Election 2020: Shpuld Trump Be Primaried

[The_Dude]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The reason the Articles failed was solely because it left the Founders, and the landed gentry who supported them, personally on the hook for the debt the Revolution incurred when the states refused to pay for it (the war served to further enrich them personally, as they had funded the war through the purchase of bonds which could only be guaranteed if the states agreed to pay them).  It had nothing to do with a "need" for a strong federal government in order to protect the interests of the People.  It was that, in the wake of the Articles, they recognized that a strong federal government was the only way to protect the personal economic interests of the societal elite at the expense of the People.

 

I highly recommend reading An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard.

 

The Federalist Papers contradict that though. 

 

I think its niave to think we don’t need a strong federal government. We HAVE to have one today. 

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Our founders limited the power of the federal government.

 

Yeah. And they established a strong federal government too. 

 

We had liberal founding fathers....actually, for the time they were all liberals. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, The_Dude said:

 

The Federalist Papers contradict that though. 

 

I think its niave to think we don’t need a strong federal government. We HAVE to have one today. 

 

The Federalist Papers don't contradict that at all.  Beard's work speaks to the Federalist Papers, and is the seminal work in the field of study.

 

I suggest you read it before making further commentary.

[The_Dude]

3 hours ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Sounds to me like you want a more robust military while having a less invasive government. I believe that is doable, but I also do not believe that equates to big government which I believe is there is an issue with your support of Kasich

 

 

What does “big government” mean? Because you’re right. I want the worlds most elite military, but I’m quite libertarian on a lot of issues. 

[3rdnlng]

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/john-becker/press/the-founding-fathers-understood-the-importance-of-states-rights

 

 

As the federal government continues to usurp more and more power from the states, it seems that James Madison’s words in Federalist Paper No. 45 are becoming increasingly meaningless:

 

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

 

Not only were the powers granted to the federal government small in number, but the Founders were also very clear about what those powers were: Military acts, foreign commerce, international negotiations, along with some others. Basically, federal powers were granted mostly for external affairs, such as war, that are best executed when states come together and pool their resources toward a larger effort like funding a national military that would defend all of the states.

 

Madison continued in Federalist Paper No. 45:

 

“The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

 

The Founders believed very strongly in states’ rights because they understood that the surest way to maintain individual liberty was to instill safeguards against centralized power. Not only would establishing several smaller governments (the states) afford people the ability to move elsewhere, but they would also have more of a say in the public affairs of their surroundings. More simply, citizens would be closer to the people who were making decisions on their behalf.

 

Consider how far we have come from those founding principles. More and more of our decisions, which should be made at as local a level as possible (including by the individual only), are being made at the federal level, such as in education and healthcare.

 

As we embark on the 226th anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution, may we call to mind the emphasis our Founders placed on keeping powers in the hands of the states. Consider: The very people who drafted the US Constitution itself had enough distrust in federal power and humility in themselves that they made clear that most of our decisions should not be made in the nation’s capital.

[The_Dude]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The Federalist Papers don't contradict that at all.  Beard's work speaks to the Federalist Papers, and is the seminal work in the field of study.

 

I suggest you read it before making further commentary.

 

So Maddison and Hamilton advocated for a weak government in the federalist papers? That’s what you’re arguing?

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

What does “big government” mean? Because you’re right. I want the worlds most elite military, but I’m quite libertarian on a lot of issues. 

 

Cliff notes version is expanded and large bureaucracy that is involved in many aspects of peoples lives (think government control on most things)

[The_Dude]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/john-becker/press/the-founding-fathers-understood-the-importance-of-states-rights

 

 

As the federal government continues to usurp more and more power from the states, it seems that James Madison’s words in Federalist Paper No. 45 are becoming increasingly meaningless:

 

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

 

Not only were the powers granted to the federal government small in number, but the Founders were also very clear about what those powers were: Military acts, foreign commerce, international negotiations, along with some others. Basically, federal powers were granted mostly for external affairs, such as war, that are best executed when states come together and pool their resources toward a larger effort like funding a national military that would defend all of the states.

 

Madison continued in Federalist Paper No. 45:

 

“The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

 

The Founders believed very strongly in states’ rights because they understood that the surest way to maintain individual liberty was to instill safeguards against centralized power. Not only would establishing several smaller governments (the states) afford people the ability to move elsewhere, but they would also have more of a say in the public affairs of their surroundings. More simply, citizens would be closer to the people who were making decisions on their behalf.

 

Consider how far we have come from those founding principles. More and more of our decisions, which should be made at as local a level as possible (including by the individual only), are being made at the federal level, such as in education and healthcare.

 

As we embark on the 226th anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution, may we call to mind the emphasis our Founders placed on keeping powers in the hands of the states. Consider: The very people who drafted the US Constitution itself had enough distrust in federal power and humility in themselves that they made clear that most of our decisions should not be made in the nation’s capital.

 

Well of course the believed in states rights. It’s hard to conceive now but the thought back then (before 1776) was almost like the colonies were different countries. 

 

They all got started for different reasons. American identity apart from the states took a while to build and I think (though it’s not my area) that it probably wasn’t until the early 20th century that a true American identity got going. They were all very protective of states rights. But they knew they needed a strong federal government. Washington so much that he came out of retirement. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

What does “big government” mean? Because you’re right. I want the worlds most elite military, but I’m quite libertarian on a lot of issues. 

 

"Big government" speaks to the legitimate scope of the Federal government.  It's opposite would be a classical liberal's view of a "limited government" chartered to perform a narrowly defined list of functions, all of which are held in shared utility by the population. 

 

That list of functions absolutely includes military supremacy, as a necessary part of protecting borders, culture, state sovereignty, and the immutable rights of it's citizens.

[The_Dude]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

"Big government" speaks to the legitimate scope of the Federal government.  It's opposite would be a classical liberal's view of a "limited government" chartered to perform a narrowly defined list of functions, all of which are held in shared utility by the population. 

 

That list of functions absolutely includes military supremacy, as a necessary part of protecting borders, culture, state sovereignty, and the immutable rights of it's citizens.

 

Yes, you can argue that a philisoph of the enlightenment era was a “liberal” as I have. We actually get the “left” and “right” phrase in politics from the Jacobins during the French Revolution based on where they sat in the Estates General. 

 

I think we’re arguing while agreeing. 

 

 

When I say “big” I mean we’ll equiped and funded. I do not mean invasive. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

19 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

So Maddison and Hamilton advocated for a weak government in the federalist papers? That’s what you’re arguing?

 

I'm about to argue that you either aren't following my argument, or don't know the timeline of our nation's founding.

 

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and the Federalist Papers weren't penned until October of 1787 through August of 1788; and made the case for a stronger central government than was chartered by the Articles.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[dpberr]

Nobody is taking down an !@#$ who's presiding over a good economy.  It's never happened in the history of electing Presidents.  I absolutely agree Trump is a mess.  He tweets too much, talks too much, and if he'd spend a fraction of the energy he spends being dramatic on a real problem, he'd have a great legacy.  

 

If the majority of Americans had to choose between:

 

Obama, good guy with eight years of a lousy economy or:

Trump, not so good guy with eight years of great economy

 

I bet Trump wins that election each time.  It'd be different if Trump had an Obama era economy but he doesn't.  

 

People ask themselves one question in the booth:  Am I and my family better off today than we were four years ago? 

 

The bottom line of self interest never loses.  

 

I think the one thing that is lost in this Manafort/Cohen issue is that this is how both sides behave.  In an alternate reality where Hillary Clinton is President, she's being investigated just as intently.  (Servers, the Foundation, etc.)  It's not like America would miraculously be scandal free. )

 

[Doc Brown]

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are pry the closest to Ronald Reagan as they come, but I doubt that brand of conservatism can win you a National election given the current populism/nationalism appeal.  Rand Paul would want to cut defense spending and domestic spending so I doubt he gains any traction in the primaries.  Nicky Haley would pry be a really good candidate if Trump doesn't run in 2020 for whatever reason.  I think Rubio would also be a decent candidate.

[keepthefaith]

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

?

 

I like Kasich. 

 

I liked him for a short time, but then his whining and pontificating wore me out.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are pry the closest to Ronald Reagan as they come, but I doubt that brand of conservatism can win you a National election given the current populism/nationalism appeal.  Rand Paul would want to cut defense spending and domestic spending so I doubt he gains any traction in the primaries.  Nicky Haley would pry be a really good candidate if Trump doesn't run in 2020 for whatever reason.  I think Rubio would also be a decent candidate.

