My Choice for President

[Josiah]

I think I'm settling on a choice for President. Ronald Reagan. I think I'll write in Ronald Reagan.

I realize he's dead but I checked and the Constitution says nothing about the candidate needing to be alive, only that they are over 35 (and Reagan is WAY over that) and was born in the USA (Reagan was born in Illinois). Qualified. Yes, he did serve for two terms before but the Constitution forbids two CONSECUTIVE terms, and this would not be consecutive.

Of course, he'd never show up.... he'd always be absent.... but that may be a good thing.

Seems FAR better than Hilary or The Donald. And the American Independent guy wants the US to leave the UN and all international affirms, and the Liberarian guy is pro-abortion, so I can't vote for either of those two, either.

I think I'll just write in Ronald Reagan. Maybe Eisenhower as the VP (he won't show up either).


- A frustrated Josiah





.

 

[MarkFL]

Count me in with the "frustrated" group...a long-time member.

If I was forced to choose between Clinton or Trump, I would pick Clinton, but not with any enthusiasm. I would do so only because I consider Trump to be more dangerous. But that's the way it has been for me...I don't vote for, I vote against.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes Hillary is mine as well but as you say not with any enthusiasm, as for leaving the UN I truly wish we would

 

[visionary]

Hillary is pro Muslim. I don't want any more venturing into Muslim religous politics in our land. She will bring in Sharia Law and more Muslim immigrants.. yeeesh.. Can I vote for Ted Cruz or Gowdy?

 

[psalms 91]

I refuse to vote for Trump or any of the Republican elitist policies like the trickle down theory among many others. They are anti poor and disadvantaged

 

[Josiah]

I refuse to vote for Clinton or any pro-abortion Democrat elistist policies. I would not have voted for any pro-slavery candidate 200 years ago ("pro-choice" defense or not), and therefore won't vote for any pro-abortion candidate now.

 

[whenpigsfly]

I refuse to vote for Trump or any of the Republican elitist policies like the trickle down theory among many others. They are anti poor and disadvantaged

anything other than saddle bag hillary. i dont know how people can support her with this fbi stuff going on and the emails.

 

[psalms 91]

Truthfully I dont like either one, it is just a bad choice that I consider not as harmful

 

[Stravinsk]

 

[MarkFL]

Nobody...

Now that's a candidate I can get behind! :thumbsup:

 

[Stravinsk]

Now that's a candidate I can get behind! :thumbsup:

Or in front of, or looking up to, or sharing the same space with...:;;D:

 

[Josiah]

Nobody, I suspect, will be the winner this year.... with The Donald and Hillary running.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes we all lose

 

[Rens]

I vote for Bassie.

 

[MarkFL]

I may write in Dr. Ed Witten:

While he could never get elected as an out atheist, and he is far too valuable as the father of M-theory to be a mere politician, it will still feel right to write him in.

 

[Josiah]

Sorry, double post

 

[Josiah]

I think Witten labels himself an agnostic, not by any means an Atheist. I think OFTEN people abuse some (especially some in science because in our culture, some consider scientists to be superior to others) as "Atheist" when that seems to be very rarely the case. I've even seen J. Robert Oppeneimer spoken of as such when if I recall, he boldly denounced atheism and seemed to embrace Monism and at times agnosticism. I recall a couple of discussions among Physicists I know about Oppie, by some also interested in monism and other aspects of Hinduism. But we SERIOUSLY digress (maybe even hijack, lol).

Anyway, there have been presidents of the USA who probably were deists and certainly some who simply were not religious (although claiming at least to be Christian), but none to date who were likely agnostics and certainly not atheist (some question if Lincoln was a Christian but no one claims he was an agnostic and certainly not an Atheist). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Could such be elected now? Probably...... I would (by no means) disqualify such; I do not consider the theology of a candidate AT ALL.

BTW, although Lutherans are the fourth largest religious group in the USA (and have been since colonial times), there has never been a Lutheran president or even a Lutheran candidate of a major party. Lutherans just tend to not be so power hungry, lol.


I'm planning to vote for Reagan for President, Eisenhower for Vice. Both are Theists and I think both are roughly Presbyterian.



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

I like Ike lol

 

[Josiah]

And ONE of the wonderful things about the Reagan/Eisenhower ticket is that neither will actually show up for work - and thus doing no harm.


SIDE POINT: I'm also in favor of removing the A/C from all government buildings. Back before AC was installed, Congress met only briefly (avoiding Washington is the heat) and often only in the morning. It did less harm back then. I say, turn off the A/C in all government buildings (not just in DC). And elect Reagan/Eisenhower.

 

[MarkFL]

Hey Josiah,

If I recall, you and I hold to different definitions of atheist...Dr. Witten could be an agnostic atheist, as am I. I am agnostic in that I claim no knowledge of whether there are gods (including the Christian God) or not, and I am an atheist because I reject the claims of theism. My rejection does not mean I claim it is false, it just mean I don't feel I have sufficient reason to claim it is true. Gnostics make a claim of knowledge, and carry a burden of proof, whereas agnostics (whether theist or atheist) make no claim of knowledge and have no such burden.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, with some rather scathing criticism of Christianity. I seriously doubt he could get elected today (in the information age). I gravely doubt an open atheist would be electable at present, and likely won't be in my lifetime.