The birth of a dynasty - God help us
 

REF:http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bus...568235186.html

Can you imagine?

Whilst I accept there is nothing to prevent such a step, it just kinda makes me a bit uneasy. I don't know much about Jeb Bush, apart from the negative publicity I've seen about him. It's just the idea of one family controlling the presidency of the US for 16 years. Seems a bit... undesireable.


Mr Mephisto


PS - It's about time the PB got a new thread. :)

I like Jeb and I think he would make a fine president.

I don't think he should run in 2008. That would be too much of a dynasty thing for my taste (not that it would stop me from voting for him should he win the nomination).

America could do a lot worse than Jeb come 2008.

One person comes to mind....
http://english.pravda.ru/images/news...09-klinton.jpg

The time is never right for this. To my knowledge he's no more or less qualified than his brother, though. I'm sure he's getting pressure, even now, from some groups to run in '08.

Wow I can't believe this, the election for 2008 is already ruined. I get to choose from Hillary vs. Jeb or Condi, or Gulliani, or Arnold if he gets his way, or (insert neo-con here). Similar to last election, conservatives will succumb to the anyone but Hillary, as the Liberals did against Bush in 2004. Of course most Liberals will vote for Hillary because she's the only viable option from the Democrats camp for 2008.

I can only hope that more people look towards third parties.

It's been obvious for at least 4 years that is what members of the GOP have been wanting, why it should surprise anyone is beyond me. And it is no different than what Papa Joe had planned for the Kennedy family.

Although I am seeing Condeelza '08 bumper stickers all over....... lol..... a little early isn't it?

The question is, unfortunately, who do the Dems have???? I cannot nor will ever vote for Hilary. I like many Dems. love Bill and think he was never given the chance to thrive.... but Hilary is a joke.

Truly, Trump has a good chance and I truly believe would make a great president in that he could bring both parties together.......

Gen. (ret.) Clark is a strong candidate for the Dem nomination and Dean is... however, I don't think either of them are strong enough to win the presidency.

I would love a Condi vrs Hilary in 2008 run more than any other.

http://www.unspun.us/images/lilith-condi.jpg VS http://english.pravda.ru/images/news...09-klinton.jpg

The implications for both parties would be tremendous.

Well, partly true. I believe Joe Kennedy was grooming his eldest son for the Presidency and JFK was "second choice". I believe that "Papa Joe" was long dead by the time Robert Kennedy's attempt was cut short by his assassination.

But regardless of motivation, the fact remains that the Kennedys had less than one term in the White House. Quite a bit different from three, maybe four, by the Bushs. [what an amusing plural!).

This is very interesting. Why so much anti-Hillary feeling? I honestly can't, or don't, understand it. What subtleties am I missing over here?

Also, I didn't realize she was even considering running for the Presidency. Personally I think it would be cool to have a woman President of the United States.

You're kidding me, right? Donald Trump? President?

Holy Sweet Mother of God... that would be worse than Arnold! LOL


I like Clark, from what little I know of him. But he got kinda steamrolled in the last election, didn't he?

Why can't the Dems just find a nice, centrist, white male from the Southern States? Bill v2...


Mr Mephisto

What's so great about bring both parties together? How about bringing the American people together for once. We just saw a bi-partisan fillibuster agreement and how long did that last. I think the American people are hungry for a real leader, although I have no idea where this person could come from. It definetly will not come from a Jeb Bush...

Because the party nomination is dominated by the far left. The Dems had 3 centrists running last election, one of which I would have even felt good about seeing president. They all got destroyed. Howard Dean set the tone early and everyone had to 'out left' Dean. Deans only fault was the electability issue, had he been 6'5" and good looking I'll bet you he would have won the nomination.

Interesting perspective and commentary. Thanks.


BTW, "far left" in the US means a little to the right of centre... right? :)


Mr Mephisto

I must be confused. Surely you're not accusing Kerry of being good looking ;)

Dean's problem was his "yeahhh" cheer which CNN (you know, part of that "liberal media" conspiracy) joyfully played over 200 times in a 24 hour period, making it look like Dean was a whack job instead of a guy who just suffered a defeat and was trying to rally his supporters. And, not to be eclipsed by CNN, the other networks lost no time in jumping on board.

IMO Dean was infinitely more electable than Kerry. He has a personality, and there's no way he'd have stood there letting the Bush camp launch attack after attack with no rebuttals.

I agree, Dean was definetly the guy to beat Bush. How did Kerry ever get that far? He was such a weak candidate.

LOL. Ain't that the truth!

Hmmm.....what about McCain? I think he'd make a good candidate regardless of party affiliation.

So, McCain-Rice ticket would be "reasonable".

I've heard Hillary-Obama which is kind of "crazy" but cool in a way. I don't think they could win though, America is still too conservative and "white" to accept that ticket.

Actually I think the true 'far left' has been making a lot of headway in the democratic party. Which is why Bush is president today. I hope they keep moving left, way left.

