I tend to favor the candidate that will do more towards protecting our environment, and ensuring we focus on new sources of energy - less oil, more renewables. However, the 2A and less government waste are critical items for me as well. No candidate then meets my standards, so I'm not sure. I'm a total moderate and refuse to base my decision on one issue. So, I'll see who makes it through the primaries before I lock in.

I think our founding fathers were infinitely more intelligent that what runs our country today. They set this up to limit and actually expressly declare what the government can and only can do.

The constitution is there to tell them what they can't do.

Given the fact that our government on all levels violates the Constitution on a daily basis and 93.7% of all our nations problems are a result of this, I favor the candidate that will do most to eliminate the unconstitutional activities and reduce the size, scope, and expenditures of all levels of government.

We must return the power the President as absconded back to Congress, the power Congress has absconded back to the states, and the power the states have absconded back to the people.

If we don't, our nation will fall.

And a note to ssphoto, if you really want to save the environment you need to get the feds OUT of this and return the power back to the people.

(11-25-2015, 03:51 PM)ssphoto Wrote: I tend to favor the candidate that will do more towards protecting our environment, and ensuring we focus on new sources of energy - less oil, more renewables. However, the 2A and less government waste are critical items for me as well. No candidate then meets my standards, so I'm not sure. I'm a total moderate and refuse to base my decision on one issue. So, I'll see who makes it through the primaries before I lock in.

The reason none of the Republican candidates are not making this a priority, is that the American people have this very low on the radar right now. The Dems, well the just spew what people want to hear.

Using that logic, I'm expecting you voted for Gore vs Bush. Please read.

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-chec...ushs-ranch

(11-25-2015, 04:13 PM)Dutz Wrote: And a note to ssphoto, if you really want to save the environment you need to get the feds OUT of this and return the power back to the people.

How do you suppose that?

Fromtheplaine, when was the last time you talked to someone that said....'YEAH MAN, POLLUTE THE AIR. I LOVE BREATHING DIRTY AIR'.

When countries are poor, they mess up the environment, but as the become more industrialized, they become cleaner. The people demand it.

check out pics of Pittsburgh 70 years ago.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsbur...54&dpr=0.9

And than they use the power of the govt to enact those changes.

I grew up in Pittsburgh and I will tell you right now the clean up of the city had absolutely nothing to do with environmental regulation. What it have to do with is deregulation towards the importation of foreign produced steel. I remember growing up and hearing on the news about how our steel mills were closing one-by-one because they couldn't compete with the foreign producers because the foreigners charged less for their steel, which was also of a poorer quality. Instead of the steel money coming into my hometown's economy it was going to Japan and later China. This caused the city to re-evalute itself and the city successfully transitioned to a tech producer and center of medical research. If it hadn't it would be in the same situation as cities in the Midwestern rust belt. This transition is what cleaned up Pittsburgh and not anything the EPA did.

(11-27-2015, 11:38 AM)fromtheplaines Wrote: And than they use the power of the govt to enact those changes.

And within this statement lies the problem.

Quote:How do you suppose that?

"Enact change". That is the problem, and the #1 problem we face - we think it is the government's job to enact change.

Thomas Jefferson said, and I paraphrase, that democracy only works for a moral people. This means if you only won't commit murder because you may get caught and punished, then democracy won't work for you. If you won't commit murder because it is wrong, then it will.

The "change" you refer to is change in human behavior and thought. If we are to protect the environment it must be what the people want, if people will only protect the environment because they will be punished otherwise then in the end it will fail.

The only way that won't fail, the only way you can truly enact change from the government is bring in Hitler. Why? Because he made the trains run on time.

Change must arise from the people if the Republic is to survive.

What you are asking for comes with more than a saved environment and more than trains running on time. What you are asking for will cost you your freedom in the end.

How do you propose enacting change on a national level with out the govt making that change? Who else should enact change and where is their authority outside their immediate property? And if two agents of change meet who decides and in what manner. But I disagree slightly when it comes to your points about people who only play along to go along. If some one doesn't believe in the cause but remain neutral it doesn't matter. Indifference is a zero sum. It's when some one actively supports ideals directly against yours that their can be a threat to your position. But I think we are getting a bit off topic there.

"How do you propose enacting change on a national level with out the govt making that change? Who else should enact change and where is their authority outside their immediate property? "

No one should enact change.

You are missing the point. It is not anyone's job to force individuals to conform to anything. We do not live in a democracy, that is nothing but mob rule. We live in a constitutional republic where the rights of the individual reign supreme and come before anything.

The change will come through education (and not indoctrination), and each individual making the choice for themselves. When a majority of individuals make the individual choice then change on a societal level will come.

This is not the fastest or most efficient path, but it is the ONLY way to preserve liberty.

What you are advocating is nothing more than a poor man's socialism, but socialism none the same.

You can't pick and choose where you will apply socialism, in the end that cancer infests and kills everything.

So basically the only way to avoid socialism is to let the country sit around. until an undetermined amount if people make a choice, and hopefully it's within the tolerances of the group to make any changes. How would you handle things that people would have no interest in anyways, to get a organic majority opinion? And are advocating this on a national level? Or at a state or local?

(12-02-2015, 12:08 PM)fromtheplaines Wrote: So basically the only way to avoid socialism is to let the country sit around. until an undetermined amount if people make a choice, and hopefully it's within the tolerances of the group to make any changes. How would you handle things that people would have no interest in anyways, to get a organic majority opinion? And are advocating this on a national level? Or at a state or local?

You are now asking me for specifics to address your broad strokes.

"Help the environment", "Fix the environment", "Focus on the environment", "Save the environment", "focus on new sources of energy"

All of those are meaningless statements. Give me a specific and I'll give a response.

Let's take new sources of energy. Is this "focus" we are talking about the giving of 1/2 billion dollars to Obama's corrupt friends at Solyndra, so they can declare bankruptcy and pocket the money?

Because that is the kind of "focus" the federal government will provide.

I’d have to agree with Dutz. His comments are introspective and dead on.

Expecting government to enact a change at a societal level through policy/legislation will simply leave the country more disillusioned than it already is. Putting hope in the government to change our lives will simply leave you in misery!

So yes. I’m a bit cynical about all the candidates and their dysfunctional parties. Every election cycle, we’ve heard candidates say – “this is the most important decision of your lives.” Really?

So I drink the cool-aid, cast my vote, and think – maybe this time. Onk!!! The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Been doing it for 25 years. Am I insane?

To Dutz’ point, real change in this country happens at an individual level. Defining purpose and having the will/conviction to act within a moral ethic that benefits our neighbors and communities.

But this is easier said than done. The human condition in itself is hypocrisy. On one hand, we are capable of realizing these very ‘changes’ that we so desperately want yet on the other, we lack the utter discipline and fortitude to act.

So what do we do? We rationalize it away and say it’s the GOVERNMENT!

This presidential election cycle is the same as any other – candidates peddling their wares, beating their chests about their amazing credentials/accomplishments, and dishing out cool-aid that they ‘think’ we want to drink. Different players but just more of the same.

But I digress. At least in this great country -- the people NOT the government - we have the choice to decide if we want to drink the “cool-aid.”

What 140db points out is due in part because we lost the soul of government. In Washington's day, and mostly due to Washington, it was believed that a man who wanted to be President couldn't be trusted with it.

In fact, Adams and Jefferson never campaigned once 1796, promoting you was done by others, to do it yourself was unseemly.

To serve in government was a sacrifice and done by resourceful, accomplished people who left their careers and served for a time, only to return when their time was don. Hmmm, sounds a lot like Fiorini, Trump, and Carson.