While debate rages on about this thread..
If you HAD to vote for one of these as President?
...in some pretty decent little discussions evolving on it, I decided to select another eight.
Again, they have not been selected because they are going to be candidates.
The supposition would be if they were, which may you select?
Some are not even professional politicians, but hey, since they've failed us, why not try something new?
You may not know of some of the choices - let Google be your friend.
"They [the Jews] care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment," he wrote in 1947.
"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. (Truman)
Guru
Wow, what a lousy set of options!
I (grudgingly) picked Roemer, because she at least figured out that taxes are objectively bad for economic growth.
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
Guru
I picked John Searle, since he's the granddaddy of kicking Commie ass !
Oh wait, I got confused with Richard Perle. crap...
Last edited by Serfin' USA; Oct 03 2011 at 02:12 PM.
"Chaos... isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them.
And some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.
Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is."
Guru
Strangely, this time it was between Clinton and Rice.
I like Romer better as an economist but have no evidence she could lead in any other area.
Hillary Clinton wins as a jack-of-all-trades, which is necessary in a leader.
She has the social skill to get things done and a demonstrated ability to learn a variety of subjects, plus the social network available to ensure she can fill a cabinet with people to take care of what she doesn't.
She's not my ideal candidate because I think she's a little too pragmatic, much like her husband. I really think she'd be essentially the same as Obama, but with a better learning curve and more of an idea on how politics works. So, while I didn't suspect it in 2008, I think she may be a better leader than Obama (even though I agree with Obama on more things).
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
-George Carlin
Originally Posted by JavaBlack
She's always struck me as being a bit cookie, to be honest.
You know how you can sometimes detect it in a person's eyes and voice - that's what I get from her, when I see her or hear her speak.
I well recall an interview she did, in which Iran came into the chat.
Without and provocation at all, she went on a totally insane rant.
I thought that when she run against Obama for the Democratic candidate, she was too egotistical about it, but what struck me more (and perhaps what makes the US electorate different from that in Europe), is that when she lost, her fans were all gathered, crying, sobbing. You would NEVER get people here to react in that way, over any politician.
"They [the Jews] care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment," he wrote in 1947.
"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. (Truman)
Do you know how commendable it is for a guy sitting in Scotland, to even know of these people!? I bet you would find it hard to do a list of eight interesting and diverse Scottish or British candidates!
"They [the Jews] care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment," he wrote in 1947.
"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. (Truman)
Guru
Part of it is because a lot of Clinton's fans took it for granted that it was her turn.
Part of it is that a certain subgroup of feminists (white, upper middle class, older) fail to see just any equality win as a partial win for feminism.
Look at NOW, whose surrogates attacked Obama-- often underplaying the problems of racism-- and who went on to reflexively support Palin. I think this underlies the fact that class is now the single biggest divide and yet the richest, most well-connected movements for equality are disproportionately for the most well-off of their demographic (where the chauvinism is not as powerful as it is in lower classes).
I think that whole debacle goes to show just how much the liberal factions have been broken apart into separate identity-based interest groups.
At one point, the dominant feminist ideal was for equality for all, and independence for women of any class. Read Slate a bit and you'll get the impression that it's mostly about rich women being able to have whatever kind of sex they want without judgment.
Class is a modifier... and the well-off often fail to recognize it.
And yet the well-off are the ones with the biggest platforms.
It's not about Hillary. It's about the decline of feminism (and I think Hillary Clinton is actually more a true feminist than many of her 2008 surrogates).
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
-George Carlin
I went for Warren Buffett. He is quite old, but that aside, I liked the little I read about him. He has creativity and a sense of social justice.
"They [the Jews] care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment," he wrote in 1947.
"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. (Truman)
crazy
Google is your friend?Do you know how commendable it is for a guy sitting in Scotland, to even know of these people!? I bet you would find it hard to do a list of eight interesting and diverse Scottish or British candidates!
I find these choices rather interesting as well, but since most are a bit 'off', Trump sounds more plausible than any other.
They were meant to be a bit 'off' and a lot eclectic.Google is your friend?
I find these choices rather interesting as well, but since most are a bit 'off', Trump sounds more plausible than any other.
One thing that struck me when looking for names, is that for every Noam Chomsky, you seem to have a hundred O'Donnell's. (for example)
But I suppose that figures, since there are more idiots and mediocrity among man, than there are thinkers and geniuses.
"They [the Jews] care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment," he wrote in 1947.
"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. (Truman)
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks