We all see the same polls and results that Hillary is the front runner on the Democrat side and on the GOP side, they keep mentioning Christie, Paul, Ryan, Rubio, Cruz and various others. But my question is "would you consider voting for someone that isn't a mainstream politician" Someone that truly cares about the 98%? Someone that believes the constitution is the 'law of the land'? Someone that doesn't believe millionaire corrupt politicians are best at running our country? Would you consider voting for a true outsider that you can actually listen too and not get sick to your stomach?
Of course I would. Though to be President of the United States, he'd pretty much have to have the credibility, intelligence and honesty of Ben Carson, and he'd have to be able to communicate that fact to tens of millions of Americans. But a non-politician is what we need most, I believe. I'd say that being a politician is something best left OFF of the resume for President.
Eisenhower comes to mine. Ross Perot's third party attempt and self destruction. Non politicians is a good thing, if their views are correct as mine. For years I have been in favor of Supreme Court appointments from a pool that isn't Professional <doom> Federals <Darth Vadar breath sounds> because continued appointment of persons from the central government sector enhance the powers of the central government because, that is their careers. I would like to see a Constitutional History type professor who might not be a lawyer on the court. And there was Earl Warren who was Governor of the Greatest State of California. The media posing "qualification" questions has no doubt narrowed the selection pool. I like the qualifications mentioned in the Constitution as "the qualifications", not the superimposed ones. Moi Give Democracy a chance. No
If someone is running for president, wouldn't the very action make that person a politician? In any case, I've never seen a politician who claimed the Constitution wasn't the law of the land, that sort of behavior being consigned mainly to internet forums, though it would be rather refreshing if one did.
No problem. If he believed that the Constitution is the law of the land, he'd be representing the 2%, not the 98%. I'd rather have a corrupt politician serving my interests than a corrupt politician serving the 2%'s interest. Either way, there is no answer to corruption. The first thing all politicians learn when they get to DC is the "skim".
Checked out your candidate http://www.michaelkinlaw.com/ and I can not make a distinction between GwBush and his promises at all. in his "why me" page, he quotes Steve Jobs "those who are crazy enough" - I am much more crazy than either of them, and I believe I AM THE ONE to change the world.
Sure, if a viable contendor were to ever arise... but they're only "not" a mainstream politician until they start making their political positions known, so...
Vote for a non-politician would not be different, because the same organisation is going on via the same political system with parties (the mass organisations of the system) A real non-politician (someone who is really pro people and freedom) would only warn that elections (backed up by media) and (even his or her own) popularity can lead to mass organisation. Such honest person does not exist in the current political arena. Not a single politician would ever warn that his or her own popularity can be a problem, because politics is about fight, not about solutions and solving problems. The endless political struggle has mainly led to the organisation of society, that is why the problems are never really solved (while all can be solved in no time, from crime to ecological), and politics is using emotion propaganda as well (the shut down is cleary emotion politics to cause social unrest)
Taxcutter says: Jimmah Cah-tuh ran as an "outsider." Not exactly the best President we ever had. Honest man but an amateur. Maybe the time is ripe for another flag officer. The Founding Fathers were hinky about the "Man on Horseback." We've had a few. George Washington was that in spades as was Andrew Jackson. Zachary Taylor was too short-lived to matter. Grant was a competent President - absolutely revered in his day. But after that it was a long pull to Ike (Teddy Roosevelt was not a general) and none since then. As a rule governors seem to be preferred because they have some experience running an organization. Generals and admirals would fit that mold. On balance, generals have been better presidents than have Senators.