As opposed to how far your Republicans have moved to the left? What ever happened to the conservatives being for small limited government? Bush's budget makes Clinton look like fiscal conservative. When will you realize that the republicans are moving steadily to the left, just as the Democrats are. Again, Jeb will just be more of the same.

The only trouble is that Bush and his fan club are so far to the right that just about anything looks leftist to them. Back during the campaign I had Bush workers tell me Reagan was far too liberal. Anyone that views Reagan as left of center has a grossly distorted notion of where center lies.

Just look at Iraq. If you're in favor of the war, you're a moderate conservative. If you're not entirely sure the war was such a hot idea, you're an unpatriotic leftist hippie who wants to get soldiers killed. The name calling from the right has stopped being seen as unusually childish and has become the norm. It's gotten to the point now where if people don't hide their liberal views, they're shunned.

It's a disgraceful situation, and frankly conservatives who participate in it should be ashamed. Somehow they've managed to trick the american people into thinking that petty insults and petulant name calling (freedom fries ringing any bells here?) are acceptable forms of political discourse. I, for one, will be happy when adult behavior resurfaces on the political scene.

I was prepared to vote for him until he got knocked out of the running by standing up to the far right religious leadership and some dirty tricks by the Bush campaign. I'm hoping to have a second chance in 2008.

I respect Hillary and I believe she could be a very good president. I also believe that we don't need to go through the billary hate fest once again. It's time to mend fences and come together again. My hope is on McCain to achieve this.

Good insight there.

So, since we're playing "make-believe hypothetical", what about a McCain-Hillary ticket? Or even a Jeb-Hillary ticket. McCain-Powell? McCain-Rice? Idunno, sounds like some interesting combos to me. Maybe good enough for your "mend the fences" idea?

Jorgelito, I will vote for McCain, but if he attaches himself with a neo-con I will vote for whoever the Dems put up. Like I did last time. I lean Republican on fiscal issues, but the neo-cons are anything but true Republicans.

Nice "make-believe hypothetical" though. :)

How about Jessie Jackson and Orin Hatch? There's a winning combo. :D

Having lived in Florida for a while, where Jeb is honcho, I can say that he really doesn't do much at all to impress me as a politician. I've never really found anything he's said or done to be all that important, let alone presidential.

When all the hurricanes came through here, he was barely seen or heard on the TV or radio saying much of anything about it other than supporting the words of the electric companies promising speedy power restoration. I would think that even a halfway decent politician in charge of a state that has just been ravaged by not one, but then two, three, and four hurricanes would be on some form of media telling the people it'll be ok, that things will be taken care of. It's not like it was a few tornados ripping through a mobile home park- it was a state-wide emergency which literally impacted almost all of the state. He should have been more vocal, more attentive. It seemed like he didn't care whatsoever.

Also, he panders to the elderly way too much. I understand there are a lot of them here, but there are also a lot of people who aren't elderly living here. Additionally, there is a horribly corrupt sheriff's office running one of the state's largest counties, which has spent millions upon millions of dollars on untraceable stuff, and keeps asking for more. Jeb has never once been seen to concern himself in any way with such things. I don't care if he is the brother of George W, of whom i'm not a fan- i'm not a fan of Jeb because of Jeb himself.

EDIT: And i'd vote Condileeza over Hillary, except that I know Condileeza would be little more than a puppet.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that?

Personally I think shes got more pure brains than 99% of the politicians.

As an ex-Professor from Stanford, she's bound to.

No doubt an intelligent woman, but she scares the bejaysus out of me. If I had a vote, I'd vote for Hillary over her. :)

Horses for courses I guess.


Mr Mephisto

Oh I do as well. I think she's very intelligent and has a good grip on things. I also, however, think she's derived a lot of her power and position from the types of people who would use her in office for their own agendas, and she'd owe them- or they'd convince her she owes them.

I really don't know, now that i'm thinking about it, I think I'd have to have some more information to be able to really pick one over the other. I'm just afraid of her ties to the current administration, of which I do not want another incarnation under a different face and name.

I think it is necessary to have a more centrist non partisan president that can have his own agenda and therefore either both sides will hate him and by virtue bring them closer..... or hopefully be so loved by the people that both sides will fall into place and become fiscally conservative while being socially liberal.

I envision a president that by his nonpartisanship can show how juvenile parties have become and the PEOPLE will wake up and vote the idiots that are so far on one side and unwilling to compromise (Right and Left) out.

I think Trump has the arrogance and yet is charismatic enough to get both sides to deal with each other and end the petty bickering. Plus, I don't think Trump is one to worry about any "dirt" that would come out about him and is strong enough to turn the dirt around and show what it really is..... trying to win without having to expose your true platform.

I think a strong Trump/McCain or Trump/Edwards ticket would crush any GOP ticket out there.

Trump is the master of the deal, he knows how to get things done, how to work with unions and win respect (trust me NOTHING in NYC gets built without someone getting union respect).

