Quote from: Billy's bayonet on July 17, 2016, 06:18:59 PM
I have come to realize that too often we want perfection in our candidates and so called leaders. We think they are what we want them to be and when they turn out not to be we are disappointed. We must remember that they are just men....and women....and they are subject to every human foible and character flaw that man in his weakness is afflicted with....same as you and I.

So my Presidential choice is one who is NOT perfect, because perfection doesn't exist. Every President I admire and respect from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan, were not perfect, they all had some weaknesses that shone through.

BUT in each one of those I named they all had these two important Traits:  STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE. In a world full of Ayatollah's, Kim Jong Ill's Putin's and a bunch of other Human sharks we need a leader who will stand behind their word and back it up with a bloody fist if need be. The Wolves can smell it on you or not and will act accordingly.

I also think a President should have the strength of Moral Character, I don't expect  them to be on the knees Praying every minute with a Halo over the head but a basic belief in CHRISTIANITY and the Moral Compass of Gods Ten Commandments is sorely needed.

Ditto.....

Have split this thread.  The money part will be in Financial.

Honesty

Integrity

A constitutionalist

My presidential choice would possess these qualities:

1)  Deep knowledge and respect of the Constitution
2)  Christian beliefs and core conservative values
3)  Integrity and honor
4)  Knowledge of the functionality of our government
5)  A commitment to the 'people' of the United States to crush the Washington cartel
6)  Backbone and tenacity
7)  Proven conservative record
8)  Experience in dealing with the Supreme Court
9)  Plans that will replace our current tax codes, bolster our economy and repeal and replace Obamacare
10) A patriot with abiding love for country and a natural born leader

TED CRUZ.  Reigniting the Promise of America!!

Quote from: The Boo Man... on July 17, 2016, 10:22:58 PM
Honesty

Integrity

A constitutionalist

Essentially the opposite of Trump..

Mine is simple. A PROVEN Constitutional Conservative.

Quote from: tac on July 18, 2016, 07:38:19 AM
Mine is simple. A PROVEN Constitutional Conservative.

Same here. I don't demand much as long as they follow the Constitution, but if they did, they wouldn't be a Dim or a RINO either, just like all the other pieces of the shit the party throws at us, claims it's our only option.
Ya know, I've never seen this much vitriol against the party in my lifetime, and at this level of vitriol, yet amazingly the party is aloof and acts as if nothing has changed as they collapse into a footnote in history.

Is this what the Dim party planned when they infected the GOP? Personally, I don't think it was a good idea to completely destroy the party, but that's the direction it's headed.

Quote from: tac on July 18, 2016, 07:38:19 AM
Mine is simple. A PROVEN Constitutional Conservative.

That automatically includes of good character, honesty & integrity.   In order to faithfully follow the Constitution, it takes a clear moral character. 

STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE - absolutely!
What president has not sworn to uphold & defend the nation, constitution from enemies without and within - just to back off and attempt to cut deals with known enemies?   Jimmy Carter appealed to Russia for help, and both Carter and Obama have been fawning over Israel's enemies (who are also ours!).

Quote from: Hoofer on July 18, 2016, 02:40:20 PM
That automatically includes of good character, honesty & integrity.   In order to faithfully follow the Constitution, it takes a clear moral character. 

STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE - absolutely!
What president has not sworn to uphold & defend the nation, constitution from enemies without and within - just to back off and attempt to cut deals with known enemies?   Jimmy Carter appealed to Russia for help, and both Carter and Obama have been fawning over Israel's enemies (who are also ours!).

Exactly! Listening to politicians telling us what they will do is a waste of time. Look at what they have done and supported in the past. That is what defines them. The oath of office is a joke.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 01:03:12 PM

I am a Kensyian Economist supporter so I believe governments function is to grow and pump money into the economy and cut taxes in times of crises, and then shrink and raise taxes in order to pay down debt during good times (like the 1990's) and prepare for the next crises.

We are good at the growing and spending part, both sides have tax and spend as their motto's.  But we are not as good at the shrinking part although, while still too bloated President Obama has shrunk the overall size of government since its high point during his first term.

But we do have to do more to reduce size AND cost.  We're not far apart in what we want, we just have different ways to go about getting it.

Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.

The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]

The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.

The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]

The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;

Hi Solar, 

Excellent question.  Seriously.  Many of my kind do point to the Commerce Clause or the Equal protection amendment (14th) and it all comes down the sad fact we as a people simply cannot do what is right without a law or executive action.

-Slavery needed a Executive Action.
-Woman's Suffrage needed an Amendment.
-Child Labor needed a Law.
-Fair Labor Standards Act needed a Law.
-Civil Rights needed a Law.
-A Woman's Right needed a Law (I will admit this is a very complex issue I respect all sides).
-Equal Rights.
-Health Care needed TWO Supreme Court Rulings.
-Gay Rights needed TWO Supreme Court Rulings.

