Rubio is interesting, not too extreme for your conservative housewives and not too milk toast the guys with the "don't tread on me flags". He's not a presidential candidate though, he's young and doesn't inspire any confidence, I don't think he's that bright. His politics are about where the party would want them but we all know that's only part of the picture. If he had Christie's passion and perspicacity he could get somewhere but he's a bit of a stuffed shirt and Hillary would eat him alive in debates. Ben Carson is interesting, but not a candidate. His quotes on gay marriage alone would ensure a democratic win even if Hillary came out with a plan to personally paste over the second amendment with a law legalizing the taking of money from kids piggy banks to pay for sensitivity training for CIA black site interrogators. He's good at apologising after the fact but he's smart and doesn't abide people saying what he thinks is the wrong thing, I don't think he could stop himself at various points from an in depth lecture on creationism or other more fringe views. I actually think that a creationist could become president, but they need one of those presidents answers, "my personal faith blah blah, everyone's entitled to their own nlah blah, separation of church and state and the benefits of science in he classroom and faith at home blah blah". Carson is the sort of guy who would defend his position hard and has serious form on doing that, if he stopped doing it he would look muzzled by the party or self censoring to get the big job, that's a massive turn off for the Republican true believers, they crave sincerity. I think Rubio and Carson both have the potential for a political future, senators or congressmen or even governors perhaps, but not presidents or even presidential candidates, it's a very different set of requirements. I wouldn't vote for them but then I can't and don't have to anyway. Hillary turns a lot of people off but I personally think that's more talk than action and she has had the better part of a decade to get all her ducks in a row. Bill is more popular than ever (I think there would even be moderate Republicans would look back at 92-2000 as being good years for America) and he'll be out a lot for her. The primaries won't be a super difficult process insofar as there isn't a big idiological gap between the candidates (though you might see a lot of personal stuff). I agree that Biden hasn't got it to win (could end up being a 4 term VP , he's the perfect perennial VP) and Warren is too liberal for many people's tastes, plus she says she's not running. I really think people underestimate the effect of the Republican primary will have on people coming out to vote for Hillary, doubly if a fringe candidate wins the primary. The reverse scenario would be Elizabeth Warren winning the nomination, if she stayed in fine form you can imagine what it would do for the Republican party, you could get even the most extreme tea party militia types voting for a centrist candidate like Christie or McCain even if they weren't pandering to the right. There's enough of that coming up in 2016 on the Republican side to get a lot of the people who said they wouldnt be voting for Hillary to come out. I think it's a real shame that John McCain made his play when and how he did. I think he could have been a great Eisenhower style republican president who could have saved the party from itself if he hadn't have tried to change so much to adapt to the prevailing winds or taken on Palin. If he had won the primary in 04 I think he could have run as himself and even taken some dems away from Kerry and won. Christie is the only guy who fits that mould, if he can weather the more extreme attacks I think he's in with a shot but he will have vocal grass roots voters and a few big party players everywhere pulling him in the other direction. Ultimately I think Hillary takes the election, unless something ugly comes up that people have been waiting to spring on her but she's pretty well vetted by now. She'll get a bit of a bump if the world is falling apart because of her foreign policy experience (though as I mentioned before it won't be decisive). I think the trend will be towards more and more division. I know a lot is made of Obama's popularity and disapproval ratings, but I think that's the new norm. I don't think you'll ever see Reagan or early Clinton levels of support again for a sitting president. You might see election landslides but only because of the voluntary voting you get in the states and so you might see much lower turn outs on one side compared with the other. I think you might see more third party candidates that are better funded and organised though unless something very transformative happens but I don't think you'll ever see them do better than Nader and Perot regardless of how bitter the 2 party politics become. It's going to take a big shift in thinking to heal the rifts in the US system to get things done, I'm not very hopeful. You can see how political strong men like Putin get to be so popular, after years of inefficient wrangling and infighting people will give up a lot just to see things get done and have the country moving again in a decisive way.
Humm not sure I like the American peace and freedom for all. Which developed country has the percentage of people in jail?
I really don't see why it would matter just as I don't think any of it matters if there is a republican or a democrat in office. I think it is nothing more than the illusion of choice. The people think that since they have a choice, they have power, they have at least some say and thus are more complacent. Republican vs Democrat, it's classic mass-social divide and conquer. And the sad thing is a lot of people know that the politicians on both sides are bought by the same wealthy individuals, and they still get caught up in it!
I'm ready for a isolationist hegemon. Foreign wars don't promote peace, especially when predicated on lies and half truths. If we're being defended from Tyranny, it's not going to well. Invasion of privacy, reduction of liberty and an rates of imprisonment have increased rapidly domestically in the "free-world", spawning profitable industries in command and control of a populus held hostage by sovereign debt incurred fueling and funding the war machine. Here's an idea. Why not clean our own nations of our respective problems, and leave the others to take care of theirs? Why not stop assuming we have a right to export the use of force to influence other cultures?
Ha a big word from someone whose previous post was 'you're an idiot' did you see a special on Dr phil today on vocabulary? I wouldn't even really classify Americans as a foreign culture because they have none.
I'm not sure that this is a fair accusation coming from an Australian. I love Australia and being an Australian but I wouldn't really describe us as having a strong culture, a potent sense of national pride but not a well defined culture. I've felt very Australian at times, particularly overseas, but what that means is a mystery even to me.
We have plenty to be proud of, I'm not going to sit here and make a long list for you but here's one that should be easy for you to grasp. We are by far the most generous culture on the planet, by a massive margin. Source:
Is those figures per capita? Australia has a population of only 24 million which is about 1/10th that of the US. If this is the case then Australia doesn't do too badly. Regards Errol43
It's funny how I mention divide and conquer and everyone starts attacking each other "My country is better than yours na na boo boo!" Exactly what those in power want. It's in their best interest to keep people divided instead of united. Or maybe I'm just another dumb American, right?
Does this include military aid? And of that military aid, what percentage is returned through sales of American weaponry?
I don't believe the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has anything to do with military aid. You can read up on it if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development
For the record, I didn't say Americans are better than anyone else, I simply said that despite our flaws we have plenty to be proud of. We're not perfect by any means, however, many of us would feel that "dr. phil watching, culture-less, voted most likely to start a nuclear genocide" would not be an accurate description of ourselves, our friends, or our family.
Today's Conservative Republican leaders are even worse for Americans than the Liberal Democrat leaders. The US is in dire need of a viable, responsible, and hard-to-corrupt 3rd and even 4th party. There's no causal relationship between a president's party affiliation and the price of PMs....not that I am aware of. .
Statistics are so often used to deceive and lie. A very common tactic of deception is to quote numbers without putting them into context. As just a couple of countless examples, many Left wingers conflate gun shooting stats of people of color to insinuate that all victims who are of color shot by a Caucasian is a victim of white racism. At the same time, all the Conservative Republican radio talk show hosts that I listen to on a daily basis in the U.S. conflate statistics on federal taxes paid to insinuate that the wealthiest elite Americans in the U.S. are unfairly burdened with paying the most taxes....intentionally failing, of course, to mention that on a percentage basis, the wealthiest Americans actually pay far less taxes than the lower and middle class of Americans of all their earnings including all income and capital gains. Statistics are only as informative and meaningful as the context they are put into. Take them out of context and stats are useless in the very least (and greatly harmful in the worst case scenarios). .