Trump knows how weak we are in the world economy and I believe would surround himself with the best people possible to develop ways to get the US back to #1 and keep it there.

I really see no downside to Trump except whether or not he could be convinced the US needs him as president.

Laugh, if you will, but Trump is powerful enough, charismatic enough and strong enough in who he is to become president. He is also smart enough to know people work harder, put more dignity and feel better about themselves when companies treat their workers with respect.

(Argue if you will but the president does set the tone for the nation ..... good and bad......)

I am now declaring myself a man on a mission to get people to DRAFT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT...... perhaps if enough people show him that WE WANT TRUMP he'll run........

Hey if 1992 Perot could garner what 19% .... surely Trump who is more charismatic, more of a deal maker and more respected can come close to getting triple that and that would be a winner.

Otherwise the options are too bleak........

Hilary??????? too much of a witch, cold distant wants it too badly..... which forces me too ask why does she want it so badly? She lacks the charisma Bill had and while strong she seems to be more into herself than what is best for the country.

Libertarian?????? Still too right.... they truly have no compromise in them.

I don't know hopefully a strong DEM can come from somewhere.... but until that happens my mantra shall be........

DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08

FACT I'M GOING TO PRINT BUMPERSTICKERS AND T-SHIRTS THAT ON THE FRONT HAVE A PICTURE OF HIM AND ON THE BACK SAY.........

DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08

When has it ever been different?

Indeed, the current Administration is often cited as the quintessential example of this kind of vested interest.


Mr Mephisto

I agree that Dean would have been a better candidate, and also think he would have one. Really the only reasons I can see why Kerry got the nomination was due to the fact that he looked more "presidential". Kerry seemed to have far more negatives than Dean, didn't have the personality of Dean, and had a campaign team seemingly worse then Dean's.

And as for the launching attacks with no rebuttal, move on (.org).



Kettle: Hello Pot!

Pot: You're Black!

Suffice to say, I think your blindness to liberal attacks and use of the same tactics is suprising.

-----

I don't think Trump nor McCain could make a viable candidate. For every Dem vote McCain would gain, he would lose two Rep votes. Since his run in 2000, he's really disappointed me. I fully supported him then, I thought Bush was a horrible candidate in comparison. But it seems to me that McCain has become a much more polished politician, and spends too much time grabbing headlines. In 2000, he seemed outside of the system, now he's been assimilated. As for Trump, he has too much baggage. Also, he seems to have no qualifications for being president. He's great in real estate and self-promotion, but not else. If a businessman is what you want, I think Steve Forbes is a better choice personally.

Honestly, I think the republican nomination is going to be someone not on the radar just yet. And as for the Dems, everything now is pointing at hillary which makes me think its going to be someone else entirely, probably a southerner. Hillary has no chance in any of the "red" states, and would probably lose a couple of the blues as well.

As an outside observer, I tend to agree with Shakran. If you think there is a liberal bias in the media, or if you think "liberalism" is in the ascendent in America today, then you must be living in a different world than I.

Of course the "left' attacks the "right", but today's political landscape, today's social milieu, is such that being liberal, or anti-war, or pro-worker etc is almost a mark of Cain (and I don't mean that in the Old Testament, literal sense, but in the popular sense).

Mr Mephisto

There is a slight socially liberal, pro-business bias in the majority of mainstream media. Looking simply at which stories recieve the most press reveals that. Or look at examinations of the previous presidential election, where Bush got almost double the negative press that Kerry did.

And where are you living where being anti-war or liberal or pro-worker is frowned upon? I see much the opposite, where not blindly throwing accusations at the administration, or even questioning the liberal adenda in any way gets you attacked by lefties as a hatemongering, intolerant, ignorant part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. You can look at this board for proof of this.

Apparently you're not living in the same part of America that I am.

The right attacks the left far far more vehemnetly and even in cases where the left isn't necessarily attacking the right but simply asking the right to explain their stance .... the right considers it an attack and avoids the explanations but worsens the attacks and any dialogue that could exist crumbles. But that's just my viewpoint.

As for McCain, I think as a Dem and with the right running mate (Edwards) he could very easily win... problem is he won't run as a Dem or even an Ind.

Trump is an oddity. He has failed but he has comeback every time stronger and looking better than ever. I really don't think he has baggage that would hurt.... what he's a player..... lol big freakin deal he likes gorgeous ladies and can get them so what? Other than that Trump is about as dirt free as they come. He's very intelligent, knows how to get the most from the people around him and you NEVER hear anyone truly bad mouth the guy. Perhaps he's too good a man for president... but I doubt it.... I truly think he's the perfect man for the job. He isn't isolationist but he knows we need more fair trade. The only people that won't back him are big business because they know he is fair with employees and would probably raise the minimum wage in a hurry but offer tax breaks for those smaller companies it would hurt.

Trump is too perfect that's why the GOP will hate him.

