What Politician Would You Rather Have?

[havok579257]

Pretty simple and I would love to hear what people on here would opt for.  Which one of these politicians would you rather have in office from your party or whichever party you support(dem,repub, indepent, green party, etc.)

 

1. A politician who runs on a platform of ideas and will not waiver from this platform.  They will refuse to comprimise with the opposition even if it means nothing gets accomplished for years.  They will not deviate from their platform ever, even if it means they have no chance of getting anything done(ex: someone opposes abortion and will only vote for laws that completely outlaw abortions and not laws that just reduce abortions.  Or someone who wants taxs reduce for the poor but will only vote for the law if it means an increase in taxes for the rich.  They won't even vote for a reduction in taxes for the poor if it means the rich taxes are not increased).  Essentially the politician who stands on his platform and gets nothing done and will rarely get anything done because to them its their way or the highway.

 

or

 

2. A politician who runs on a platform of ideas but will waiver on his platform to get things done.  They will conceed some of what they ran on if it means they can get other things they want accomplished.  They will comprimise on their platform if it means they can get something accomplished.(ex: reduce/remove tax payer money to planned parenthood but then agrees to a tax increased on the rich/upper tax bracket citizens).  Essentially they keep some promises but give in on others for the sake of comprimise and getting some of their platform acccomplished.

 

So which one would you rather have?

[Winchester]

We supported the murder of people in other countries, but by God, at least we got a budget passed.

 

 

 

[havok579257]

We supported the murder of people in other countries, but by God, at least we got a budget passed.

 

 

 

thanks for the non contribution.

[Winchester]

thanks for the non contribution.

 

[Socrates]

I'd rather have principled politicians who stand for what's right, regardless of whether it's popular in Washington or not. 

Any other politicians can kiss my @$$.

 

Or, better yet, screw the politicians, and give us statesmen.

[Socrates]

We supported the murder of people in other countries, but by God, at least we got a budget passed agreed to borrow and spend even more money we don't have.

 

 

Hooray for bipartisanship!

[PhuturePriest]

It depends. Generally speaking, I think that since the country is so divided, politicians on all spectrums need to compromise. But again, it depends on the topic at hand. If it's something like economics, then yes.

[Just a Skosh]

Anarchy.

[Winchester]

And here we see the peaceful God-men of the government, acting within the wise interpretation of the Supreme Court, peacefully peacing the people peacefully. Hallelujah, praise the politicians and our checks and balances!

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/10/the-border-towns-the-constitution-forgot.html

 

 

 

100 miles from the US border, the 4th amendment doesn't apply. You won't find this anywhere in the constitution. It's elastic clause nonsense. All because people like you have bought into the myth that some pigs are more equal than others. The Supremes have supported this clearly false interpretation. Checks and balances are as fanciful a notion as found in any fairy tale.

[havok579257]

And here we see the peaceful God-men of the government, acting within the wise interpretation of the Supreme Court, peacefully peacing the people peacefully. Hallelujah, praise the politicians and our checks and balances!

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/10/the-border-towns-the-constitution-forgot.html

 

 

 

100 miles from the US border, the 4th amendment doesn't apply. You won't find this anywhere in the constitution. It's elastic clause nonsense. All because people like you have bought into the myth that some pigs are more equal than others. The Supremes have supported this clearly false interpretation. Checks and balances are as fanciful a notion as found in any fairy tale.

 

 

its my fault for not being more specific.  I was more speaking along the lines of economic policies, not human rights policies which are a God given right.

[Winchester]

its my fault for not being more specific.  I was more speaking along the lines of economic policies, not human rights policies which are a God given right.

You don't consider trade to be a human right? 

[havok579257]

You don't consider trade to be a human right? 

trade as in bartering?  I don't see how that relates to the 4th amendment?

[Winchester]

trade as in bartering?  I don't see how that relates to the 4th amendment?

 

Even if you use money, it's still trade. If you sell your labor, it's trade, too. Why would you separate economics from all the other human rights?

 

I used the 4th amendment example in the hopes of dispelling the idea of government as some force for good. It's no different from any other human organization, and I think opposition to monopoly should motivate people to not grant government the monopoly it currently enjoys. I just hope anyone coming in here sees that the power concentration in government has attracted thugs. 

[NotreDame]

I used the 4th amendment example ...

 

The 4th Amendment?  You mean the right to a free massage?

 

[Vitamin]

We supported the murder of people in other countries, but by God, at least we got a budget passed.

Pussy.

Seriously though, what are you harping on about the 4th? That's unreasonable search and seizure. I really don't see how that could have trade implications.