A question for you, TB:
Is it a “radically nostalgic” notion to suggest that the leader of our federal government defer to the 10th Amendment when confronting issues which are not delegated to it by the Constitution?
Wanted to re-post this since it just won a Pulitzer Prize.
I just started it the other day.
The truth is the perfect candidate does not exist and has never existed. Oh some are more suited than others for the Presidency. But over all every one of them from Washington to Obama were seriously flawed individuals.
It’s easy to find the candidates flaws as well. In a day where one can read so much information in so many different venues.
That’s why I vote more for what political philosophy the candidate is promoting over the actual flawed human being who is espousing said philosophy. Naturally, if I feel the person is unbalanced in any way I am not voting for him/her. But, beyond that as I listen to what they have promised to actually do.
Criteria that I look at in a Presidential candidate:
-
Taxes are always important to me. I feel that when the tax base is lowered we create more jobs which increases the tax base and more people pay taxes.
-
What is the candidates view on our national debt. This is a big one and I have been very disappointed that most candidates this year have not really addressed this issue.
-
I’m strongly opposed to abortion. So, I will be voting for someone who will absolutely place a conservative on the Supreme Court in hopes that someday Roe Vs. wade will be repealed.
-
We need a President who will not be afraid to kill Muslim extremists in a very systematic and consistent manner. Groups like ISIS must be eliminated.
-
Gun control. I believe that more (sane) people should own guns not less. Therefore, again I need a President who will appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will abide by the constitution and not restrict my right to own and carry a gun.
Those are the 5 big issues that I will base my vote on
Based on those five criteria, if he captures the nomination, I will be voting for and donating to Ted Cruz. This imperfect candidate I feel will take care of at least 4 of my 5 main issues. I know he’s far from perfect as I said. He lacks executive experience, does not get along with his fellow senators (don’t care much about that one) and probably does not brush his teeth twice a day either. Also, no one can accuse him of having movie star good looks. But if he’s running against Hillary that won’t matter much this time around.
Not facially, no, but to the degree a Cruz wants to? Yes. The problem is in the words “confronting issues” - well, what are those issues? Are they national in scope? Are they beyond the power of states to address? These are political questions before they are constitutional questions.
The level of “deference” suggested by Cruz (and others) is to return to a government confronting only those national issues that are part of the horse and buggy era of commerce and social relations, and that “the constitution” demands that we do it (as if preferred policy doesn’t drive it). Hogwash. The Constitution requires no such federal government, nor does the 10th Amendment specifically.
Cruz doesn’t strike me as someone who is legitimately worried about the balance/imbalance between what the Feds should tackle and what the states should tackle. Rather, he - like many libertarians, conservatarians, etc. - are actively against the government existing beyond certain (extremely limited) policy boundaries, and use the “constitutional” argument as means toward that policy goal. It’s an anti-government ideology masked in constitutional trappings.
You see this a lot at the state level - the same people arguing that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in (issue) also think the state shouldn’t either. That’s fine as at as it goes, but that really isn’t about federalism as it is actually about negating government as a policy preference.
1 Like
What Rafael Cruz is preaching and believing isn’t as anodyne as thinking it good or being ok with “Christians serving in public office” - which outside of the most militants atheists, no one finds objectionable. That’s an absurd (mis)characterization of his views.
I don’t have names of anyone, I am just sure that in a dynamic nation like ours we have people in business and non-profits and the military who are far better than the lowly crowd we’re left with. It’s basically self-evident.
Since I don’t have the names of anyone at the moment, I need to start looking…so I can find a write-in.
This woman bends over so many times, she must have a chiropractor on call at all times.
Max,
Yes, Hillary is a horrible candidate and a wretched person. But we are too busy on this thread tearing apart republicans to bother with her.
Robert Gates, David Petraeus, Stanley Mcchrystal, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and William McRaven off the top of my head.
She thinks she is not woman enough to carry the female vote? I find it very odd. You choose a VP to balance the ticket, not repeat what you are already bringing. At least that is what most candidates do. I would choose someone honest whose reputation is beyond question and a male of course. But I hope she does pick a woman it will may drive more male voters to the republican candidate. Those who are just getting used to the idea of a female President might not like an all female ticket.
Looks like the Cruz/Kasich ticket is de facto here imo…
…now they just need to prevent Trump from 1237 on the first ballot.
That may not be as easy a task as once thought. Trump winning big tomorrow will give him great momentum going forward.
“The Trump campaign is a test of character, and many Americans are failing it.”
2 Likes