Forbes ran I believe in '96 and had some good points but even Alan Keyes beat him. I will say the Class of '96 was just that in the GOP primaries.... all were moderates and had class and decent ideas.... how I miss them.... the GOP is far to right now... when Reagan, Nixon and even BushI court judges (some of whom at the time were considered borderline too conservative) and policies are called too liberal.... something is very, very, very wrong.

That maybe the first thing we have ever agreed upon. That the GOP nomination may go to someone not on the radar screen.... and Hilary losing even some of the blue states.

I see Edwards making a strong run and maybe getting the nomination (I would vote for Edwards IF Trump doesn't run).

DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08

Or perhaps that is just your bias showing :D

Liberalism is a policy for the lazy in my world view. People are lazy. Give it time.

If I recall he is in Canada.

Mr. Mephisto is from Australia.....

hence: Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder

A line from that great group Men At Work..... Can't you hear can't you hear the thunder..... you better run you better take cover

Or perhaps it's your bias showing.

And so it goes.

:)

I'm far from lazy. I guarantee that I do more for social or liberal causes than the majority of people on this board, and I don't mean that in a boasting manner. I also work hard, pay LOTS of taxes and don't lament the fact. I simply get on with it, whilst retaining my sense of right and wrong.

Raised, as I was, by hard-working parents who gave much more (and continue to give much more) to society than they took, I absorbed their humanist, liberal, socially responsible outlook on life. I don't particularly see that as lazy, or appreciate it being called as much.


Mr Mephisto

Mr Mephisto is from Ireland. But he lives in Australia. :-)

Hence my use of the phrase "as an outside observer" alansmithee.

But no matter. I simply see things differently than you. I honestly, and with no malice, see the right in the ascendent in the US. If you don't, then so be it.


Mr Mephisto

You just proved my point for me. Moveon.org had to respond to Bush's attacks because Kerry would not. That made things even worse for Kerry - not only will he not fight to defend himself, but it got so bad that someone ELSE had to step in and fight back for him. As soon as I saw that Kerry wasn't gonna fight for the office, and instead was gonna let other groups try to do it for him, I immediately predicted a Bush victory.





What tactics? The tactics the conservatives used were to call anyone who disagreed with them unpatriotic, morally bankrupt, and godless. I've certainly never used those phrases in my arguments against the conservatives.

Your statement again proves my point. The conservative side is having a grand old time launching attacks against the liberal side claiming the liberals are attacking them.

They're glossing over the fact that one can disagree with a position without attacking the position holder. The fact that I disagree with the war does not mean I consider every republican to be morally bankrupt or unpatriotic.

But the conservatives want to paint things as though I do, because then that makes me look petty, and reinforces the liberal whacko stereotype that the republicans invented.

once you see conservatives throwing hillary clinton about as a marker of left politics you know that they have been backed into seeing politics from a position that would square with that of any number of militia groups---the function of the empty signifer "the left" in conservativeland is to obscure just how far to the right the apparatus has moved---hillary clinton's actual political position are both wholly mysterious and totally irrelevant for the right--what matters is the 8 years of sustained bile directed at her from the planet limbaugh and other parallel outlets for audio autolobotomy. the reponses above to/about clinton are little more than nostalgic residuum of those years of sustained group hate orchestrated by the right--the pleasures of group hate, the sense of direction it gives, etc.

on the other hand, given that the politics of george w. bush roughly square with those of jean-marie le pen, it makes some sense that, for them, obvious centrists like clinton appear to be left ideologues of some mysterious type. but like many of the rhetorical moves you see recurring from the loyal footsoldiers of the neo-mcarthyite set do not refer to anything in the world other people know about, but instead refer to the right itself, to the authorized perception of the political landscape of conservative corporation. so it makes some sense to find a movement that is in fact located around the space of militia groups and snake-handling churches pretending that it represents the "mainstream" and that any and all opposition is a type of fifth column.

but again, this is not about the world. it is about conservatives themselves---nothing and no-one else.

as for the question of jeb bush running for president: i think you'll find that it never happens. even the right knows that, as of now, bush is among the least popular presidents ever, that his policies are not widely supported by the public, and can derive the obvious consequence--that another bush would be understood as more of the same. jeb would be among the finer gifts the right will give the rest of us. and i doubt very much that even the right's arrogance goes so far as to authorize a second bushrun for president any time soon.

All rules have exceptions. I myself know some hard working liberals, I know some with genius IQs, I know some who give back a ton to the community. It is not for these people that we have self defeating programs like social security, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, racial quotas etc. Liberalism as practiced appeals to the lazy. Let some other hardworking slob pick up the slack (again much like communism). To succeed it needs people to be like you, but there isnt enough self-motivated people. They are lazy and will take the easy road most of the time. As such motivation fails when the motivation is working for a better society (what’s in it for me eh?!) and you get the reality. Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty, it creates a permanent underclass, but if your intentions were good who cares right? Hell I'd be happy to live in the socalist Utopia, provided it would work, but as long as people are people, alturism will always fail long term.

