4
4
0
I know it's early, but we've got a full plate of new candidates wanting to be the new POTUS. It's up to everyone to fact check these candidates on their background and support them if they support us. If someone knows the Democratic or 3rd party candidates, they can post who they think will be a good contender, but I'm going to list a few Republican/Libertarian candidates. Who do you see as front runner?
Politics
President
Elections
Election 2016
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 19
8
8
0
It is about time a person of character and accomplishment made it to the White House.
(8)
(0)
PO2 Steven Erickson
1SG Michael Blount James Buchanan was the only President to serve and never become an officer (War of 1812). Andrew Jackson started as a 13-yr old messenger, however.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Steven Erickson
Yeah, it does. Maybe some of the "more experienced" NCOs here on RP might remember serving with young Pvt Buchanan...
(1)
(0)
SGM Thomas Raymann
Correct, James Buchanan served as a Private in the Pennsylvania Militia in 1814. There were also 6 company grade officiers, so as you can tell most of the remaining 32 Presidents with military service served as field and flag grade officers.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
I'm a firm believer that governors USUALLY perform better as POTUS (that peanut-farmer from that southern state is a GRAND EXCEPTION).
Based on "corporate titles" I'd like to rearrange the Executive Branch:
Chief Security Officer - Chris Christie
(Someone who can give the internal/external bad guys a Chicago-Style "tune-up")
Chief Operating Officer - Rick Perry (Scott Walker?)
(Someone who's [apparently] successfully run a government)
Chief Financial Officer - Rand Paul
(Someone who'll say... "You want to spend money on WHAT?!?!?")
Chief Executive Officer / HMFIC - ?
(Someone who can handle all these "A-Type" Prima Donnas)
OK. So I didn't really answer the question - as usual - but I hope I've added some "targets" for discussion.
Based on "corporate titles" I'd like to rearrange the Executive Branch:
Chief Security Officer - Chris Christie
(Someone who can give the internal/external bad guys a Chicago-Style "tune-up")
Chief Operating Officer - Rick Perry (Scott Walker?)
(Someone who's [apparently] successfully run a government)
Chief Financial Officer - Rand Paul
(Someone who'll say... "You want to spend money on WHAT?!?!?")
Chief Executive Officer / HMFIC - ?
(Someone who can handle all these "A-Type" Prima Donnas)
OK. So I didn't really answer the question - as usual - but I hope I've added some "targets" for discussion.
(5)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSgt (Join to see) He's done some good things for Wisconsin. His battle against the unions will work well with the South.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
PO2 Steven Erickson
I have to say as the Governor of the fine State of New Jersey, I would say he would give a fugeddaboutit-style "tune-up". Say what you want about the guy, he tells it like it is. Jersey-style. :)
I have to say as the Governor of the fine State of New Jersey, I would say he would give a fugeddaboutit-style "tune-up". Say what you want about the guy, he tells it like it is. Jersey-style. :)
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
The problem here is what constitutes "support" for the military?
The military industrial complex?
The troops?
The occupations?
The "military family"?
The Veterans?
Just wars?
ethical warfare?
preemptive strikes?
Win at all costs?
Win by any means?
Peace through projection of power?
Peace through allowing national self-determination?
Bigger guns?
Better guns?
Gonna go with Elizabeth Warren because she recognizes the potential for economic warfare, something we, as a country, are losing because we've sold our soul to multinationals, which includes most of the defense contractors, which sell their services to the highest bidder. The same tech going into the US war machine is now going into the war machine of every other country able to afford a Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas bid.
And if you hadn't noticed, China's GDP just overtook the good ol' U.S. of A.
The military industrial complex?
The troops?
The occupations?
The "military family"?
The Veterans?
Just wars?
ethical warfare?
preemptive strikes?
Win at all costs?
Win by any means?
Peace through projection of power?
Peace through allowing national self-determination?
Bigger guns?
Better guns?
Gonna go with Elizabeth Warren because she recognizes the potential for economic warfare, something we, as a country, are losing because we've sold our soul to multinationals, which includes most of the defense contractors, which sell their services to the highest bidder. The same tech going into the US war machine is now going into the war machine of every other country able to afford a Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas bid.
And if you hadn't noticed, China's GDP just overtook the good ol' U.S. of A.
(4)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD ,
Agreed, there is a definite need to vet the candidates. Lets be realistic though, the front runners, regardless of party, all appear to be woefully inadequate to the task at hand considering current and past circumstances. Most of the GOP are currently hurting themselves as the whistleblowers and documentation on sweetheart and patently illegal deals are coming to light. Breaking unions and coddling monopolized industries may pad the pocket, but it doesn't fix the economy.
Mitt Romney has proved himself to be a Wall Street inside man on several occasions.
I'd love for the Dems to have someone other than a corporate friendly hawk like Hillary, or someone with more experience than Warren or Sanders.... But it seems like the front runners are being put in the limelight simply because they are bought and paid for yes men... Again, regardless of party...
My choice for Warren has less to do with experience and more for stated and revealed moral and ethical standards. Something none of the other front runners have been able to maintain with any degree of consistency. And unfortunate as it may be, I'd rather have someone with integrity than experience if I have to choose.
Agreed, there is a definite need to vet the candidates. Lets be realistic though, the front runners, regardless of party, all appear to be woefully inadequate to the task at hand considering current and past circumstances. Most of the GOP are currently hurting themselves as the whistleblowers and documentation on sweetheart and patently illegal deals are coming to light. Breaking unions and coddling monopolized industries may pad the pocket, but it doesn't fix the economy.
Mitt Romney has proved himself to be a Wall Street inside man on several occasions.
I'd love for the Dems to have someone other than a corporate friendly hawk like Hillary, or someone with more experience than Warren or Sanders.... But it seems like the front runners are being put in the limelight simply because they are bought and paid for yes men... Again, regardless of party...
My choice for Warren has less to do with experience and more for stated and revealed moral and ethical standards. Something none of the other front runners have been able to maintain with any degree of consistency. And unfortunate as it may be, I'd rather have someone with integrity than experience if I have to choose.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD ,
Agreed, there is yet to be a viable candidate from either party stepping forward for the position. Those with experience ... who am I kidding, none who have legitimately thrown their hat in the ring, have proven integrity.
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.”
- Frank Herbert Dune
Agreed, there is yet to be a viable candidate from either party stepping forward for the position. Those with experience ... who am I kidding, none who have legitimately thrown their hat in the ring, have proven integrity.
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.”
- Frank Herbert Dune
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google