Seriously, not so much a "who" as much as "what" type of person would make your ideal President.
I am genuinely curious.  Some of my "likes" are directly related to this forum, and let's say pondering a bit over past presidents, what made me like/dislike them.

For instance, I liked Ronald Reagan, he was inspiring, suffered a continual onslaught from his political enemies, yet was always genuine & optimistic.  Years later, I really grew to appreciate him even more, thanks to Bill Clinton.

Now that "Conservative" means little, "Constitutional Conservative" is my primary qualifier.

What do you look for in a potential President?

Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Seriously, not so much a "who" as much as "what" type of person would make your ideal President.
I am genuinely curious.  Some of my "likes" are directly related to this forum, and let's say pondering a bit over past presidents, what made me like/dislike them.

For instance, I liked Ronald Reagan, he was inspiring, suffered a continual onslaught from his political enemies, yet was always genuine & optimistic.  Years later, I really grew to appreciate him even more, thanks to Bill Clinton.

Now that "Conservative" means little, "Constitutional Conservative" is my primary qualifier.

What do you look for in a potential President?

That about sums me up as well. I used to be a social Conservative, but all that changed when the party used it to help split the base about 20 years ago.
No, screw that, first things first, we need to return to our Founding ideals, morality will check itself when govt is out of the equation.

Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Seriously, not so much a "who" as much as "what" type of person would make your ideal President.
I am genuinely curious.  Some of my "likes" are directly related to this forum, and let's say pondering a bit over past presidents, what made me like/dislike them.

For instance, I liked Ronald Reagan, he was inspiring, suffered a continual onslaught from his political enemies, yet was always genuine & optimistic.  Years later, I really grew to appreciate him even more, thanks to Bill Clinton.

Now that "Conservative" means little, "Constitutional Conservative" is my primary qualifier.

What do you look for in a potential President?

Very interesting question, Hoofer.

For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.

1. Someone who understands what Colin Powell said years ago on Face the Nation (more or less): "Look I am not for big government, I am not for small government, I am for 'right size' government that can get done what we need to get done."

That being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years.  The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.


2. Someone who understands that the more intertwined our economies are with other nations the more dependent they become on US, and so will build strong trade deals with those nations we want to use to further American interests.  The next World War will not be fought on the battlefield but by Corporaations so the stronger economy we have and the more dependent other nations are on us to buy their junk, the better position America will be to dictate the terms of the New Economy we are headed to.


3.  Someone who can convince Congress to pass Immigration Reform.  The answer is already written it was done so by the "Gang of Eight" and passed by the Senate a few years ago before languishing in the House until dead.  This Bill would generate some $50 to $75 BILLION in fines that could be used to build a wall and hire more Federal Agents.  It would pay for itself!  Why we don't do that is beyond me.


4.  This is not so much anything any President can do but what we need more than anything else.  We need to change ALL leadership in Congress on both sides except for Paul Ryan.  Congress needs to start addressing these issues and getting things done!!!  Doing nothing is not governing!  That is the biggest problem we have a Legislative Branch that is dysfunctional and does no work.  Without that, no President can every help us.


I do not believe the problems of this nation are complicated at all and we know the answers in one form or another.  The problem Congress has is the simple inability to get anything done.  It's not like the 'old days' when a roadblock arose the leadership would go behind closed doors and a few hours later meerge with a deal.

Now the leadership goes in front of the cameras and tries to out insult the other guy.


My view is since FDR every President we have had (every one) has led us well, kept us safe, and tried to make our nation better for our people.  Our Congress is the most disappointing thing about our government.  Now, we need Congress as a vital check and balance but Congress is what is holding us back.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM

Very interesting question, Hoofer.

For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.

Here's the Conservative take.

Quote1. Someone who understands what Colin Powell said years ago on Face the Nation (more or less): "Look I am not for big government, I am not for small government, I am for 'right size' government that can get done what we need to get done."

Powell was a deluded RINO. He actually thinks a behemoth govt is the right size. The guy truly is a lib with an (R) next to his name.