I just love tangents :thumbsup:

Rice '08 :D

I agreed with everything you said until this paragraph. I think he will eventually run, and it wouldnt' at all surprise me if he won. The public has an amazing ability to come down with political amnesia. Remember, Bush Jr's dad was president, and was so horridly unpopular that he didn't even get two terms, even though he was the Reagan administration's golden boy. Yet the public elected bush in '04 - an amazing feat considering that even though they didn't elect him in '00, they still got a 4 year preview of what a legitimate Bush administration would do.

So unless Bush were to turn into Hitler version 2.0 tomorrow, I don't think his incompetence would significantly hurt his brother's chances.

And Ustwo, republicans have no business whining about a permanent underclass when it's the republican-backed wealthy tax breaks that sustain the underclass today.

I understand your position. I just disagree with it. :)

If you don't help people when they're down, you end up with an obscene "capitalist, free market" aberration like Brazil, post Communist Russia or Columbia.

There, the rich are free to avoid fulfilling their obligations to society and the poor are free to starve or die, due to lack of access to medical care.

Me too. :D

Mr Mephisto

I dunno... I support this to some degree... just like I think things may have come out for the better had Perot won back in the day. Trump (like Perot) is more aligned with business than with any political affiliation. Maybe someone not so wrapped up in politics is the kind of person we need running for Prez in '08...?!


~X

So please explain to me his position on

- Social Security reform
- Foreign Policy
+ Afghanistan
+ Iraq
+ Korea
+ Iran
+ South East Asia
+ Engagement with China on human rights reform
+ Democratization in general
- Environment
+ Oil exploitation in Alaska
+ Kyoto protocol
+ Promotion of alternative power sources
+ Reform of EPA guidelines
- Fiscal policy
+ Plans to "balance the budget"
+ Corporate Law reform
- Social issues
+ Same sex marriages
+ Abortion
+ Stem cell research
- National science policy
+ Government funding of research
+ NASA
+ FDA and pharmaceutical policy

What?

You don't know?

He's just a "trumped up" celebrity with silly hair, a popular TV show and a bankrupt hotel?

Oh, OK....


Trump as President of the United States, and being elected to the position of most powerful man on Earth, is a joke. A joke of the worst kind. I'd vote for Jeb Bush and a desklamp as running mate before him.*


Mr Mephisto

* - If I had a vote.

Jeb Bush probbly has the base qualifications for a presidential run, like him or not. But I think it is safe to say that the Bush name has too much controversey for a run anytime soon. Besides, he says he doesn't want to run, just like HIllary says she doesn't want to run.

I think that a McCain-Powell ticket, McCain-Rice, would work nicely. Giuliani is apparently too moderate, according to pundits, and Schwarzenegger is the supposedly the same (and has that naughty Austrian birthright to overcome Constitutionally!).

As for waht the Democrats have in store...I honestly don't have a clue! I think that they will back Clinton into a corner and ask her to break her promise to us New Yorkers and run anyway. I hate to say this, but Hillary Clinton has probably done a decent job representing us here in NY, and I was in the front row calling her a carpetbagger when her plane landed for a campaign stop! The people I know who dislike her have that feeling because of what she allowed her husband to do to her, and get away with, and the generally "cold as ice" exterior that she presents.

Of course, Rice seems to be just as cold on occasion, so maybe I'm throwing the hypocrisy on too thick. But it is easier to do it to a person who's views aren't in agreement with your own, no?

BOttom line: Gimme a GOP Moderate in '08 and I'll be juuuust fine.

I'd go for a Rice-McCain ticket (or the other way, perhaps- but i'd much ratehr see Rice as pres than McCain). I just don't see anyone on the Dem front who's even slightly interesting.

As one of the chief architects of the tower of lies used to trick the country into going to war, I'm afraid I could not vote for Ms. Rice.

McCain would be a good choice ( <3 McCain )

Mr Mephisto, your question is a perfect example of what is so wrong with American politics today. Positions aren't everything... ability is just as, if not more, important. Name a U.S. President in the last 100 years that hasn't changed his mind about something during his presidency. It happens almost every term, and almost every president. Why? Because the world changes. Since life in the global community is dynamic, so must be a U.S. President. But even so, you can have all the great ideas in the world, you'll still be a crappy prez if you can't make any of them happen.

Bush, Bush, Kerry, Rice, et al are just political puppets. They know how to make things LOOK like they're happening. They know how to grease a palm or two, or outwit their opponent on the podium. WTF has GWB actually DONE? Gone to war and spent billions upon billions of dollars MORE than estimated on a war that doesn't benefit his country? Hmmm... I thought the primary responsibility of the President of the United States was to worry about the United States... I guess not. *shrug*

Sure, Trump has bad hair and a TV show. So the hell what? Reagan was half dead and used to act with a monkey. If you take the extreme, most presidents haven't been particularly qualified... Maybe we can have Rice and Bonzo ticket (the monkey WAS a republican, right?).

