debate is hosted by FoxNews and the RNC.  Trump is refusing to participate in the debate, because he is afraid of hard or unfair questions.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I've asked this of others, but has there been any successful governors or presidents who had no previous government experience? Business people.  ( i consider generals to have had government experience as the military is part of the government.)

 

I'm rusty on my Minnesota history, but since I received my BA in History from the University of Minnesota...

 

Floyd Olson, a Minnesota governor in the 1930s (and considered one of the greatest governors in MN history) had no previous government experience. He was a career lawyer beforehand.

 

Wendell Anderson was popular, but his career was tainted when he appointed himself to the senate seat that Walter Mondale vacated in the 70s. He also had no previous government experience, but he was a good hockey player, eh? I met him once at a small Presidential debate party he hosted. An old school perv - he groped one of my classmates. 

 

There's more I'm sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the blue tarp guy that was killed? God forgive me but, LOL.

I understand and share your reaction. I read this article about him from a link on NPR http://www.opb.org/news/article/robert-lavoy-finicum-dead-rancher-bundy-burns-oregon/  The last sentence of this passage also caused me to LOL - " He and his wife Jeanette were also foster care parents for troubled boys. Finicum estimates that over the past decade, more than 50 boys came through their ranch near Chino Valley, Arizona. The boys often landed there from mental hospitals, drug rehabs and group homes for emotionally distressed youth.

Finicum said payments for foster care were his main source of income."

 

So he lived off of the government...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope his motivation was to help the kids rather than getting $$. Unfortunately he got caught up in some wacky philosophies about government and it cost him dearly. Regardless his wife is now a widow and has I believe 11 kids there now.

 

The others are still holed up and calling for reinforcements while still vowing to not be taken alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that he is dead and left behind a loving family that needed him, that is tragic and I feel for them. It has been reported that he stated when the authorities stopped them that he uttered some version of "I'd rather be dead than live in jail". Hopefully, it won't parallel radical Islamic terrorism and cause survivors to take up arms.

 

The foster children were removed in early January, at least in part because of his Oregon activities. Whether his motivation was to help troubled youth, make money or a combination, this anti-government nutter main's income was from the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad and unfortunate if in fact there is now a widow with 11 kids.  Although, I would've felt bad for them anyway since he left his family for this cause, knowing that it was illegal and that he accepted death as a real possibility.  He shouldn't be made a martyr.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad and unfortunate if in fact there is now a widow with 11 kids.  Although, I would've felt bad for them anyway since he left his family for this cause, knowing that it was illegal and that he accepted death as a real possibility.  He shouldn't be made a martyr.

 

He clearly did not care about his children.  As a father myself, there is no cause worth me leaving my children.  

 

Unfortunately he will be seen as a martyr.  He will be raised up in the eyes of these anti-government types as someone who stood up against an oppressive tyrannical force.  But really he needs to be viewed as a person who abandoned his 11 children and his wife.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately he will be seen as a martyr.  He will be raised up in the eyes of these anti-government types as someone who stood up against an oppressive tyrannical force. 

And in the end, no one but the self-entitled zealots really cares or thinks of him as a martyr. The sad and unfortunate part is that these folks are allowed to hole up somewhere on federal land and drain time, effort, and resources because of a warped concept that they are owed something that they are not. Didn't this thing start due to a couple ranchers being sentenced for arson on federal lands? I haven't followed it much but it just seems like a bunch of misinformed hicks with unintelligible or justifiable claims/wants/demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been reported that he stated when the authorities stopped them that he uttered some version of "I'd rather be dead than live in jail". 

As far as I've read, that seems to be a statement that he made during a CNN interview earlier this month. Regarding yesterday's shooting, the circumstances have not yet been revealed. An anonymous official told CNN that the 2 men who were shot didn't comply with orders to surrender, but it's unclear if the men fired any shots and if they did, who fired first. I assume video footage will eventually be released. Maybe the men fired first or maybe the FBI fired because they raised their weapons. Video should answer the questions.

 

But really he needs to be viewed as a person who abandoned his 11 children and his wife.  

Is that how soldiers, sailors and Marines should be viewed when they deploy? Right or wrong, there are causes which some people find worthy of defending. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is that how soldiers, sailors and Marines should be viewed when they deploy? Right or wrong, there are causes which some people find worthy of defending. 

Military members deploy to serve for our country, not against it.  I'm surprised that has to be explained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's a pretty big leap.  Those guys were as much in the right defending their cause as a guy who loses his life in a gun fight over drug turf.

 

Most causes are not worthy of violence, almost all of them.  You're no better than a jihadi if you're so self-important that you think your personal beliefs entitle you to take up arms against other citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Military members deploy to serve for our country, not against it.  I'm surprised that has to be explained.

I'm surprised that "Right or wrong, there are causes which some people find worthy of defending" needs to be explained. 

 

Most causes are not worthy of violence, almost all of them.  You're no better than a jihadi if you're so self-important that you think your personal beliefs entitle you to take up arms against other citizens.

As far as I'm aware, there's not yet been any evidence that the dead man committed any violence. We should wait until video evidence is provided before we can pin that on him.

 

And as far as I'm concerned, jihadis fall under my "Right or wrong, there are causes which some people find worthy of defending" banner. I wouldn't occupy a federal building because I was having a grazing dispute with the BLM, nor would I burn down an abortion clinic or pound metal spikes into trees in a lumber forest, but I understand why some people do. The only point I'm trying to make is that such people aren't abandoning their families, they're risking their lives for a cause they have deemed worthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I've read, that seems to be a statement that he made during a CNN interview earlier this month. 

You are correct. I am wrong. I reread the Washington Post article that I was referring to again, slowly, and realized that I referenced a line in the text that was actually a link to another article about his earlier statements regarding not being taken alive. Thanks, Hixter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that "Right or wrong, there are causes which some people find worthy of defending" needs to be explained. 

 

As far as I'm aware, there's not yet been any evidence that the dead man committed any violence. We should wait until video evidence is provided before we can pin that on him.

 

And as far as I'm concerned, jihadis fall under my "Right or wrong, there are causes which some people find worthy of defending" banner. I wouldn't occupy a federal building because I was having a grazing dispute with the BLM, nor would I burn down an abortion clinic or pound metal spikes into trees in a lumber forest, but I understand why some people do. The only point I'm trying to make is that such people aren't abandoning their families, they're risking their lives for a cause they have deemed worthy.

 

You're right here, that we don't know yet about exactly what happened.  I think I used "took up arms" in that they were an armed militia that had a bone to pick with the government.

 

I would say any man who leaves home with his rifle to fight a stupid fight is abandoning his family, and any claim otherwise is grandiose, pompous and impractical.  There would be a lot less blood shed in this world if people would park their crusading egos and see things this way.  But here we are in philosophy, which is a step away from politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...