We sadly have a history of not being able to agree on things on our own.  That is a fact.  If WE as the STATES had been able to address these issues then there would have been no need for the Fed to get involved.  That is the problem I see, we need to keep ahead of the curve.

Now, I get our views are 180 degrees OPPOSITE, but you know what...I am ok with that.  In FACT I did come here to listen to what you guys and gals have to say and I have found you all to be very passionate and I have learned some things.  I'm actually starting to like some of you.  (I don't know why.) 

we may not change minds but that is not my purpose here NOR is it to insult anyone.  I simply and frankly enjoy the discussion with this group who is so completely different than me.  I like hearing what you have to say.

I will add a bit on a following post just to make it easier to read I can get long winded but I am sensitive that it is not my intention to take over any discussions.  Just to put my view out there and read what you all think about it.


Thanks for asking the question Solar it is one of the most important questions we have. 

I enjoy discussing things with you. For what it is worth.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.

The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]

The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;

So I'm not going to post ad nauseum here (make you guys gag for my posts as it is)    :biggrin:just a few snippets so you see what my point is and the thread flow can decide how much you guys want to discuss it.  I always look forward to what you guys think of this.

So I agree the Constitution is clear.  I believe it is a Living Document that should reflect the times.  I understand many like former Justice Scalia believed the Constitution IS a firm document that says what it means.  I can respect that.

However, our Founding Fathers did leave us a template for what they believed (really in their hearts) thru the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. That is my point here.

"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians..."
-George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 10, 1787

Alexander Hamilton also pushed for a "Strong Central Government" and noted it as follows:

""I agree to the proposition. I did not intend yesterday a total extinguishment of state governments; but my meaning was, that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments, and that therefore it was necessary to have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the states will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale."

                                                                       -Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Convention: Remarks on the Abolition of the States, June 19, 1787.


Now the Anti-Federalists had several Founding Fathers as well such as Patrick Henry among them and they did not support a strong central government.


Finally, despite what the Founding Fathers wanted we know what the Constitution says.   It is right there. 


And we have to decide what it means.  What was the intent.  Our nation depends on what we decide.


Solar I want to thank you for asking this question.  That made all the difference in this discussion.  You opened it up!

I am very interested in what you and everyone has to say.  Sadly again being on the east coast surrounded by liberals  I have to run out for tonight but I would love continue this or any other discussion tomorrow.

Take care. (don't worry if I get the emolji's wrong I have no idea what I am doing with those anyway I just try to find something close to my intent)

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.

The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]

The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;

Solar,

I missed your main question about the economy.  My apologies.  Government regulates the economy by the tax code.

Using the tax code pushes levers across the nation via interest rates for business, home, and other lending.

I would say the authority of the Federal Government to tax (or not) would be big levers to move the ecnomy.


for example mortgage interest deductions make buying a house more attractive.
401k makes saving for retirement more attractive (thought too many take that money in loans and squander it)
all of the tax code modulates the economy.

since the Constitution gives the government the right to tax that is it.

Hopefully, we talk more tomorrow!

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 20, 2016, 06:40:47 PM

So I'm not going to post ad nauseum here (make you guys gag for my posts as it is)    :biggrin:just a few snippets so you see what my point is and the thread flow can decide how much you guys want to discuss it.  I always look forward to what you guys think of this.

So I agree the Constitution is clear.  I believe it is a Living Document that should reflect the times.  I understand many like former Justice Scalia believed the Constitution IS a firm document that says what it means.  I can respect that.

However, our Founding Fathers did leave us a template for what they believed (really in their hearts) thru the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. That is my point here.

"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians..."
-George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 10, 1787

Alexander Hamilton also pushed for a "Strong Central Government" and noted it as follows:

""I agree to the proposition. I did not intend yesterday a total extinguishment of state governments; but my meaning was, that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments, and that therefore it was necessary to have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the states will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale."

                                                                       -Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Convention: Remarks on the Abolition of the States, June 19, 1787.


Now the Anti-Federalists had several Founding Fathers as well such as Patrick Henry among them and they did not support a strong central government.


Finally, despite what the Founding Fathers wanted we know what the Constitution says.   It is right there. 


And we have to decide what it means.  What was the intent.  Our nation depends on what we decide.


Solar I want to thank you for asking this question.  That made all the difference in this discussion.  You opened it up!

I am very interested in what you and everyone has to say.  Sadly again being on the east coast surrounded by liberals  I have to run out for tonight but I would love continue this or any other discussion tomorrow.

Take care. (don't worry if I get the emolji's wrong I have no idea what I am doing with those anyway I just try to find something close to my intent)

That was the issue with the Constitution, it was by it's very nature a suffocating force over States Rights as well as individual Liberties, so an addendum was necessary, and if not for the intellect and insight for the likes of James Madison in creating the Bill of Rights, we may very well have had the oppressive govt you so admire.