My point in all this is that platforms, positions and politics have really screwed up the way my country is run, so I'd like to see a different approach, even if for just four years. Aren't there any James K. Polk's that could run?

*grumble*

Your response is a perfect example of what is so wrong with American politics today. Image isn't everything. Ability is just as, if not more, important.

He has shown his ability to bankrupt businesses and to host a TV show. Nothing else. Dislike Reagan as much as I do, he was a consumate politican with a long history of success in California. The comparision between Trump and he is useless.

What makes you think a complete amateur, with no political experience, acumen or ability, famous for his ex-wife and a pithy catch-phrase, would make a better President than anyone of the other potential candidates?

I can't believe you think wondering what a person's ability, background, experience and position on the major issues of the day is an example of what you call "what's wrong with politics". The exact opposite is true.

You're fired.

:)


Mr Mephisto

Don't worry, if California goes bankrupt he can just sell it off. I mean, it's just one of the states -- there are 49 others! :lol:

First why are you so upset at the mere mention of Trump??????? Sounds more personal than just "he's not qualified".

Secondly, when I was younger my dad told me the president is a figurehead, he surrounds himself with advisors and they help him make decisions. While the decision is ultimately the President's the advisors (cabinet) are far more qualified in their fields. NO MAN can know everything, and my belief is Trump (who has never had to come forward with any political stance because he has never run for office) would surround himself with the most qualified people possible regardless of party.

Plus, Trump has what 2 years and a few months, before primary season, to come forward on his policies?

What was Bush's or Kerry's or whomever's stance on those issues????? Weren't they all pretty much partyline dictated????? My belief is Trump would cross party lines, find people who are the best in their fields and let them do their job and advise him..... then take that advice weigh the options and make educated decisions NOT based on party lines but based on what is BEST for the country as he sees it (which is what the president's office is all about).

Would Trump make mistakes????? Most certainly (every president does), however, he admits his mistakes and he given his history he has always corrected them, learnt from them and has come back stronger.

Granted his ego is extreme, but so was everyone else's who ever has become president.

I just firmly believe that Trump is the man who could put partisan politics aside and get what was needed done...... done. AND THAT IS WHY YOU VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT, YOU VOTE FOR WHO WILL GET THINGS DONE.

The only problem........... Trump probably (99.99% sure of this) will never run for president, so all this is a moot point anyway.

And speaking of California, what were Schwarzenegger's qualifications to run the state with the world's 8th largest economy?????

In the high office, it's truly not the stance (anyone can say anything and take a stance just to win), it is ACTIONS that are most important, and Trump IMHO has shown time and time again that even through adversity he knows how to get things done and surrounds himself with the best people to make sure they get done...... and to me that IS THE greatest presidential trait any man can have. When Trump has fucked up, he says, "I fucked up." he doesn't blame publicly the advisor because he is man enough to accept responsibility. And when Trump fucks up, after he admits it, he works his damnedest to correct the fuck up.

He may not be perfect but I would rather see Trump than some manicured, well versed, groomed from birth politician who knows what to say and how to say it, become president. Trump isn't perfect, but he isn't a career politician that has spent his lifetime saying whatever he needs to to get elected.

I would rather elect a man on principle and my belief he can get the job done, than some guy who takes his party's line and says whatever he has to, to get elected. I don't think Trump would ever kowtow to anyone, Trump has proven to me time and time again he is his own man and if that is not what a true president needs to do, then let's keep electing by party..... and going down the shitter.

I don't want a man selling me piss and saying it's lemonade and having a political party tell him to add sugar or Nutra-sweet. I'd rather have a man say, "don't drink the piss, let me get some real lemonade." And IMHO that man is Trump.

DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08

Of course you could read:
"The America We Deserve by Donald Trump, Dave Shiflett, Donald J. Trump"

and perhaps find what his political stances would be.

All I know about this book is that his first choice for Vice President would be Oprah Winfrey.

Let's just leave it at that, shall we?


Mr Mephisto

That was hype and he had a list of whom he thought would be good in office.... her name appeared and Limbaugh had a field day with it. LOL didn't mention the others on the list did he?

Well, I stand corrected, in that he has obviously penned a book of his political thoughts. At least that's something more than Arnold did!

But I just don't think he'd make a good President.

Call me an old fashioned cynic if you will... :)

Mr Mephisto

PS - I actually respect and like Ms Winfrey a great deal. But that doesn't qualify her for the job of VP!

The last thing I want is a camera whore president.

No Trump, no Arnold, no Hilary, no McCain.

Yes, McCain is a camera whore. When a politician is worried about their image I worry about the job they are doing. Sometimes a president would need to do things which would make people unhappy somewhere.

I don't think Trump would have a problem doing that.

