BIGUN 1,489 #1 July 20, 2012 Who would you vote for as president and why. Polls only allow for five, but if you want to throw in another... feel free. My choice would be Teddy Roosevelt. What manner of man could span the spectrum from warrior to man of peace; from conservationist to hunter; from cowboy to businessman, from Medal of Honor to Peace Prize. Etc.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 July 20, 2012 Then why didn't you list Teddy Roosevelt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #3 July 20, 2012 Alexander Hamilton, without a close second.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 900 #4 July 20, 2012 That's just funny right there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #5 July 20, 2012 I'm scratching my head. Did I miss something?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #6 July 20, 2012 QuoteAlexander Hamilton, without a close second. Why?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 July 20, 2012 Quote I'm scratching my head. Did I miss something? Yep. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 July 20, 2012 Quote My choice would be Teddy Roosevelt. What manner of man could span the spectrum from warrior to man of peace; from conservationist to hunter; from cowboy to businessman, from Medal of Honor to Peace Prize. Etc. when I think of him, I think of big stick diplomacy. Not sure our current situation is the one I want him. At this point I want Jefferson out of the choices given. Need to refocus internally on the general welfare of the nation and on the rights of the people within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 July 20, 2012 Frankly, I just very grateful that after 4-5 hours, no one has mentioned FDR - his policies would pretty much nail the coffin lid on. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #10 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote My choice would be Teddy Roosevelt. What manner of man could span the spectrum from warrior to man of peace; from conservationist to hunter; from cowboy to businessman, from Medal of Honor to Peace Prize. Etc. when I think of him, I think of big stick diplomacy. Not sure our current situation is the one I want him. At this point I want Jefferson out of the choices given. Need to refocus internally on the general welfare of the nation and on the rights of the people within. Whereas, I believe his "Big Stick" metaphor to be more relevant today. It seems as though we've lost the "speak softly" (negotiate first) and go right to the "Big Stick." Interesting man.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #11 July 20, 2012 Quote Frankly, I just very grateful that after 4-5 hours, no one has mentioned FDR - his policies would pretty much nail the coffin lid on. The day is young. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #12 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteAlexander Hamilton, without a close second. Why? He was THE Federalist. He understood the danger of states' rights and the necessity of a national government to which the states must be subordinate. He recognized that a small national government was the problem, not the solution. He first convinced political leaders of the need to replace the Articles of Confederation, and then, as the most prolific writer of the Federalist Papers, proceeded to convince the people, and thus the states, of ratifying the Constitution. He understood the need for a national bank, and the value of a national debt (I'm not so sure he would approve of the size of the current debt, though.) He also recognized the need for government intervention in the economy. He had allegiance to no state and put his country first. He was an effective military officer, both on George Washington's staff, and as a leader of troops. He was extremely intelligent, and made no apologies for it. He was gifted in the power of persuasion, and had impressive insight into effective government.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 July 20, 2012 Quote Whereas, I believe his "Big Stick" metaphor to be more relevant today. It seems as though we've lost the "speak softly" (negotiate first) and go right to the "Big Stick." Interesting man. Quite interesting. I think to the White Fleet and his answer to Congress not funding a global tour. 'I have enough money to send them out there...you can decide if you want them to come back.' He knew how to exercise the power of the Executive in the spirit of the Imperial Presidency. Might use it for greatness, but still an overreach. I would have liked him in the closing phases of the Cold War. Not that I feel Reagan/Bush blew it badly, but he would have done it better. And much better had he been around in the 60s instead of Kennedy/LBJ/McNamera. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #14 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAlexander Hamilton, without a close second. Why? He was THE Federalist. He understood the danger of states' rights and the necessity of a national government to which the states must be subordinate. He recognized that a small national government was the problem, not the solution. He first convinced political leaders of the need to replace the Articles of Confederation, and then, as the most prolific writer of the Federalist Papers, proceeded to convince the people, and thus the states, of ratifying the Constitution. He understood the need for a national bank, and the value of a national debt (I'm not so sure he would approve of the size of the current debt, though.) He also recognized the need for government intervention in the economy. He had allegiance to no state and put his country first. He was an effective military officer, both on George Washington's staff, and as a leader of troops. He was extremely intelligent, and made no apologies for it. He was gifted in the power of persuasion, and had impressive insight into effective government. Agreed. Outside of those points, I do question his silliness of challenging someone to a duel when one has 8 kids.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 July 20, 2012 QuoteOutside of those points, I do question his silliness of challenging someone to a duel when one has 8 kids. I probably wouldn't list that one among his best ideas.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #16 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote Whereas, I believe his "Big Stick" metaphor to be more relevant today. It seems as though we've lost the "speak softly" (negotiate first) and go right to the "Big Stick." Interesting man. Quite interesting. I think to the White Fleet and his answer to Congress not funding a global tour. 'I have enough money to send them out there...you can decide if you want them to come back.' He knew how to exercise the power of the Executive in the spirit of the Imperial Presidency. Might use it for greatness, but still an overreach. I would have liked him in the closing phases of the Cold War. Not that I feel Reagan/Bush blew it badly, but he would have done it better. And much better had he been around in the 60s instead of Kennedy/LBJ/McNamera. Excellent points.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #17 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAlexander Hamilton, without a close second. Why? He was THE Federalist. He understood the danger of states' rights and the necessity of a national government to which the states must be subordinate. He recognized that a small national government was the problem, not the solution. He first convinced political leaders of the need to replace the Articles of Confederation, and then, as the most prolific writer of the Federalist Papers, proceeded to convince the people, and thus the states, of ratifying the Constitution. He understood the need for a national bank, and the value of a national debt (I'm not so sure he would approve of the size of the current debt, though.) He also recognized the need for government intervention in the economy. He had allegiance to no state and put his country first. He was an effective military officer, both on George Washington's staff, and as a leader of troops. He was extremely intelligent, and made no apologies for it. He was gifted in the power of persuasion, and had impressive insight into effective government. I would say those are reasons to dislike Hamilton. A Big Federal Gov is not good and is a problem. The current debt is the inevitable result of a big government. The Federal Reserve is what caused the mess we are currently in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #18 July 20, 2012 Quote Quote Outside of those points, I do question his silliness of challenging someone to a duel when one has 8 kids. I probably wouldn't list that one among his best ideas. But he never made that mistake again."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #19 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteOutside of those points, I do question his silliness of challenging someone to a duel when one has 8 kids. I probably wouldn't list that one among his best ideas. Burr was the challenger, not Hamilton. Still, one must view the situation through the lens of the day, rather than the lens of today. It's alleged (though not conclusively) that Burr challenged Hamilton quite possibly because Hamilton supposedly was overheard at a dinner party to suggest that Burr had had sex with his own daughter. Once confronted by Burr, Hamilton only offered a vague general regret in case he might have done something to offend Burr, but refused to either admit, retract and apologize, or unequivocally deny with independent corroboration. That did nothing to repair the presumed slander and outrage against his daughter, so Burr issued the challenge, and would not be dissuaded by intermediaries. Once the challenge had been made and not retracted, the honor code of the day really left Hamilton no choice but to accept the duel; otherwise he and his family would suffer the disgrace of being publicly labeled a coward and scoundrel. May sound foolish by today's America/Western European standards, but by the standards of the day it was quite understandable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #20 July 20, 2012 None of them. Although it may seem like we have at times, the fact is that at no point in our history have we allowed dead people to be elected President. On a more serious note, any poll such as this assumes the person involved would somehow be able to cope with the issues we're currently facing. OK, fine, assume that if you must, but I think it's silly to assume they'd react anywhere near the way they did historically. It's entirely possible, for instance that Ronald Reagan (for instance), after a lifetime of preparing himself to deal with Communists, would have a completely wrongheaded approach to terrorism like we saw on 9/11.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #21 July 20, 2012 QuoteI would say those are reasons to dislike Hamilton. A Big Federal Gov is not good and is a problem. The current debt is the inevitable result of a big government. The Federal Reserve is what caused the mess we are currently in. I disagree. Hamilton, along with his fellow Federalists, were correct. Small (national) government is the problem, not the solution. A powerful national government is necessary for a country to thrive long term. Look at the EU. They are similar in structure to the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and they are facing the same kinds of problems experienced by the US during that period. The UN has similar problems. The member states have too much individual power, which undermines efforts of unified policy and action. We got in the mess we are in because of insufficient government regulation, an administration eager to go to war, and supply side economic policy. Hamilton (and the rest of the original Framers) understood the importance of government intervention in the economy. Laissez-faire economic policy is unsound.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #22 July 20, 2012 Suffice to say that I think you are wrong. I think the Austrian economics people have a much more convincing argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #23 July 20, 2012 QuoteI think the Austrian economics people have a much more convincing argument. The Austrian school of economics is pretty laughable. They reject mathematical analysis, because they know mathematics highlights the inconsistencies in their rhetoric.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #24 July 20, 2012 That doesn't even come close to explaining why they reject it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 July 20, 2012 QuoteAlexander Hamilton, without a close second. I think that the Federalist is one of the finer works of political thought ever written. However, Hamilton’s danger was that he WAS an arrogant chap and was not much of a dealmaker. He was pretty ideologically set in his ways, and failed to understand certain things. He had some vision but refused to allow the idea that the federal government might need limits. His view of the Constitution was that it provided a limited power to the federal government that wouldn’t be abused. The Anti-Federalists had some points, too. The Constitution doesn’t provide or preserve the rights of the people. Hamilton was against a Bill of Rights because, well, a statement of rights would be viewed as limited. This is why Hamilton was a good idea man but Madison was the pragmatist. Madison could make deals. He created the Bill of Rights that someone like Hamilton thought was unnecessary. As we have seen in this country, the Bill of Rights DOES act to protect the citizens from government intrusion and domination. I think that matters such as this are the sorts of things that lead me away from someone like Hamilton. He was just dead set on his idea. Not that Madison was a great President. He was a greater MAN than he was a President. My choice? Washington. Why? Because Washington actually was somebody who would decline power. He resigned his command of the Continental Army then made peace with the British. He sided with Hamilton on a lot of things but gave credence to the anti-Federalists, too. Washington also sought as many opinions as he could get on just about everything before making a decision. But he was absolutely decisive, even in using federal forces to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. He had to be convinced to be POTUS for a second term, and then refused to run for a third. His greatness was in his actions reflecting humility. That’s the sort of person that I want. Someone who is not in it for his own power but actually declined to extend it. One who demonstrated federal supremacy but STILL ensured that federalism was respected. A guy who would make peace with the enemy. He was a fella who put country first and respected all sides. Compare with others that are listed as great. Lincoln and FDR were atrocious with civil liberties and both highly partisan. Both expanded federal power and control. One good thing for Lincoln, the Constitution applied to the States, too, thanks to him. Woodrow Wilson – often considered among the greats – also was shady with his anti-Sedition stances. Truman unconstitutionally seized steel production. Perhaps Number 2 would be Eisenhower. Those roads and infrastructure Obama talked about? Yeah – if anybody played a role in the growth of modern commerce in the US it was Eisenhower and the interstate highway system. On the flip side, he was the ultimate Cold Warrior (though it ended the Korean War it also led to massive proliferation). His domestic accomplishments were mixed bag. Still, I’d think Ike was a reasonable choice. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
