Rand Paul wants constitutional admendment

[Guest Butero]

Butero -On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."

 

As I also noted in another post "Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity."  I view Cruz as an extremist that will simply create more dissension and divisiveness...which is exactly what he has succeeded in accomplishing so far.  Whether one chooses to accept it as reality or not, the fact is that movement forward requires some "give and take". Intractable ideology serves little purpose in government other then to allow...well exactly where we are, a do nothing house of reps and a stagnant government.  (Also, Cruz's father will be a liability and Rand certainly has race issues that will be examined more closely) The problem will always be that though one desires "extreme change" another wants the same thing but in a different direction, thus we arrive at an impasse unless compromise enters the arena.

 

Sadly there was a time when though differences were wide the reps and dems could meet in the best interest of America. Today it would appear party loyalty takes priority over moving this country forward.

Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.  I support the most conservative candidates in most cases, but I will vote for a candidate if they get the nomination that is less than perfect.  I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock. 

 

But again, I gave you a winning ticket for 2016, and one I could support.  RICK PERRY/SUSANNA MARTINEZ.  They are qualified, and they have a great chance of winning. 

[Tolken]

Butero - Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.

 

I'm suggesting that if you want 100 and I want 50 we should be able to come to some agreement in between.  Ted Cruz believes that some agreement is for everyone to agree with him otherwise....  As to the two parties one can argue the "merits" of the platforms, ideas, and vision but history shows that at the end of the day the very same issues remain without successful solution.

 

I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock.

 

Then you should have little to complain about.  On the other hand I see America's clear movement towards plutocracy and corpratism as disastrous.  I believe that there are serious issues facing this country on all fronts and we need a "government" willing and able to accept and face those many challenges. It is interesting to note that in todays idealogical warfare within the republican party Ronald Reagan would have been considered too liberal, especially in norquistian terms.

 

I personally don't think Perry has a chance...he was pretty dismal in his last attempt. Perhaps if the tea party goes the way of the "moral majority" the republicans can field some strong candidates.

[MorningGlory]

 

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.

You said you are supporting Bobby Jindal didn't you?  I prefer Rand Paul, but I would have no problem voting for Jindal.  I actually think Rick Perry could enter the race, and make a good candidate.  I am sure he would be more prepared the second time around, and his record of success in Texas shows he is very qualified to run the country. 

 

Yes, Bobby Jindal is my pick for 2016 but.....my choice doesn't matter much in the grander scheme of things and there's been no indication Jindal will run.  I don't dislike Rand Paul, don't get me wrong, I just don't feel any excitement about him.  Rick Perry has been a great governor down here but I can't see him as President; I guess his appeal is limited to a conservative demographic and I don't believe he could beat Hillary Clinton if she's the candidate.  That being said, I'm not sure she will run; she will be 69 years old next year.  The same age as Reagan when he was elected and it's widely accepted that he was in the very early stage of Alzeimer's while still in the White House.  Bad scenario there.

[Tolken]

Obviously there is no perfect candidate, or even close for that matter, that would be a capable of meeting the expectations and desires of all. In addition one must contend with congress, and that is the dilemma at present. If idealogues force stagnation then perhaps those who see the plus side of a dysfuntional government will remain joyful while others will view it as a further note of decline.

 

Presidents are similar to pitchers and quarterbacks in that  they are praised for the team's success and fully blamed for the team's failings.  Somehow in all of this congress gets a pass, oh yes their approval ratings are dreadful and people complain, but in truth it isn't my senator or congress person to blame it is yours.......so I will, just as you, elect the same people back in again, and again, and ......  And now we will elect some intractable idealogue in then he/she will do all within their power to see that absolutely nothing gets done.

 

I agree with Rand Paul's amendment ideas though I would take them much further...like that would ever happen.

[Love is alive]

im often wondering if perhaps a libertarian might not be a good thing for our country. Ive often considered them off the wall-and many of them are, tend to follow the conspiricy theories a little to much, however take those aside I like a lot of their ideas.

While i do think a liberal is not what we need, my question was do you think that the idea is a good one. Personally, I do not think that congress should be exempt from any laws. I think that they should have to follow each and every law in which we have to follow.

[Love is alive]

Obviously there is no perfect candidate, or even close for that matter, that would be a capable of meeting the expectations and desires of all. In addition one must contend with congress, and that is the dilemma at present. If idealogues force stagnation then perhaps those who see the plus side of a dysfuntional government will remain joyful while others will view it as a further note of decline.

 

Presidents are similar to pitchers and quarterbacks in that  they are praised for the team's success and fully blamed for the team's failings.  Somehow in all of this congress gets a pass, oh yes their approval ratings are dreadful and people complain, but in truth it isn't my senator or congress person to blame it is yours.......so I will, just as you, elect the same people back in again, and again, and ......  And now we will elect some intractable idealogue in then he/she will do all within their power to see that absolutely nothing gets done.

 

I agree with Rand Paul's amendment ideas though I would take them much further...like that would ever happen.