Aren't ALL politicians like this? The only ones I can think of who act more in line with their beliefs than that which they believe is most popular are the likes of Tony Blair, Kim Beazley (I don't expect you to know who this is) and JFK.

Mr Mephisto

I fail to see this about McCain... to me he seems like just a normal guy... that's why I like him.

McCain's strength is also what the right dislikes about him.... he's his own man. Pure and simple, he stands up for what he believes and because he has a mind of his own and truly knows long term politics is compromise, ordinary people like his honesty. The right however dislike the fact that he can see through their bullshit and calls them on it.

Mr Mephisto, I would like to know why you still take the opinions of Americans seriously enough to justify engaging us in this forum. After "electing" in recent times, presidential tickets that relegated us to live under 20 years of the "leadership" of Reagan, Quayle, and finally, Bush, why the "God help us", in your thread title?

A signifigant number of us our proud of our choices, and most of the rest of us seem accepting enough of these choices. You witnessed the media reaction to the homage, reverence, tribute, and praise, paid to mediocrity here, one year ago during the week of "all Reagan, all of the time", on the occasion of his passing.

Outside of our cultural influence on the rest of the world, is there any other incentive that draws you to us, other than a need to keep tabs on our potential to use our military power in an increasingly ill conceived or reckless manner? Your "God help us" reaction to "more Bush", IMO, should be to this:
It is advisable to keep an eye on us, Mr Mephisto. Our lack of judgment exhibited by who we choose to lead us, and the choices that these "leaders" have made and are making, as well as the caliber of their public "performances", insinuates that the people who prevail at the voting booth or at the Supreme Court, the ones trotted out to speak to the TV cameras, cannot possibly be the decision makers. The people that make the decisions apparently are largely unseen, and it matters little who we vote for, if we keep the staus quo of our two party system and a press that provides the "in depth" coverage of examples like "CONPLAN 8022"!

At what point do you tell someone enough is enough and its time to get a job?

Hunger is the best sauce.

You mean GWB is running on whta keeps him the most popular? :confused:

This is rather a simplistic question.

What if there are no jobs?
What if the jobs are so badly paid as to be "sweat shops" or "slave labour"? Just because someone makes a profit out of explotitive work-practices, doesn't make them right you know.

Hah. My mother used to say that to me all the time. I find myself repeating it to my wife when she's impatient with my cooking.

But I would never have used it to justify an uncaring, profit-oriented, exploititive socio-economic industrial work policy.

Go figure... :)


Mr Mephisto

Erm... What do you think Karl Rove does? Water the flowers in the White House?


Mr Mephisto

I would say that at the point where all the jobs that were lost due to Bush's bumbling around with the economy are available again, you can start bitching at people to get jobs.

I certainly agree that America needs welfare reform, but that does not mean welfare destruction. Part of that welfare reform would be removing laws that penalize people who get minimum wage jobs in an attempt to get off of welfare. If you're pulling in $1000 a week on welfare, and you get a job where you're pulling in $900 a week, but that $900 disqualifies you to receive ANY welfare, then you don't have much incentive to get that job now do you?

After all, while you might certainly want to be independent, that extra $100 can be the deciding factor in whether or not you eat.

So we have people who can't get off welfare because starting at the bottom and working your way up isn't an option, since you'd starve before you could work your way up.

In other words, sure, reform welfare.

But it's very easy for you, Ustwo, to sit there with all your money and all the food and clothing and shelter you need, and plenty of extras, and cast judgement on the poor. It's very easy to forget that sometimes you wind up in that situation through no fault of your own. It's very easy to forget that a shocking number of American citizens are one illness, one car wreck, one paycheck away from being on the streets. It's not that they're lazy, as anti-welfare people love to portray them. They work damn hard. In fact, I'll tell you right now that the poor goober unloading pallettes at Walmart works a HELL of a lot harder than you or I do, and he makes a lot less than we do as well. But he's an hourly employee who's scheduled at odd hours that make it next to impossible for him to even try to interview for a better job. He cant' go in for an interview by skipping a day of work because that again would mean the difference between him buying food or not. So he's trapped in this ultra low wage job from which escape is terribly difficult. And if he gets sick or hurt off the job or let go for whatever reason, then he'll find himself in a terrible situation, and could even have to go on welfare in order to make ends meet.

And keep in mind that a lot of the people working at jobs like Walmart, Home Depot, and Kmart used to have well paying jobs. Last year I interviewed a guy stocking lightbulbs at a hardware store who had been a well paid vice president at a major manufacturing company, but was downsized when the economy soured. Now he's trying to support a wife and 3 kids on a salary that's a tiny fraction of what he used to have.

That's never happened to you, and in all likelihood you've never bothered to talk to people to whom it HAS happened. That makes it very difficult for me to accept your passing judgement on them.

Please don't tell me you are still doing 'the recesssion was Bush's fault' line.

It didn't work very well in 2004, its no better now.

Really so Tony Blair does what he thinks is right, but Bush is out for popularity.