QuoteThat being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years.  The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.

Conservatives want to rid the govt of redundancy, kill off worthless Depts. that do nothing but hinder growth and free mkt entrepreneurship.

Quote2. Someone who understands that the more intertwined our economies are with other nations the more dependent they become on US, and so will build strong trade deals with those nations we want to use to further American interests.  The next World War will not be fought on the battlefield but by Corporaations so the stronger economy we have and the more dependent other nations are on us to buy their junk, the better position America will be to dictate the terms of the New Economy we are headed to.

The less influence govt has over corporations and vice versa the less chance there will be of war.

Quote3.  Someone who can convince Congress to pass Immigration Reform.  The answer is already written it was done so by the "Gang of Eight" and passed by the Senate a few years ago before languishing in the House until dead.  This Bill would generate some $50 to $75 BILLION in fines that could be used to build a wall and hire more Federal Agents.  It would pay for itself!  Why we don't do that is beyond me.

No need for reform. All the laws are, and have been in place for decades, they simply need enforcing.

Quote4.  This is not so much anything any President can do but what we need more than anything else.  We need to change ALL leadership in Congress on both sides except for Paul Ryan.  Congress needs to start addressing these issues and getting things done!!!  Doing nothing is not governing!  That is the biggest problem we have a Legislative Branch that is dysfunctional and does no work.  Without that, no President can every help us.

Ryan is a sell out, period!
The best thing that Congress can do for the country is......
Gridlock! Neither party has the best interests of the nation in mind, all they ever do is grow govt, pick winners and losers and leave the American public stuck footing the Bill with less in Liberties to show for it.

QuoteI do not believe the problems of this nation are complicated at all and we know the answers in one form or another.  The problem Congress has is the simple inability to get anything done.

They get too much done as it is.

QuoteIt's not like the 'old days' when a roadblock arose the leadership would go behind closed doors and a few hours later meerge with a deal.

Now the leadership goes in front of the cameras and tries to out insult the other guy.

Don't kid yourself, they still do backroom deals, the "in front of the cameras" stuff is for the drone masses consumption.
It's all staged.

QuoteMy view is since FDR every President we have had (every one) has led us well, kept us safe, and tried to make our nation better for our people.  Our Congress is the most disappointing thing about our government.  Now, we need Congress as a vital check and balance but Congress is what is holding us back.

Partially correct. POTUS is a creation of the party's, with one exception, Reagan.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2016, 11:51:42 AM
No need for reform. All the laws are, and have been in place for decades, they simply need enforcing.

Thanks for your perspectives, Solar.  I never heard anyone say Gridlock was good.  But hearing that made me go "hmmm" and as I thought about it it makes sense if you think government is too involved as it is.  That kind of perspective is what I am looking for I had never thought of it that way before.


As far as immigration goes, I have heard some say we have as many as 23 million illegals, if we say half are good, pay taxes, work, do not break any laws other than the civil misdemeanor of entering the country illegally then most countries want people like that, so why don't we make some money off them??

If we allow them to stay and pay a fine we can generate enough money to secure the border and maintain it annually virtually in perpetuity.

Frankly, I think we are missing an opportunity here.  We cant round them all up.  They are here to stay.  Why not have them pay something to do it?

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM

Very interesting question, Hoofer.

For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.

1. A dictator could very easily do what you ask.

2. There is no balance between socializing the economy and free market capitalism, government cannot make the economy grow by any kind of intervention, the two are mutually exclusive.  Nixon tried wage & price controls - I lived under that, inflation was the ticking time bomb, all he did was delay it.  Carter's capping oil wells in Alaska for a fake energy crisis & OPEC caused gas prices to soar, deepening & the recession.  Economic Globalism was tried in the EU... without satisfactory results.  I need not go into Obama's bailouts (some forced).   But, that's not an ideal for a president...

3.  Immigration reform isn't needed when the laws in place are enforced.  Just like gun control, laws are meaningless without enforcement.  If immigration reform was passed, and unenforced, would that make a difference?   Instead, how about a President who would simply call for law enforcement of what's already been passed?  I could go for that, and we could probably do better with less laws & regulations.

