quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy70:

quote:

Originally posted by David309:
Hoff, it's certainly true that Obama is a great salesperson. He would be great doing seminars for motivation or self-improvement -- sort of like Tony Robbins or something. But someone's presentation skills have little to do with whether he's a good leader in the long run. Think about it this way. Even Democrats could concede that Reagan was a good communicator who connected well with people and inspired them, but that doesn't mean that Democrats should have supported him.

Obama is talented as a communicator, but he's only worth supporting if you agree with his political agenda. Since you support his agenda, his communication skills are obviously much more appealing than they would be to those of us who find the ideas dangerous.

Flyboy, the reason we have the politicians that we do is because PEOPLE VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. Yes, I'm shouting, because it frustrates me.

David

I'm confused David - are you yelling at ME? If so, you are proving my point. I don't want a salesman - I want a leader. Someone who has shown through example what he believes. Someone who has beliefs in the same things I do and who has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to a bunch of cowardly, left wing, give the country away liberals. The last couple dozen years only fortifies the reasoning of our founding fathers when they distributed power evenly across the 3 branches of government. The system is broke because the voters broke it! Why in the crap can someone like Ted Kennedy be consistently returned to office? Why do we keep sending the rest of the goobers to Washington like we do? And Hoff - the current administration is not the first to use Executive orders.

why is it the "left wing" of the political spectrum that is always accused of trying to give the country away? ... in what way is the "left wing" giving the country away? ... are there any "right wings" who are giving the country away? ... big businesses who like illegal immigration? ... big government from the "right wingers" (drug prescription)? ... 18 years of republican presidents who have not sealed the border (it didn't happen yesterday)? ...

or is is just too difficult to see that there's a lot of blame to go around for problems/frustrations with immigration, unfunded entitlements, and a sense of fallibility in the war on terrorism? ...

I'm aware that every President has used an executive order at least once. Bush has used it a record number of times, and I think he's on pace to double the previous record at least.

The Presidency has gained a lot of power during Bush's term (as it did under Reagan, Ford, LBJ, and FDR as well), but the power that the Presidency has received is "skirting around" the Constitution, as I like to put it. It's legal, but it shouldn't be. The President was not meant to have that much power.

However, I honestly believe that the Presidency should only be the figurehead for America. It doesn't matter in the end what the President believes, because quite frankly, they can't do much about it. Vote pro-life and anti-gay-marriage all you want, but absolutely zero progress will be made in either direction on that issue because right now the Dem and Rep parties are about at equal strength. It's gridlock. And it's not gonna change anytime soon, according to most political experts.

The four powers the President has, and what determine my vote, are as follows:

1) They are a figurehead. Their responsibility is to keep America united, provide the world a person to look to to symbolize America, and give Americans something to be proud of their country about. That's why I think Reagan, JFK, and FDR are some of the best Presidents we've ever had.

2) Appointing Supreme Court Justices. On this one, I'd want conservatives running our courts, as long as they aren't deciding civil rights issues. This is the only reason I'd ever vote for a Romney, for example.

3) Military force. Due to the insipidness of the Congress around 2003, the President now has considerable use of military force at his disposal. This means I want a pacifist in office. If the country really wants to go to war with someone, enough pressure will be placed on him through his party and establishment, that we'll go to war, because it's politically expedient. Otherwise, I don't want someone who's eager to put my friends and family on the front lines for an ideological cause.

4) Vetoing power. With this one, I want someone who won't veto anything--in other words, someone of the same party Congress is held by. I don't even think the President should really have this power, other than to maintain checks and balances. Congress is most representative of the people, and if the people want it, they should get it, regardless of what the President thinks.

So on these four issues, broken down by party, I'd want the following:

1) Dem
2) Rep
3) Dem
4) Dem

And because I think #1 is most important, I'm going with the guy who's creating a tsunami of citizen involvement in government, and that's Barack Obama.

I don't vote on issues when it comes to the President, sorry. They just don't mean a hill of beans.

OK Hoff - well spoken and valid. I'll respond based solely on your represented 4 points:

1) Figurehead - Tossup to me. Reagan was a great communicator. Clinton was a great communicator. Both had an ability to motivate people. I don't particularly believe that this is a party specific item so, once again, tossup.

2) Justice Appointments - I agree with you on this one 75%. I'm not sure what you mean by civil rights issues so I'll not give the full thumbs up.

