|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,975
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,975 |
That's why I think we need a pragmatic approach.
I think that Kasich would probably follow the Reagan path, and give in on some less important issues in order to get his more important items through. There is a difference between being pragmatic and giving in.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
I guess that would depend on what a person thinks is pragmatic. For example, I think the federal government needs to be significantly smaller. I think we need a simpler tax structure, that is not easily changed with a simple majority vote. We need less regulations, and those regulations cannot be placed upon us by unelected officials. I think that no bill that can't be read in 3 days should be rejected (like that 86,000 page TPP, and does TPP have anything to do with toilet paper?). I think we need to abandon this PC culture, as it's toxic. I don't know if your pragmatism matches mine, but I would like a candidate who does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,975
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,975 |
I think that we need to consider what is possible, while still striving for the ideal.
Not all things that I think are ideal will be possible. Government is never going to shrink by 1/3, for example. The best we can, realistically, hope for is a modest reduction in government spending, combined with a freeze of future expenditures. (and/or growth in future government expenditures)
Further, in order to get anything through the Senate, you need 60 like-minded Senators. Some of the members of the Senate represent states where they are not going to be able to vote for dramatic changes, because they would slit their own throats politically in doing so.
Further, realistically, cutting government spending too much, too quickly, could stall the economy. Changes have to be structured carefully, so that they do not do more damage than they "cure".
I agree with a lot of things you have laid out .... but it will be difficult to push some of those things through on a party line basis. (especially through the Senate, where 60 votes could be necessary)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,845 |
You've got my vote. I'm sure you've ruled a few countries in your lifetime already. Yes but backthen the populations were in the double digets.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Not all things that I think are ideal will be possible. Government is never going to shrink by 1/3, for example. The best we can, realistically, hope for is a modest reduction in government spending, combined with a freeze of future expenditures. (and/or growth in future government expenditures) And that's the real problem. People have given up on fixing the problems and will be satisfied with making small changes. By the time the government is reduced by 1/10, the big government people will be back and grow it by 1/3 again. It either has to be done, or the federal government will slowly slide into the 'far to big/may as well be socialist' government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
i don't even care about the answer, who the heck decided this was even a viable question to ask? Jeb Bush: ‘Hell yeah I would’ kill baby Hitler https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-kill-baby-hitler-231925681.htmlEstablishing himself as the leading pro-time-travel-in-order-to-kill-an-evil-dictator candidate in the 2016 presidential race, Jeb Bush says he would gladly travel back in time in order to kill baby Adolf Hitler, given the opportunity. “Hell yeah I would!” the former Florida governor told the Huffington Post. “You gotta step up, man.” On this issue, Bush isn’t alone. Last month, New York Times Magazine posed the kill-baby-Hitler question to readers, and 42 percent said they would, compared with 30 percent who said they would not. Bush said he first fielded the question via his campaign email address, jeb@jeb.org. “It said, ‘If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you? I need to know,’” Bush explained. The Republican hopeful acknowledged that, like those Michael J. Fox movies, time travel has its consequences. But the opportunity to snuff out the future leader of the Third Reich was too good to pass up. “It could have a dangerous effect on everything else, but I’d do it,” Bush said. “I mean, Hitler.” If you had doubts about his position, Bush doubled down on the kill-baby-Hitler issue. I so want in the next debate for someone to ask Bush if he'd go back in time to kill baby muhammad.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP Debate Tonight.
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
