They should let who ever wants to be a leader of a country have a :jedi: battle..........:popcorn:
Printable View
They should let who ever wants to be a leader of a country have a :jedi: battle..........:popcorn:
Trump is like a middle finger pointed at the old school way of politics and the media. A lot of people want real change. If Trump doesn't get assassinated before he gets a chance to be elected I think he has a shot at it. The reason I think this is that I believe he is going to pull some of the 50% or so people, who don't vote, off the couch and into the booth. That's why he is so popular and also why everybody is freaking out. From the beginning he has turned everything into a compare it to me race. He has tapped into the anger of the silent majority and boys that ain't nothing to laugh at. Personally I don't know if he will do a good job or not but he is a negotiator and he likes to win. Plus he is not bought and paid for. Bernie makes sense sometimes but he is so old he won't make it past the first year in office. Then there is the other half of what he says that sort of neutralizes the whole speech. I don't think the US is ready for a socialist president either. Then there is Hillary. I don't even think she believes what she is saying anymore. She also wants to grow up to be Obama which really isn't helping her at all. As for the republicans, when I watch them debate I keep thinking they are all hoping Donald picks them to be vice president :<0) I know this, if somebody doesn't get in there and do something about what is ailing this country or about too,, there is going to be trouble for everybody.
Better yet do it like a Miss America pageant. I would pay cash to see the idiots in the "Evening Gown" competition.:rofl2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willisf
Too late. I was the highest bidder on an ill-fitting wig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirlau
Yes, but you know the words to the WW2 tune -Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Hitler had only got one ball,
Rommel had two, but very small.
Himmler, had something similar,
But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all.
The job of president is the most thankless job in the country. You take the blame for things you have little control over and there is no way to please everyone. One would have to be crazy to even want that job. Therefore, I believe that anyone who actively seeks that position should in no way be allowed to have it.
I like the Donald, but I do feel he is a bit brash but a country is like a large business.
I like Cruz, but he is a politician.
Either will get my vote.
Hillary should be in prison.
Bernie is just a bafoon & already admitted he would tax us to death to share the wealth.
That's where I stand, not debate-able...I won't show up.
I'm unaware of any independent large (or small) business with the sovereign authority to create and enforce popular law and to command it's own military. I could be wrong, enlighten me. I'm sure "The Donald" is a great guy, but I wonder (and have serious doubt) that he's really qualified to be a head of state. He certainly talks a good game, and puts on a good show, but does that earn him the presidency? Is President of the United States so trivial a position that the job goes to whoever puts on the best show? I'd hope not. I wouldn't hesitate to have Trump negotiate a real estate deal for me, or build me a golf course or maybe a casino. But even those things didn't always work out so well for him. He claims he wants to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. If he thinks he wields that kind of power and can strong arm a foreign country into financing a wall, then what could he do in his own country should he choose? Besides, walls don't just keep people out. I get his popularity, but I fear it's for all of the wrong reasons.
I would say the one we've got now, and his predecessor, were no more qualified than Trump is. Presidents surround themselves with people who are qualified and delegate authority and receive advice. I'm not sold on Trump, but I'm not buying the premise that he is inexperienced. If 'experience' got us where we've gone the past 15 years I will opt for something different.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
So just on a technical note, maybe. If someone like Trump (an active businessman with active businesses) wins the presidency are they required to step down from those businesses or whatever?
James.
He has already said that his kids will run the business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
That's good, but I guess what I meant was is it a general rule of any President in that situation that they must give up their business interests?Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter74743
James.
Well, that eliminates any potential conflict of interest then... :wQuote:
Originally Posted by shooter74743
I have *no* idea what the laws are down there across the border, but do feel that whenever anyone enters a position responsible for directing national (or state/provincial/regional/whatever) policy, he or she should either fully divest him/herself of business interests or place them into blind trusts. I'd also be interested to know what they law is on this.
Then in that case I'll write in Kim Kardashian. She's been successful, and is a lot easier on the eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Yes, you would think...HOWEVER many of the past presidents have greatly increased their "net worth"...so I am sure there are some not so up and up happenings to help them to prosper. When I say prosper, I mean prosper GREATLY!
