Should a President of the USA be willing to die for his beliefs? by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Should a President of the USA be willing to die for his beliefs?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 00:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 947
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:12 PM

Just a question here- if a President with morals & principals is elected, should he make decisions regardless of the mortal danger to himself & his loved ones should those decisions be 'unpopular' with TPTB?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:44 PM

DREAMTROVE

No, I don't think so. I see where you're going with this, but that road has some dangerous ideologues on it. Everyone does not possess an enlightened scope to view the spectrum of power with, and some folks might come in with some die hard beliefs that are well, lets just say, less than enlightened.

But that's not my reason for a no vote on this one. President is one who presides over the congress, courts and armed forces of the united states. It's a bureaucratic position. He's not king. If we treat his own personal convictions as a driving force of this nation, we are helping to make him king. This is more or less what happened to Rome in the 1st century BC, which led to a marginalization of all elected* positions.

* Praetor was elected from within the members of the senate in a manner similar to the way the ayatollah is chosen, but still essentially an elected position, but over time it just became a formality to curry favor in the senate to give an official seal of approval to whomever the ruling imperial family wanted. I know y'all know all this, but it can get pushed aside in the political back and forth.

We're dangerously close to that now. Bilderberg, consisting of royal families and issuers of currency (kings) picked Obama and also Romney, and are trying to get us to give them a routine seal of approval. I'm not sure if we can still get someone into that office who is truly independent, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinnich, anymore. That being the case, I have no desire to exalt the position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 2:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Considering that 21 of the 44 U.S. presidents have either been assassinated, had assassination attempts against them, or have died under suspicious circumstances, it appears that it's part of the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assass
ination_attempts_and_plots

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 6:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just a question here- if a President with morals & principals is elected, should he make decisions regardless of the mortal danger to himself & his loved ones should those decisions be 'unpopular' with TPTB?

Yes, absolutely.

If you are unwilling to put your ass on the line, you shoulda never took the job in the first place.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 7:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Irrelevant question, in my opinion, since no President will ever be asked to make the choice. Sure, they might get assassinated, but other than that, they never have to face the question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 8:03 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just a question here- if a President with morals & principals is elected, should he make decisions regardless of the mortal danger to himself & his loved ones should those decisions be 'unpopular' with TPTB?

Yes, absolutely.

If you are unwilling to put your ass on the line, you shoulda never took the job in the first place.

-Frem

Yup. If you're not willing to put your own ass on the line, why should I listen to you when you try to put MY ass on the line?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 12:13 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
No, I don't think so. I see where you're going with this

I'm not sure you do.
Once in office, a President is privy to a LOT of information that is unexpected. Some of it is undoubtedly a short list of musts & no-nos from those advising the President on behalf of the real power in this country. You know, the kinds of suggestions that are necessary to adhere to in order for one in that 'high' position to stay relatively safe.
Kennedy pissed some people off.
So my question here really is, do you take a chance pissing the wrong people off to effect positive change, or do you play it safe to avoid possible 'unpleasantness'?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 3:46 PM

JONGSSTRAW

'Should a President of the USA be willing to die for his beliefs?'

That only happens in movies, like when Harrison Ford didn't get into the escape pod on Air Force One, deciding instead to take on the terrorists himself. I could see Obama in situations where he might weild his 9-iron to fend off an attack, but GW Bush would simply pass the doobage.

Hmmm, better than Reuben's.
..One more.
Ben!
..My last one.
Okay.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 4:18 PM

DREAMTROVE

Chris

Yes, that's exactly where I thought it was going. That's why I gave the matter a lot of thought. I think you have a definite point, and all other things being equal, I would agree. It would limit the power of the influence peddlers over the president. But I think it deifies the position, which finishes the transition to American Empire. Sure, the coming decades and centuries will be entertaining for their absurdity, but it won't resemble anything we think of as rational judgment.

Here's the transformation I see under a rule of president as idealist:

The influence peddlers would quickly realize that they were having no influence on president Paul and so they would assassinate him, and then they'd have the same situation with president Kucinnich. It wouldn't take them very long to realize what was happening, and they'd try to spin their own devotees, like president Lieberman, president McConnell, etc.

The people would oppose this, and forward more of their own super idealists, and pretty quickly all other forms of politics would become moot, it would be like a Quiddich match where the snitch is just worth too many points to make there be any point in playing the rest of the game. The resulting election would be an all for nothing power struggle of the position of president emperor.

When this happens, other power groups would swoop in to oppose the pro-zionist NWO, like the capital communist pro-china, the EU globalist NAU, other corporate alliances or political groups or powerful and wealthy ruling families, who may or may not be current powers that be, and you have a clash of ideologues, enough that the bulk of the mainstream population will be willing to settle for one or the other of them to be elected God Emperor of Doom.

Any politician who represents true freedom with his true beliefs will simply be killed, which will reinforce the idea of presidents dying for their beliefs, and those beliefs then become paramount in a world which according to the design of the constitution, should be irrelevant to the process of govt.

I think the solution is in the other direction. I think the presidential race should contain nominal spokespeople like Paul to wake up the sheeple, and then the race should be abandoned so that some day the position can be abolished (seriously. Look over the last 44 guys, see how many you can find who you think actually had a net benefit to this nation by being president.)

The corruption of the system by the powers that be should be encouraged to expand exponentially past any bounds of sustainability to perpetuate an internal collapse.

Oh, and thanks for taking me seriously. I see I get a lot of potshot bullying, but this time I'm not in any doubt that I know what I'm talking about. I've gotten way to deep into this, far more than I ever intended to. Anyway, you do make an excellent point and I did get that point before, but I think it's a more complicated issue than just the strength of the character of the men holding the office and the ability of influence peddlers to use that character weakness to influence them: It think that there is a serious erosion of process, and that can only serve to forward the deterioration of rational debate and representative govt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 24, 2012 4:55 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Irrelevant question, in my opinion, since no President will ever be asked to make the choice. Sure, they might get assassinated, but other than that, they never have to face the question.

I'm sorry, Niki, but I don't understand this at all.

Lincoln was pretty obviously assassinated for his belief that the Union should stay whole, so obviously he had to face the question of if he'd risk his life. I would suppose that even Presidents like Johnson or Nixon had to wonder if someone would come after them for continuing the Vietnam war.

As noted, almost one half of Presidents have been asassinated or had attempts on their life. Seems like no president, surely in the 20th century and beyond, wouldn't know this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:49 AM

KWICKO

Well, DT seems to be endorsing the rule of the gun here, so I'm just curious: Can we apply the same standards to our corporate leaders as well? If we're unhappy with a CEO's performance, idealism, beliefs, pay, whatever... can we just go ahead and kill him and replace him with a nebbish?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE