Which of the following is the most important to you...

[BasicGreatGuy]

Of course, BGG, you almost forgot the point that first I look for ideas, preferably in the shape of a workable and practical plan. The wonkier, the better.
Party and ideology matter not to me, just ideas and results.

Where does the law fit into "just ideas and results"?

This is another point where we differ in the political realm gold.

I look for the law first. Next, I look to see if I have gotten off track in some way. I look to see if my employees have gotten off track. If I or they have, I look for the root cause and address it directly. Until and unless that is done, the core problem doesn't get solved. It merely gets patched over like a Microsoft OS.

I am all for thinking outside the box. At the same time, whatever ideas I or others may come up with, should not violate the foundation of the Republic in my opinion. If people want to move with the times as it were, they can invoke Article V.

I happen to think we need more "Mr. Smiths" in Washington.

 

[goldcatt]

Of course, BGG, you almost forgot the point that first I look for ideas, preferably in the shape of a workable and practical plan. The wonkier, the better.
Party and ideology matter not to me, just ideas and results.

Where does the law fit into "just ideas and results"?

This is another point where we differ in the political realm gold.

I look for the law first. Next, I look to see if I have gotten off track in some way. I look to see if my employees have gotten off track. If I or they have, I look for the root cause and address it directly. Until and unless that is done, the core problem doesn't get solved. It merely gets patched over like a Microsoft OS.

I am all for thinking outside the box. At the same time, whatever ideas I or others may come up with, should not violate the foundation of the Republic in my opinion. If people want to move with the times as it were, they can invoke Article V.

I happen to think we need more "Mr. Smiths" in Washington.

And as I recall this is where we generally part ways. I don't see the law as the end. As far as the constitution, it's the starting point, a broad rule book and often a tool. But it's not a result, only policy makes results. The COTUS is neutral on policy.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Of course, BGG, you almost forgot the point that first I look for ideas, preferably in the shape of a workable and practical plan. The wonkier, the better.
Party and ideology matter not to me, just ideas and results.

Where does the law fit into "just ideas and results"?

This is another point where we differ in the political realm gold.

I look for the law first. Next, I look to see if I have gotten off track in some way. I look to see if my employees have gotten off track. If I or they have, I look for the root cause and address it directly. Until and unless that is done, the core problem doesn't get solved. It merely gets patched over like a Microsoft OS.

I am all for thinking outside the box. At the same time, whatever ideas I or others may come up with, should not violate the foundation of the Republic in my opinion. If people want to move with the times as it were, they can invoke Article V.

I happen to think we need more "Mr. Smiths" in Washington.

And as I recall this is where we generally part ways. I don't see the law as the end. As far as the constitution, it's the starting point, a broad rule book and often a tool. But it's not a result, only policy makes results. The COTUS is neutral on policy.

I am talking about enumerated powers. Granted, there are office procedures and the like, that are not addressed in the Constitution, and the respective branche(s) are free to craft their own policies.
In my opinion, action ( as to execution of powers defined therein) must be predicated on the Constitution. Otherwise, you create a bloated and bastardized form of government that devours itself.

When you are looking at hiring a new employee, the law and their views thereof do not enter into the equation for you? You are more concerned about new ideas at solving problems or preventing them, regardless of whether or not they ( the Congress and POTUS) have the power to do so in the first place?

 

[Ame®icano]

None of the above I vote strictly on physical appearance. If both candidates are fugly, I flip a coin. People could learn from me. Lol

Considering that you're from Jersey, you must be flipping coins all the time.

 

[goldcatt]

Where does the law fit into "just ideas and results"?

This is another point where we differ in the political realm gold.

I look for the law first. Next, I look to see if I have gotten off track in some way. I look to see if my employees have gotten off track. If I or they have, I look for the root cause and address it directly. Until and unless that is done, the core problem doesn't get solved. It merely gets patched over like a Microsoft OS.

I am all for thinking outside the box. At the same time, whatever ideas I or others may come up with, should not violate the foundation of the Republic in my opinion. If people want to move with the times as it were, they can invoke Article V.

I happen to think we need more "Mr. Smiths" in Washington.

And as I recall this is where we generally part ways. I don't see the law as the end. As far as the constitution, it's the starting point, a broad rule book and often a tool. But it's not a result, only policy makes results. The COTUS is neutral on policy.

I am talking about enumerated powers. Granted, there are office procedures and the like, that are not addressed in the Constitution, and the respective branche(s) are free to craft their own policies.
In my opinion, action ( as to execution of powers defined therein) must be predicated on the Constitution. Otherwise, you create a bloated and bastardized form of government that devours itself.

When you are looking at hiring a new employee, the law and their views thereof do not enter into the equation for you? You are more concerned about new ideas at solving problems or preventing them, regardless of whether or not they ( the Congress and POTUS) have the power to do so in the first place?

The powers are tools in the toolbox, nothing less but nothing more. Or perhaps more applicable to the license one might need to practice a profession. But in and of themselves they only give a broad framework for what entity has the ability to do what jobs, not a guide to what they can or should do when they get there.

Of course I want to hire a lawmaker or enforcer who respects the law. But since we do not see the law the same way, we will probably also not apply our sensibilities the same way to candidates. That's fair. You have your vote, I have mine. So...we're even!

 

[xotoxi]

Which of the following is the most important to you, when it comes to the governance of this Republic?

1) Your political party team regaining power, or staying in power

2) Voting all the incumbents out of office, even if you believe your elected has done his or her elected job.

3) As long as your taxes don't go up, you don't care what the employees in Washington do.

4) You don't care because you are tired of fighting it year after year.

5) The Constitution being strictly adhered to no matter the circumstance. Any current government program that you don't believe is congruent with the Constitution, should be done away with.

6) You used to be true blue partisan, but this last election opened up your eyes. You are re-evaluating your beliefs and no longer interested in being a political party cheerleader.

None of the above.

The most important thing is that I amass all of the worlds riches by the age of 50. However I get there doesn't matter.

 

[Immanuel]

What exactly do you mean by the highlighted portion?

What do I mean? Seems pretty obvious to me. So much so, that I am not sure how to answer that question.

The USA is a prosperous nation, blessed by God... Oh, oh, did I just break the law by mentioning God?... and I would like to continue to see it prosper.

The USA has long been a voice for freedom in international politics. I would like to see that continue. That doesn't mean we need to be the policemen of the world. It means that we support freedom and Democracy worldwide.

Immie

Immie,
You are speaking in broad emotional generalities. That is why I asked for specifics. What do you look to, when selecting the right employee ( representative or POTUS ) for the job? What standard if any, do you hold the other employees to, seeing how your tax dollars help to pay their salary as well.

Guess I was not looking at it in the same terms you were. I was looking at it as what is most important to me about this country not the "employees" we hire.

What is most important for a political leader to me?

Honesty and integrity would be high on my list. I don't expect them to be perfect, but I really wish we could find some that were not... well, the word that comes to mind is immoral, but honestly, I don't believe any of them start out that way. I'm also not sure if most of them turn out that way or if maybe it is just the press that digs for the dirt to bring them down. I have always believed that a person who gets into politics, gets into it because they want to do good for their country. Unfortunately, the system wears them down and for them to play the game they have to pay the dues with their souls.

They don't have to be right. They don't have to see eye to eye with me, but I expect them to do what they think is best for the country not what is best for the lobbyist with the biggest carrot.

Immie