End Conflict of Interest in Washington - Elect Doctors, Scientists and Engineers

[amy31416]

The doctors would let the CDC erode our civil liberties, the WHO erode our national sovereignty, and the FDA our health choice freedom.

The engineers would talk about how the New Orleans levees really ARE okay.

The scientists would clamp down on homeschooling, religious schooling, and teaching of intelligent design.

And none of them would have a clue about monetary policy.


I mean, if you want people who aren't lawyers, then why not elect historians?

I see your point about historians, not necessarily a bad idea. BUT I'm a scientist, who has had to work with the FDA and I LOATHE them. Talk about stomping out creativity in science! When they step in to your lab it's like the Gestapo just arrived and they think you're hiding a Jew. They can shut down your business because they don't understand something, all of their ridiculous "guidelines" do little to improve the quality of the product you get, but certainly do drive costs up and make it harder to stay competitive.

And few of the FDA agents are real scientists.

I wouldn't "clamp down" on homeschooling, religious schooling or even intelligent design-I learned about it as a philosophy that some hold, I can see why. I'm also very conservative with money. Homeschooled kids do better on tests than public schooled, same with most religious schooled kids. Who wouldn't want that?

 

[amy31416]

I think this is slightly misguided. The real problem is that we, the people, do not place enough value on a candidate's honesty and voting record.

Ron Paul himself said that the real answer to our troubles is "honest men in Washington."

And I personally can tell a lot about someone's honesty just by their face and voice. Is it just me? That "politician" look that most have, that two-facedness. It's so obvious to me, and Ron Paul is nearly the only politician I've seen who doesn't have it. He's a plain dealer.

Simply refuse to give in to smooth talkers. Demand real debate with real transparency, not a cult of personality. That is how we end this corruption and win back our freedoms.

Well put SoundOfSilence. Well put.

 

[curtisag]

The problem with lawyers is their familiarity with being dishonest or taking a dishonest position in court. Lawyers have to be very biased when arguing their case, and this has the unintended consequence of making many of them inherently dishonest liars. This trains them to be good politicians too, they can misrepresent the truth like most people cannot.

Doctors by contrast do not need to lie to their patients. Engineers don't need to lie about their trade. Scientists operate according to the scientific method. But laywers operate according to who spins things better in court often times. Just look at the OJ Simpson trial for an extreme example. Lawyers are not liked in society because of trials like this and the general feeling that they're corrupt people.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Shakespeare had it Right!

King Henry the Sixth, Part II

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).

 

[Corydoras]

I wouldn't "clamp down" on homeschooling, religious schooling or even intelligent design-I learned about it as a philosophy that some hold, I can see why. I'm also very conservative with money. Homeschooled kids do better on tests than public schooled, same with most religious schooled kids. Who wouldn't want that?

So you wouldn't... but you think independently enough on social and political issues that you're voting Ron Paul. Are you sure you're representative of your colleagues? I kind of doubt it.

 

[amy31416]

So you wouldn't... but you think independently enough on social and political issues that you're voting Ron Paul. Are you sure you're representative of your colleagues? I kind of doubt it.

The majority of "real scientists" that I've worked with have a live and let live philosophy, i.e. libertarians. The problem with us is that we usually don't notice politics because we've got our noses in books or we're lab recluses. The academics are a different story, almost without fail, they're democrats used to having to beg for a living (grant writing.)

Engineers are a mixed bag, usually neocons if I had to stereotype (my dad was one).

Doctors, don't know enough of them to stereotype. But I went out on a date with one and he was a lying, delusional douchebag-and not very smart, to boot!

The points I'll make are this: Ron Paul is a doctor, why are you supporting him? Is it because he's an exception? I agree with another poster who said that we need to judge people by their character and their record. Let's not blindly elect ANYONE ever again.

 

[Corydoras]

Ron Paul is a doctor, why are you supporting him? Is it because he's an exception? I agree with another poster who said that we need to judge people by their character and their record. Let's not blindly elect ANYONE ever again.

I agree with you about choosing on the basis of character and record!

Ron Paul being a doctor is something of a negative in my view.
He's got a lot of experience in politics, and that offsets it for me.

 

[Arek]

Actually want to know how to stop career politicians, propose an amendment for consecutive term limits on Congress and Senators. Congress made sure no President could serve more than 2 terms after we had one that won 4 terms. Well I propose Congress or better yet we the people in the 50 states propose an amendment to the Constitution limiting it to one consecutive term in Senate, with eligibility to run again after spending a term out from being a Senator. Three consecutive terms in the House of Representatives, with eligibility to run again after spending 2 terms outside of the House of Representatives.

The President may serve two consecutive terms, with eligibility being restored after being removed from office for two terms.

 

[runderwo]

I propose that terms for President and Congress shall be unlimited, with the exception that they will expire in the term that the politician votes for or fails to veto any new spending or new taxes.

 

[JohnMatthews]

Interesting point

People are really kidding about legislators writing laws, aren't they?

Legislators don't write the laws. Laws are written by nonpartisan legislative reference bureaus. Every legislative body has a nonpartisan office that actually puts the words of laws together. This is a specialized and highly technical field of law.

And legislators don't read all the bills, anyway. They have legislative assistants within their offices who sort through these things and bring a selection of them to the legislator's attention. Ron Paul himself has a legislative staff that does this for him.

Elect doctors, scientists, and engineers, and they're STILL going to be voting on bills that the legislative reference bureaus draft and that their legislative assistants have sorted through.

Here's a 28-minute 1999 interview with Ron Paul's legislative director:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baa1JzQwFDo

Thats an interesting point that you raise. With regard to the conflict of interest, it does not matter if the laws are actually written by lawyers as long as lawyers are not the ones voting to enact the laws.

When lawyers vote to increase the size and scope of the government through new laws, they cannot avoid creating a conflict of interest because all new laws are beneficial to lawyers as a group.