I do agree that that will never happen, however, I also agree that they should have to obey every law that we have and no exemptions should be made for them at all. As far as electing the same person over and over again, I personally think that we should kick all of the out, in the house and in the senate. We should start over again and only elect those who serve God with all their hearts, their minds, their souls and their strength.

[Love is alive]

 

 

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.

You said you are supporting Bobby Jindal didn't you?  I prefer Rand Paul, but I would have no problem voting for Jindal.  I actually think Rick Perry could enter the race, and make a good candidate.  I am sure he would be more prepared the second time around, and his record of success in Texas shows he is very qualified to run the country. 

 

Yes, Bobby Jindal is my pick for 2016 but.....my choice doesn't matter much in the grander scheme of things and there's been no indication Jindal will run.  I don't dislike Rand Paul, don't get me wrong, I just don't feel any excitement about him.  Rick Perry has been a great governor down here but I can't see him as President; I guess his appeal is limited to a conservative demographic and I don't believe he could beat Hillary Clinton if she's the candidate.  That being said, I'm not sure she will run; she will be 69 years old next year.  The same age as Reagan when he was elected and it's widely accepted that he was in the very early stage of Alzeimer's while still in the White House.  Bad scenario there.

 

I am not endorsing any particular candidate. My question is what people thought of the idea of making a constitutional admendment to make it where congress cannot exempt themselves from any laws. Therefore, if they make a law, they must obey the law just the same as everyone else.

[Love is alive]

Butero - Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.

 

I'm suggesting that if you want 100 and I want 50 we should be able to come to some agreement in between.  Ted Cruz believes that some agreement is for everyone to agree with him otherwise....  As to the two parties one can argue the "merits" of the platforms, ideas, and vision but history shows that at the end of the day the very same issues remain without successful solution.

 

I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock.

 

Then you should have little to complain about.  On the other hand I see America's clear movement towards plutocracy and corpratism as disastrous.  I believe that there are serious issues facing this country on all fronts and we need a "government" willing and able to accept and face those many challenges. It is interesting to note that in todays idealogical warfare within the republican party Ronald Reagan would have been considered too liberal, especially in norquistian terms.

 

I personally don't think Perry has a chance...he was pretty dismal in his last attempt. Perhaps if the tea party goes the way of the "moral majority" the republicans can field some strong candidates.

I do not support, at this point anyway, any one candidate. My question was simply what do you think about having a constitutional admendement to keep congress from exempting themselves from any laws. Another words, if they pass a law, then they have to obey it the same as you and I do.

[Love is alive]

 

Butero -On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."

 

As I also noted in another post "Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity."  I view Cruz as an extremist that will simply create more dissension and divisiveness...which is exactly what he has succeeded in accomplishing so far.  Whether one chooses to accept it as reality or not, the fact is that movement forward requires some "give and take". Intractable ideology serves little purpose in government other then to allow...well exactly where we are, a do nothing house of reps and a stagnant government.  (Also, Cruz's father will be a liability and Rand certainly has race issues that will be examined more closely) The problem will always be that though one desires "extreme change" another wants the same thing but in a different direction, thus we arrive at an impasse unless compromise enters the arena.

 

Sadly there was a time when though differences were wide the reps and dems could meet in the best interest of America. Today it would appear party loyalty takes priority over moving this country forward.

Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.  I support the most conservative candidates in most cases, but I will vote for a candidate if they get the nomination that is less than perfect.  I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock. 

 

But again, I gave you a winning ticket for 2016, and one I could support.  RICK PERRY/SUSANNA MARTINEZ.  They are qualified, and they have a great chance of winning. 

 

The person who brings the bill or the parts of government make no difference. It is the idea that I am interested in. Congress not being able to make laws then turn around and exempt themselves from them, so that we have to obey them but they do not. What do you think about that idea??

[Love is alive]

 

Butero -On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."

 

As I also noted in another post "Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity."  I view Cruz as an extremist that will simply create more dissension and divisiveness...which is exactly what he has succeeded in accomplishing so far.  Whether one chooses to accept it as reality or not, the fact is that movement forward requires some "give and take". Intractable ideology serves little purpose in government other then to allow...well exactly where we are, a do nothing house of reps and a stagnant government.  (Also, Cruz's father will be a liability and Rand certainly has race issues that will be examined more closely) The problem will always be that though one desires "extreme change" another wants the same thing but in a different direction, thus we arrive at an impasse unless compromise enters the arena.

 

Sadly there was a time when though differences were wide the reps and dems could meet in the best interest of America. Today it would appear party loyalty takes priority over moving this country forward.

Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.  I support the most conservative candidates in most cases, but I will vote for a candidate if they get the nomination that is less than perfect.  I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock. 

 

But again, I gave you a winning ticket for 2016, and one I could support.  RICK PERRY/SUSANNA MARTINEZ.  They are qualified, and they have a great chance of winning. 

 

Again it is the idea of the constitutional admendment, not the person who writes the bill or the parts of congress that passes it. I believe that congress should not be able to write and pass laws that they then exempt themselves from. If they are going to write and pass laws then they should be required to obey them just as we are. That is what I want to know what you think about!!