I vote in every election, always have. But in the past that's all I've done. That changed this last election. I've been so disgusted with the way things are being done in Washington I decided to get more involved. I made donations to Asa Hutchinson for governor and Tom Cotton for senator. I'm happy to say both won. For the upcoming presidential election I was going to wait and see who got the nomination before donating but since my choice has been gaining ground I donated to Ted Cruz' campaign this morning. Only $45 for his 45th birthday but small amounts can add up to a lot if enough people donate. I will support and donate more to whoever wins the Republican nomination. I hope it's Ted Cruz.
Sorry, but he's just another lawyer with no military experience. None of the candidates have any military experience, and one is a disbarred lawyer. That's just not right.
Military experience is not part of a Presidency's portfolio. That's why he has the Department of Defense as his advisories in his Cabinet. No Republican Candidate was a disbarred lawyer unless I'm missing something. Where did you hear that?
Hillary was disbarred, and she's a candidate. No, military experience isn't a requirement, but it ought to be. A presidential candidate should know exactly what boot camp and being stationed in some armpit of a country feels like, IMO.
I understand where you're coming from Ike and I don't know what that feels like either. The President's responsibility is to appoint his Cabinet leaders as soon as he gets into office. When appointing someone for the Dept. of Defense, I can see where he could make a wiser choice with some experience. McCain would have been a good President and deserved it. Media and politics ruined that.
I'd like to see a link to where Secretary Clinton has been disbarred. http://peterfrancisgeracilaw.com/2015/10/23/does-hillary-still-have-her-law-license/ Clinton's law license has been suspended because she has not kept up the continuing education requirements for keeping a license current. To me, allowing your license to lapse due to not keeping up the ce requirements is a lot different than being disbarred. During the time Clinton's has failed to take the required coursework, she has been quite busy. Senator... Secretary of State... Candidate for the Presidency.
There is no Constitutional requirement that a POTUS have military experience. I don't understand the reasoning of why a POTUS should be required to have served. Funding for the Department of Defense is set by Congress, not the President. The POTUS has veto power as does Congress have power to override such a veto. Military decisions are made by way of advice from a cadre of appointees. Joint Chiefs... Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, etc... I feel there are thousands of our sons and daughters alive today since McCain was NOT elected. McCain is a hawk who would have us with boots on the ground in a number of global conflicts. It's interesting to hear some of the current candidates bragging about how they would carpet bomb this and destroy that. Such talk is easy until you have to make those difficult decisions and consider all aspects of such a decision.
Will, no one said that a the President was required to have military service…you must not have read post 4. The Dept. of Defense was also discussed. Ike explained in post 5 that he meant that he would just prefer it that way because the President would know first hand what it feels like. That's all. Clinton and Obama both surrendered their licenses to practice law on their own because they didn't want the expense or the time it took to get the education. There was an internet rumor going around that said it was due to ethics disciplinary action but fact checks debunked that. Regarding McCain….yes, he's a doer and we wouldn't have terrorism/ISIS as out of control right now as it is if McCain were in. In the long run he would have saved lives because terrorism has become global now under Obama's administration and it may be too late to stop it.
I apologize in that I took the OP to suggest military service be required of a POTUS. That's the blessing of being part of a "senior" group in that I can blame my mind working slower than my eyes!! :>) I have seen some on political discussion boards who would like to push for a Constitutional Amendment to require such of a POTUS. Again... my error!!! As I've said before, I'm no real fan of Secretary Clinton. Yet, I felt there is significant difference between being disbarred and making a personal decision to not take the time to complete the required continuing education. On Senator McCain's hypothetical presidency, I should not have stated my belief he would have taken us into additional conflicts. I will always feel he would have made a very poor President and I have no use for who he chose as a running mate. Yet, to suggest a past candidate would have done this or would have done that is nothing but opinion. We cannot go back and change leaders to see what would have been. What we can do is work hard to assist in the election of those candidates for public office we feel are best suited for the job. Our choices may not be the best, but it is our civic duty to vote. With all due respect, at first glance I would assume your vote will cancel mine. But, I will still vote!!!! So make sure you do to keep mine from counting!!
No problem problem Will. It happens. Who am I voting for? Do tell. I'm undecided. It's still a long way off so there's plenty of time and multiple candidates. I vacillate as new information surfaces and as candidates show their strengths and weaknesses. I'm a registered Independent because I don't want to be labeled with either party, I'd rather vote for the best person. I was all for a woman to be president and thought she would be perfect…not any more. Are you voting for Hillary? I'm well aware that if I voted for an Independent candidate I'd be throwing my vote away though. I did that once just to make a statement that I was unwilling to vote for a lesser of 2 evils. I think I voted for Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. It was a while back. Hillary and Trump both seem to think that showing anger and loudness is a sign of strength. A president who can't control their emotions is too weak to be representative of our country globally. Honesty is out the roof. And I thought slander was against the law. Btw, why wasn't Bernie Saunders tried and punished in a court of law recently for breaching Hillary's voter database? What a mess. Actually, I think the topic is "Political Donations". Sorry Sheldon.
I think the only way that you're throwing your vote away is if you vote for someone just because they were selected by one of the two major political parties, since both of these parties are controlled by the same corporate interests, and the only thing they really care about is to be sure that the general election results don't matter. A wasted vote is one cast for someone who you know does not represent your interests or your principles. As for donations, I doubt that I'll contribute one cent to any of these bloodsuckers again. I have in the past, including the last election but all that my contributions to Ron Paul got me was a place in Rand Paul's spam list.
The burden of proof is much more stringent for a public figure to prove slander. A public figure must be able to prove not only that a statement made against them was incorrect and harmful, but he must prove that the person acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The burden of proof is much higher for a public figure. When the public figure is a politician and the statement was made in the course of a political campaign, a successful suit would be doubly hard since laws regarding false advertising doesn't apply to political campaigns. We expect politicians to lie to us. Either way, it would be a civil case, not a criminal one.
Personally, I don't think any of these yahoos are fit to vote for, on either side. Maybe I'll do a write in, and cast a vote for Netanyahu, or Putin. At least they like each other.