Is it too late to sign up? I could use some prosperity! :rofl2:Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter74743
Beat Bloomburg to the punch on the independent side!
No, elected officials are not. A very good recent example is Berlusconi of Italy and all the problems that fell from his time in office. Essentially, any person running for office can continue to run their businesses from office if they choose to. There is always the risk of the appearance of impropriety and the political fallout (hearings etc) from that effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Employees, not elected, of the executive branch are supposed to eliminate any conflicts of interest. There are examples of some elected officials using blind trusts for their assets to show that they do not have conflicts of interest, but this is not used by any where near a majority of elected office holders.
There are guidelines laid out covering conflict of interest and elected officials on this side of the border.
See: Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web
IIRC when Paul Martin was Prime Minister he had to set a blind trust wrt his interest in CSL, Canada Steamship Lines. Even then there was controversy Ethics, Paul Martin and the circle of CSL - The Globe and Mail .
Bob
Yes - Paul Martin, the guy who complained about tax avoidance as he re-flagged all his ships to avoid tax...Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
I am not sure where your information is coming from...we don't even know who we are voting for yet for president! I agree with Bruce that our whole political system is run by clowns who have no idea what the average citizen goes through on a day to day basis.
You injected a lot of your own bias into your original post, so it is clear where you stand on our election!
Yea, a very common practice in the shipping world. Avoiding taxes plays a very big part in big business as does/did the use of family trusts here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrank
Bob
I think Clinton will win. My reasoning:
The country seems to be more or less 50/50 split between democrat and republican with possibly a hair over on the democratic side for the following reason: I'm not on a soapbox for voter registration (although to me it's only logical), but I believe if the U.S. did have voter registration, I think the scales on voting would be tipped something more like 60 % republican 40% democrat in an instant. Just a gut feeling.
I believe it's now regarded as fact that Clinton violated laws with housing many top secret documents/emails on a private server. Such felonious behavior would undoubtedly result in conviction and sentencing of most in that same scenario. I believe she will emerge from this unscathed. Like it or not, I think in this day and age those in her position (high level government) are above the law. I think there is a disconnect among many voters that such crimes do not apparently impact their intent on voting for a person in her position.
I won't forget this clip about her husband when he was president and skirted his scandal avoiding impeachment.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mabJPTS8lvw
ChrisL
unfortunately big money and politics does raise you above the law as it happens all over...
Yup, and you can't do politics without backing because it costs so much to get elected. You are always beholding to someone for the monetary support you got from them to get you in. I don't think any politician no matter their personal wealth can pay for a campaign entirely out of their own pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter74743
Bob
A president cannot run a business on the side and all investments must be put in the care of an investment house. Obama put his with Berkshire Hathaway. This does not mean he doesn't know what's going on nor does it stop him from swaying things in his favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
BP oil spill. They wanted to use Corexit in the ocean to absorb the oil. EPA was not prepared to responsibly authorize BP's use of Corexit, but did so anyway. Wonder why ? Not sure myself but it just so happens Berkshire bought a LOT of stock in that company just before the decision and the stock went through the roof after. Hmmmm
It's much like insider trading. Against the law but a staple food of the rich. You have to get caught and even then only the little guys become patsies.
Original post? Are you talking to me, the OP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie1980
Hillary will win for the same reason Obama won. People, especially the 18 to 20 something crowd, women and the misinformed will vote for her so they can help make history!
" Yeah, we helped elect the first _______! " insert your choice here!
They do not even care about issues or political stance. The wife and I have been shocked at 2 of our female friends ( no spring chickens BTW ) that have stated straight out they are voting for " The Woman "!!?! When confronted about some of Hillary's stances, they outright said they don't care because NO politicians do what they say so we might as well put in a woman cuzz she might make a difference and change things!!
Watch her speeches/rallies, especially when she is done and mingling with the crowd. A lot of younger women looking for her autograph.
Help support term limits for all politicians! It was never meant to be a career. Two terms should be the limit. That way just about the time they figure out how to manipulate and rip-off the system, they are gone!
The above is my opinion only! YMMV! Thank you!
I've thought for a long time now that the first US female president would be a Clinton - my bet is on Chelsea. I don't see the US public being fooled by Hillary.