3) Military - aren't all wars fought based on ideological causes? This is a little off topic but we should all want a leader who is not quick to take us to war, but who will fight it to win, not just make a political statement. The military is having its problems now because we train them to fight wars and ask them to make friends. Based on recent history - Republican.

4) Veto - Keep in mind that no law can be passed without going through 3 different elected bodies (house, senate, pres). It can then be challenged through the courts. The purpose of having one executive leader is evident in the last statement of your premise. So I don't see this as being party specific either.

Just my $.02

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy70:
OK Hoff - well spoken and valid. I'll respond based solely on your represented 4 points:

1) Figurehead - Tossup to me. Reagan was a great communicator. Clinton was a great communicator. Both had an ability to motivate people. I don't particularly believe that this is a party specific item so, once again, tossup.

2) Justice Appointments - I agree with you on this one 75%. I'm not sure what you mean by civil rights issues so I'll not give the full thumbs up.

3) Military - aren't all wars fought based on ideological causes? This is a little off topic but we should all want a leader who is not quick to take us to war, but who will fight it to win, not just make a political statement. The military is having its problems now because we train them to fight wars and ask them to make friends. Based on recent history - Republican.

4) Veto - Keep in mind that no law can be passed without going through 3 different elected bodies (house, senate, pres). It can then be challenged through the courts. The purpose of having one executive leader is evident in the last statement of your premise. So I don't see this as being party specific either.

Just my $.02

I agree, most of these things are not party-specific, I'm only applying parties to them based on the current political landscape. The party I think does each one of these points the best could change over the course of 4 or 8 years.

As far as the Justice Appointment issue goes, Republicans, or should I say, "conservatives", typically have a bad history of... advancing social reform when it's needed. Something that's usually good for America, with conservative justices, is that they hold true to the Constitution, and tend to not change things based on what's going on right then in society. With civil rights issues, that's something that changes as our society does. We don't have the same values our Founding Fathers did, so on that one I'd want a progressive deciding those kinds of cases.

And on the military thing, no, I don't think all wars are fought on ideological premises, such as "expanding democracy around the globe", but I really should have used a different word on that one. "Pre-emptive strike" might have been better. There was a time when we could say that we never attacked without being attacked first. Now we can't say that anymore, sadly. And it's because of that that I don't trust the Reps anymore with our men and women.

quote:

Originally posted by The Hoffinator:

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy70:
OK Hoff - well spoken and valid. I'll respond based solely on your represented 4 points:

1) Figurehead - Tossup to me. Reagan was a great communicator. Clinton was a great communicator. Both had an ability to motivate people. I don't particularly believe that this is a party specific item so, once again, tossup.

2) Justice Appointments - I agree with you on this one 75%. I'm not sure what you mean by civil rights issues so I'll not give the full thumbs up.

3) Military - aren't all wars fought based on ideological causes? This is a little off topic but we should all want a leader who is not quick to take us to war, but who will fight it to win, not just make a political statement. The military is having its problems now because we train them to fight wars and ask them to make friends. Based on recent history - Republican.

4) Veto - Keep in mind that no law can be passed without going through 3 different elected bodies (house, senate, pres). It can then be challenged through the courts. The purpose of having one executive leader is evident in the last statement of your premise. So I don't see this as being party specific either.

Just my $.02

I agree, most of these things are not party-specific, I'm only applying parties to them based on the current political landscape. The party I think does each one of these points the best could change over the course of 4 or 8 years.

As far as the Justice Appointment issue goes, Republicans, or should I say, "conservatives", typically have a bad history of... advancing social reform when it's needed. Something that's usually good for America, with conservative justices, is that they hold true to the Constitution, and tend to not change things based on what's going on right then in society. With civil rights issues, that's something that changes as our society does. We don't have the same values our Founding Fathers did, so on that one I'd want a progressive deciding those kinds of cases.

And on the military thing, no, I don't think all wars are fought on ideological premises, such as "expanding democracy around the globe", but I really should have used a different word on that one. "Pre-emptive strike" might have been better. There was a time when we could say that we never attacked without being attacked first. Now we can't say that anymore, sadly. And it's because of that that I don't trust the Reps anymore with our men and women.

Hey Hoff - let's plan on an "electoral college" thread around the first of December. That should be fun.