RLSH700

I'm going to do the best I can without getting too political (which is quite difficult). I know what the founding fathers said and I respect them. If it were not for them, we would not have half of the freedoms we still have today. There are a few issues that some of our founding fathers allowed that were technically wrong, but they did a much better job than anyone in the current world would be able to do in the same position. We have to remember that human beings have errors and forgive them of those errors if we want to be forgiven of our errors. Having said that, there have been some decisions that were made before many of us were born that violated what our founding fathers intended. Some of these decisions, I believe we can undo and resolve with a mild case of pain (ex. social programs, entitlements, etc.), others I'm afraid we cannot without being destroyed as a whole. There are some beliefs in libertarianism that I agree with (a different tax system, less government involvement with business, etc.); however, I don't completely agree with people such as Ron Paul on issues such as the war and getting out of involvement in the international community because our founding fathers did not want us to get involved in these headaches. I believe we lost that option when we got involved in WWI, or perhaps even before that. As much as I wish we didn't have to face these enemies, I'm afraid we don't have a choice. A lot of these enemies we face want world domination and considering how life would be under them, I'm willing to disobey the founding fathers to ensure that the freedom they gave us can continue.

I'm not going to discuss my personal beliefs about the candidates at this point. All I know is I'm concerned with why some of these candidates that are labeled as "top tier" get that labeling. A lot of those candidates lack something very important called experience and have ideas and values that bother me on both political parties. From what I have seen the candidates who actually do have the experience are at the bottom of the lists, and for some reason actually have less "baggage" as the "top tier" candidates. My question to everyone is, why on earth are we putting up the least experienced, most corrupt, most inconsistent, slimey people we can at the top and leave the most qualified candidates at the bottom.