 

Rubio absolutely not.  Soft on illegal immigration and fiscal issues and we've got some serious fiscal issues.  Wouldn't be surprised though if he ran. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Somehow I pictured you saying that about dildos to your customers, and then smiling and nodding.

 

Don't mock the Black Mamba 5000x-1 Turbo.

[Doc Brown]

18 minutes ago, dpberr said:

Nobody is taking down an !@#$ who's presiding over a good economy.  It's never happened in the history of electing Presidents.  I absolutely agree Trump is a mess.  He tweets too much, talks too much, and if he'd spend a fraction of the energy he spends being dramatic on a real problem, he'd have a great legacy.  

 

If the majority of Americans had to choose between:

 

Obama, good guy with eight years of a lousy economy or:

Trump, not so good guy with eight years of great economy

 

I bet Trump wins that election each time.  It'd be different if Trump had an Obama era economy but he doesn't.  

 

People ask themselves one question in the booth:  Am I and my family better off today than we were four years ago? 

 

The bottom line of self interest never loses.  

 

I think the one thing that is lost in this Manafort/Cohen issue is that this is how both sides behave.  In an alternate reality where Hillary Clinton is President, she's being investigated just as intently.  (Servers, the Foundation, etc.)  It's not like America would miraculously be scandal free. )

 

The economy at the end of Obama's term was relatively strong.  Trump continued the trend and his tax cuts helped it even more (although middle class wages have remained stagnant) at least in the short term.  The pace of deregulation in the economic sphere scares the $hit out of me.

[TakeYouToTasker]

57 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

<snip>

 

But they knew they needed a strong federal government. Washington so much that he came out of retirement. 

 

Central to my larger point here, George Washington was the wealthiest land owner in all of the colonies, and held a massive share of the war debt in bonds which he personally owned.  Washington wasn't altruistic in his desires to have a stronger central government than the Articles provided.  He supported a stronger central government because it was the only way he could collect on his bonds. 

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm about to argue that you either aren't following my argument, or don't know the timeline of our nation's founding.

 

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and the Federalist Papers weren't penned until October of 1787 through August of 1788; and made the case for a stronger central government than was chartered by the Articles.

 

 

Yes, I know. I know quite well the timeline. I know the players. I know the plot. I thought you were arguing that the federalist papers weren’t advocating for a stronger federal government?

32 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Central to my larger point here, George Washington was the wealthiest land owner in all of the colonies, and held a massive share of the war debt in bonds which he personally owned.  Washington wasn't altruistic in his desires to have a stronger central government than the Articles provided.  He supported a stronger central government because it was the only way he could collect on his bonds. 

 

He supported a stronger government because the nation couldn’t pay its bills. 

 

Further, I’m not saying your wrong on the war bonds, but I’ve NEVER read that anywhere. 

43 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I liked him for a short time, but then his whining and pontificating wore me out.

 

 

 

Rubio absolutely not.  Soft on illegal immigration and fiscal issues and we've got some serious fiscal issues.  Wouldn't be surprised though if he ran. 

 

Rubio or Kasich would be better for the conservative movement than Trump. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Rubio

 

 

now I KNOW you're trolling

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Yes, I know. I know quite well the timeline. I know the players. I know the plot. I thought you were arguing that the federalist papers weren’t advocating for a stronger federal government?

 

I'm not sure where that wire got crossed.  I've never argued that anywhere.

 

Quote

He supported a stronger government because the nation couldn’t pay its bills.

 

Couldn't pay it's bills to him.  Or, put more accurately, wouldn't pay what he said were it's bills to him, which the individual states said they were not obligated to, and were not under the Articles.

 

Quote

Further, I’m not saying your wrong on the war bonds, but I’ve NEVER read that anywhere.

 

Again, read An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, by Charles Beard.

Edited August 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

49 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Rubio or Kasich would be better for the conservative movement than Trump. 

 

Rubio is compromised and owned by the same people who were behind HRC's campaign. He's a non starter as a national candidate, and if he won would be a huge victory for the swamp. 

 

You need better intel.