I wish I had your optimism.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKRob
By the same argument you would say that Cruz or Rubio should win.Quote:
Originally Posted by NewellVW
Obama won in large part because he had superior campaign organization both to Clinton and to McCain.
That's also why I think Clinton will win this time around - the republican side is way too fractured to pull together behind one candidate. Trump seems unelectable given his unpopularity with general elections voters. Cruz seems to have alienated the party machine to the point that people joke about voting for Sanders before voting for him. Rubio is as conservative as Cruz but acceptable to the establishment and seems like the only one that everybody can get behind, but so far he seems to have less support and money than Cruz.
Clinton vs. regular republican nomination should be a toss-up given the fundamentals of the race (no incumbency, average economy, demographics). But it seems that Rubio will have a pretty hard time getting to the nomination and doing so may still cost him enough Trump/Cruz supporters to lose the general election.
Still the votes next week will show exactly what do Trump's numbers mean. It could turn out that they do not translate to real votes.
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
-GW Bush
I'm pretty sure the US public can be fooled again.
Just think, if the entire media decided they would never even mention trump ever again. He'd be finished. It's a tall wag the dog situation. The media really has the power to elect the office seeker. Unfortunately the American public has no ability to make critical decisions on their own the do what they are told or based on rumors they hear.
Part of the problem is only 50% ( about ) of registered voters actually vote. And God knows how many are not even registered. That leans the whole system in favor of the hardcore Dems & Reps that rally the votes for their candidate.
Also, polls mean absolutely nothing. They are consistently incorrect.
But this is not China, Russia, or North Korea and it's the 21st century - if the major media outlets decide collectively to ignore something important they'll simply create an opportunity for the minor players to displace them.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Something being popular simply means that a lot of people want it. For example, the media in US keeping pornography out hasn't made pornography disappear - it's a thriving business and its 'market share' in internet traffic surpasses anything else by far.
Following Trump is really appealing to many americans - it's a fact that will not change no matter what, the only question is whether that will translate into votes.
As far as polls like anything else there are good, bad, really bad, and really good. Really good pols have always been correct.
In a voting system as stratified as the US (from what I can tell anyway) a really good poll would have to mimic that voting system in some way to be at all accurate.
It's kind of similar here in Australia. We have "electorates", and a candidate must win in their electorate to be voted into parliament. Then, the party with the most "electorates" in parliament wins government. It is entirely possible because of this process that a party may win greater than 50% of the overall vote across the country but still lose the overall election because those votes were not distributed across the electorates in the "right" way.
A poll that doesn't take this electorate system into account when it collects its data won't tell you too much about who will win the next election I'm afraid.
James.
Auntie Jimbo for President!
Amen,
Bruce
It's true the news media has a huge influence on things.....but a lot of people do get their news from other sources instead of the main stream news media. The internet has a wide variety of ways to influence people. It has it's good points and bad ones. Truths and lies. You have to make the decisions on what you believe or not. Only thing IMO the main stream news media is good for is to report the "happy" stories about someone doing a good deed or such.....which seems to fewer and fewer stories these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Even if the news media decided to not to report about Trump or whoever, people would still want to know what is going on with them and will find ways to get information.
The ones who "do as they are told" by news media are no more than sheep in the herd...... Is that what has become of people today?
I think when it comes to media it's useful to have critical thinking skills: develop the ability to think critically about the source of the information, why they use the words they use, who are they aiming it at, who owns the information, how was it collected, who owns the media source, was money exchanged, etc etc.
Let's face it. Today we live in the "information-saturation" age. In fact, I think we have surpassed saturation and have moved on to the "information-precipitation" age (to borrow from my schoolboy chemistry knowledge...!). If we as individuals do not learn to sift the wheat from the chaff - information-wise - we'll sink under the weight of it. Or, as a lot of people do, just focus on a small and manageable subset of it that suits our mindset, thus becoming both narrow-minded and, in the overall sense, ill-informed.
In Google We Trust.
James.
IIRC Al Gore won the popular vote but once Florida was given to Bush 2 (hanging chads) by the supreme court Bush had the electoral votes and the presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