4.  How could Ronald Reagan do so well as a leader with practically zero support from the legislative branch?  He must have had other skills besides Oratory, right?  One could easily argue House Speaker Tip O'Neill was running the country, yet failed miserably because the Executive branch was so stubborn.  Reagan was savaged in the press, and cruelly criticized by O'Neill, but still prevailed most of the time.  Those are vivid memories for many of us, O'Neill live on TV proclaiming budgets Dead-On-Arrival and then viciously attacking Reagan.


At the risk of going off-da-rails quickly, what kind of individual be your IDEAL Presidential candidate?
Go ahead, imagine and describe his/her character, personality, etc.

Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 12:16:18 PM
At the risk of going off-da-rails quickly, what kind of individual be your IDEAL Presidential candidate?
Go ahead, imagine and describe his/her character, personality, etc.

Good question Hoofer.


President Obama has been cruelly attacked without reason as well.  The difference is Tip O'Neil worked very closely with President Reagan and they did get a lot done, together.  Not so today although John Boehner tried every time he came close to a deal with President Obama his caucus would reel him back it.  It was frustrating to watch.


As far and ideal candidate I would say someone with the domestic policy of President Obama.  Someone with the foreign policy of President Reagan.  And the character of person of both.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM

Very interesting question, Hoofer.

For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.

1. Someone who understands what Colin Powell said years ago on Face the Nation (more or less): "Look I am not for big government, I am not for small government, I am for 'right size' government that can get done what we need to get done."

That being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years.  The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.


2. Someone who understands that the more intertwined our economies are with other nations the more dependent they become on US, and so will build strong trade deals with those nations we want to use to further American interests.  The next World War will not be fought on the battlefield but by Corporaations so the stronger economy we have and the more dependent other nations are on us to buy their junk, the better position America will be to dictate the terms of the New Economy we are headed to.


3.  Someone who can convince Congress to pass Immigration Reform.  The answer is already written it was done so by the "Gang of Eight" and passed by the Senate a few years ago before languishing in the House until dead.  This Bill would generate some $50 to $75 BILLION in fines that could be used to build a wall and hire more Federal Agents.  It would pay for itself!  Why we don't do that is beyond me.


4.  This is not so much anything any President can do but what we need more than anything else.  We need to change ALL leadership in Congress on both sides except for Paul Ryan.  Congress needs to start addressing these issues and getting things done!!!  Doing nothing is not governing!  That is the biggest problem we have a Legislative Branch that is dysfunctional and does no work.  Without that, no President can every help us.


I do not believe the problems of this nation are complicated at all and we know the answers in one form or another.  The problem Congress has is the simple inability to get anything done.  It's not like the 'old days' when a roadblock arose the leadership would go behind closed doors and a few hours later meerge with a deal.

Now the leadership goes in front of the cameras and tries to out insult the other guy.


My view is since FDR every President we have had (every one) has led us well, kept us safe, and tried to make our nation better for our people.  Our Congress is the most disappointing thing about our government.  Now, we need Congress as a vital check and balance but Congress is what is holding us back.

Are you a registered democrat? If not you should be based on the above post.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 17, 2016, 12:34:56 PM
Are you a registered democrat? If not you should be based on the above post.

I thought Nixon did a good job except for little dust up he had.
I thought Reagan did a good job.
I thought H.W. did a good job and is a good man.
I though W did the best he could under difficult circumstances.
I will not criticize any of them.


For Republicans I have voted for

Gov. Bill Weld,  Twice.
Gov. Paul Cellucci,
Gov. Jane Swift (what a mess that was)
Gov. Mitt Romney.
Sen. Scott Brown.  (Couldn't stand Martha Coakley).
Gov. Charlie Baker (see above).

All Republicans although being from Massachusetts these are not really true Conservatives, I realize its all relative.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 12:31:58 PM

Good question Hoofer.


President Obama has been cruelly attacked without reason as well.  The difference is Tip O'Neil worked very closely with President Reagan and they did get a lot done, together.

Reagan repeatedly went directly to the American people to put the squeeze on Tip & Congress and get his agenda through.  Tip and the MSM was vicious & relentless attacking Reagan.

Quote
As far and ideal candidate I would say someone with the domestic policy of President Obama.  Someone with the foreign policy of President Reagan.  And the character of person of both.

Reagan loved America, Obama openly stokes racial tension here, and criticizes America in foreign countries...  I don't understand any similarities, sorry.  When Reagan was shot, he didn't push for gun control measures, but Obama seems to have this motto, "Never let a crisis go to waste" and champions abridging our constitutional rights.  Sorry, I can't see any similarities between Reagan and Obama.

Carter and Obama - yes, absolutely, grow government, grow regulations, top-down governmental controls, re-education of the populace to adopt new environmental & food restrictions, - those two are quite similar, despite a generation apart.

Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 12:53:06 PM
Carter and Obama - yes, absolutely, grow government, grow regulations, top-down governmental controls, re-education of the populace to adopt new environmental & food restrictions, - those two are quite similar, despite a generation apart.

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.

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.

I would consider a prerequisite for the office the individual both loves this country and the founding documents.   Anything short of that, MEH, move somewhere else, America already has undergone a "fundamental transformation" in the Revolution.  We don't want to go back to the ages of Rulers and Kings, do we?

Now that you've reminded me, I kinda like that "rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" we use to hear of, those are sweet music to a small businessman's ears.  Government intervention just seems to punish achievement and innovation, often when we as a country need it the most.

Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 01:11:43 PM

I would consider a prerequisite for the office the individual both loves this country and the founding documents.   Anything short of that, MEH, move somewhere else, America already has undergone a "fundamental transformation" in the Revolution.  We don't want to go back to the ages of Rulers and Kings, do we?

Good points Hoofer.  Thanks for the thought provoking questions. 

I came here because I didn't want a board where everyone agreed with me.  I spent several days reading the board and I chose this board because I really liked the passion the posters have and I wanted to find a place where people would challenge me.  I have been told I will have no shortage here.   


I think all of our Presidents certainly since FDR were/are very aware of the weight of the office and I think they all want(ed) this nation to be the best possible land of opportunity for all people while protecting the rights of all people, and there may arise conflicts there sometimes.

Land of rules and Kings?  Good point.  I don't think any of us want that.  And managing by Executive Order is somewhat concerning.  However, this goes back to our views on the role of Congress.  I believe Congress has an obligation and DUTY to handle the "business of the people" and that gridlock is not an acceptable strategy.

You may not agree.

I see the role of Congress as being one of the biggest divides Conservatives have with other views.  And based on what SOLAR said earlier I had never thought of it that way, it is an interesting view, and I would agree makes sense sometimes.

I just don't agree gridlock should be the main way to run the country.

IMO.

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.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 12:12:55 PM

Thanks for your perspectives, Solar.  I never heard anyone say Gridlock was good.

Our government was structured a certain way, with checks and balances.

Quote
  But hearing that made me go "hmmm" and as I thought about it it makes sense if you think government is too involved as it is.  That kind of perspective is what I am looking for I had never thought of it that way before.

"Too involved"?  Maybe just a little.

Quote
As far as immigration goes, I have heard some say we have as many as 23 million illegals, if we say half are good, pay taxes, work, do not break any laws other than the civil misdemeanor of entering the country illegally then most countries want people like that, so why don't we make some money off them??

Why can't they do that in their country?

Quote
If we allow them to stay and pay a fine we can generate enough money to secure the border and maintain it annually virtually in perpetuity.

Pay a fine for what?

Quote
Frankly, I think we are missing an opportunity here.  We cant round them all up.  They are here to stay.  Why not have them pay something to do it?

Incorrect.  They aren't "here to stay".  They are here because we important and incentivized them to invade our country.  Simply reducing opportunity by enforcing laws already on the books would make them self-deport.