We need a congress and a President in 2016 that will be willing and able to undo a lot of the damage that the current administration and the last four congressional sessions have inflicted upon the people of this nation. That's a big ticket...not sure we're able to do it.
That doesn't go far enough. I say we need a president and congress that'll undo the damage over the past 3 or 4 decades.
Yay for this. It will be the best Republican I've been able to vote for, for President, in my lifetime.
But I suspect that now, the media destruction begins in earnest. The long knives will come out.
The hedge fund people, left, academia, media...all want no part of somebody like this.
With that discussion of his activist/populist judge bent, are you really sure where he stands? Does he like judges that will decide cases on original intent and adherence? Or does he champion those that pick the side that reflects popular opinion of the day? I, for one, would find if it were the latter, to be a serious problem.
While I would find that to be a serious problem - please show me one candidate for Pres that is LACKING a serious flaw? I see that as a lot less of an issue that Hillary (or any Democrat that I have seen) . I have one simple rule - the person has to have enough name recognition to qualify. If less than 50% of the people don't even recognize the name - that's prohibitive. Otherwise I'll consider anyone. Christie? no way in Hades. His flaws are WAY worse. Santorum? way too far to the social right - WITHOUT good fiscal side to back it up. Jeb's smart enough - but his flaws are way greater than the activist judge thing. I like Johnson - but the average Joe on the street has to know who he is. If the first thought when someone says "Johnson" is to check your zipper - well, Houston you have a problem. Cruz lacks the temperment for me right now. I like Carson -but his baggage remains to be seen. For right now - Rand's the best hope in the field. Subject to change as we see others arrive and depart, flaws get uncovered, etc.
Popular opinion always has something to do with interpretation. It may not be the determining factor but it always plays a part. Many things have changed because of popular opinion. However I really don't know how far it's meant to go when the constitution was ratified. I would imagine that the framers anticipated that it would be a factor, they did kick the slavery issue can down the road after all. There will be future issues that are unknown to us now that will have to involve the Constitution at some point. I am of the belief that the constitution should be strictly followed, but to some extent it is a living and breathing document too.
Rand Paul has a habit of using provocative language to express his ideas. He needs to stop that. It's just opposition headline fodder.
Let's talk about Rand and his activist/populist judge bent. For those of you who haven't heard the entire speech here's a link.
Rand Paul: ?I?m a judicial activist.? - The Washington Post
The video is 22 and a half minutes, but the actual speech is just over 12 minutes, the rest is Q&A. I think it's worth the time to hear it.
When I first read the headlines on that, it made me very wary about him. But as he explains his point, it's pretty obvious that what you read in the headlines, and what he refers to as activism, isn't the "legislating from the bench" that most conservatives cringe at when someone speaks in favor of judicial activism.
On the substantive examples cases he gave, he sides much the same way I do.
I don't see Rand Paul's opinion on judges a big flaw.
Such as? And is this something that you personally saw? Or is it what you've just been told about?
Patriot Act - abolished
Civil Rights Act- Overhaul
IRS - overhaul
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Overhaul
Such as? And is this something that you personally saw? Or is it what you've just been told about?
Civil Rights Act- Overhaul
IRS - overhaul
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Overhaul
How about:
Civil Rights Act- Repealed
IRS - 16th Amendment Repealed
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Repealed
For me, it's a toss up between Cruz and Paul. If I had to pick "a guy" RIGHT NOW!, I'd lean towards Cruz. Christie is a "no way"; Santorum--I don't have the animosity towards him others do but he's yesterday's news and it's time to move on. Jeb? Too establishment + we've already had 2 Bushes and while I think they were decent human beings, they're not the Constitutionalists I'm wanting to see. Never cared for Johnson. In fact anybody that has among their leading campaign points are "gay rights" and legalizing marijuana is not a serious candidate, in my book. Now, if you want to be president of the US and support the fact gay rights and marijuana ought to be up to the states to decide and should not be the federal government's business, OK, I'll listen. Carson is a good person, I think. He was probably one heck of a surgeon. But I don't believe he's presidental material.
I'm curious GFGT, if we repeal the 16th amendment then how would the government tax us? We can't really go back to taxing alcohol and such like in pre-16th amendment America.
Great, he's doing the "Two Americas" thing.
Here's the last guy to try that: