Let me begin by stating that I'm not interested in causing a flaming thread of any kind. Besides, calling many of you idiots would be an insult to all the stupid people. I'm merely here to open myself to differing opinions, not to start some fruitless argument. So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey. With that in mind, if you wish to say something, please do so in a mature, positive, and moreover constructive manner.
I know most of you have an interest in the political ramifications of the decisions of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and many have had insightful comments to make on the subject. Some of you though are the kind of person one would use as a blueprint to build an idiot. So keep your thoughts concise and get directly to the point. Don't let your mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.
The subject of this thread is whether it is better to have someone in the oval office who has firm convictions or someone with a more flexible approach to policy. So post your ideas; if you keep it up long enough someday you'll say something intelligent. Above all folks, let’s keep it courteous and hold the insults to a minimum.
I believe that we should be electing a leader who steers public opinion rather than following the currents of popular thought. Too many politicians are reacting to polls and if that were the way in 1862, Lincoln would not have been able to press on his policy, which has been proven through history as the appropriate one. I realize it's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, but try to keep up. We are supposed to elect leaders, not followers.