Interesting.

Sorry to get between you two, but they both are off their rockers... Bush and Blair care less for their countrymen than your average nihilist. They DO, however, care about their appearances more than Mary Kate and Ashley.

Yes. I am. Because it's the truth.

I don't care how well "it worked" in 2004 - I'm not trying to get someone elected here. I'm stating facts. And when I said it in 2004, it wasn't just an election tactic, it was a fact. Trickledown economics is a flawed, stupid system. It does not work. You had 12 years of Reagan/Bush I to try it, and it tanked on you.

It's a moronic concept, it has no hope of working, and in fact one of its chief implementers famously called it voodoo economics.

When you reduce income while increasing spending, bad things happen to the economy. Smart investors know this and start pulling their money out of the economy to keep it safe. That has the snowball effect of doing worse things to the economy, and suddenly you're in the middle of a recession.

Macro economics isn't about money, it's about confidence. If investors aren't confident in the economy, they're not gonna risk their cash in it.

And cutting income while increasing spending is the wrong way to go about trying to increase confidence in an economy.

That's categorically not what I said, or what I meant.

If you are familiar with UK politics, then Peter Mandelson fills a role similar to that of Rove. And he did it before Rove ever became (in)famous.

With regards to the Blair vs Bush argument, let's look at some specifics.

US public supported the war. Bush invaded.
US public supported the "war on terror". Bush initiated it.

UK public overwhelmingly opposed the war. Blair invaded.
UK public overwhelmingly believe the US "Ware on terror" is a crock of shit. Blair is an active ally in the so-called war.


So yes, Blair does what he thinks is right, regardless of public opinion. He got a very bloody nose in the recent election, proving that point.

Bush adopted populist politics, and modified his stance based upon appealing to particular groups; I accept everyone one does this, but I believe Rove pushed this further than heretofore.


Mr Mephisto

So Blairs motive for invading Iraq was pure while Bush's was based on popularity politics? Yet it was Blair who joined Bush on this?

So either Blair is an honest idiot who followed Bush (I know that thought is popular among some) to war.

or

Perhaps Bush did what he thought was best as well and it just so happens the American people supported it.

Regardless of motive though there is one thing I really find amusing, and that people keep trying to find the 'strings' on GWB. First it was Cheney, then after the 'surprising (to the press)' interim elections in 2002 it became Rove, he is the evil genius!

One thing that people need to come to grips with, is like him or loathe him, its Bush who is in charge, and as long as his political opponents underestimate him, they will continue to loose to him.

"That's categorically not what I said, or what I meant."

But...

"US public supported the war. Bush invaded.
US public supported the "war on terror". Bush initiated it.

UK public overwhelmingly opposed the war. Blair invaded.
UK public overwhelmingly believe the US "Ware on terror" is a crock of shit. Blair is an active ally in the so-called war.


So yes, Blair does what he thinks is right, regardless of public opinion. He got a very bloody nose in the recent election, proving that point."

you just said it again.

Not to mention i think you have a very misguided perception of American public opinion about President Bush. Because he won the election doesn't mean he's getting free rides. Nobody has gotten their "nose bloodied" more than Bush, he feels the heat right here in America. I suppose you could see this politics board as a microcosm of America. Though liberal voters are small minority they are very vocal, fierce, and in a strange sort of way...cute.

Hillary is against gay marriage. She wins 2008.

I'm sorry, but if the media was the way it is now, JFK would top the camera whore list. Come on, people! It's Camelot!!

Look at his "greatest" achievement: getting Kruschev to take those nukes back from Cubano. Having nukes in Cuba in no way changed the balance of power or the threat of destruction. It was chiefly an image problem for his presidency and the Democratic Party.

This guy didn't even finish his first term, yet he is probably one of history's most "visible" presidents. His assasination MADE him....like Jesus on the cross.

Sheesh... for an intelligent man, you really like the "let's put words into people's mouths" act. :)

First of all, I never said Bush only does what is popular. YOU said, or at least implied that. I simply mentioned Rove, when I was agreeing with you, that most politicans are more concerned with their image than unpopular policies. I mentioned three politicians who have taken unpopular positions because they believed in it; one from the UK, one from Australia and one from the US. Then you made a saltatious jump and asked if I was asking if GWB only did what was popular.

WTF?!

So let's get this clear.

YOU said it. Not me.

I simply made a passing, amusing comment about Karl Rove, in support of your original statement, and you jumped all over it. It's kinda embarrassing actually, as it's a perfect example of how you will argue with your own position, trying to put words into people's mouths, just to make a point... erm.. that you... erm, kinda already made... but want to argue with.

Kinda whacky, eh? :)

When did I say otherwise? In fact, I've gone on record as saying I believed Bush did what he thought was best, and continues to do what he thinks is best. The fact that I don't agree with him doesn't mean anything. The fact that you are trying to put words into my mouth, and failing, also means nothing.


Find it as funny as you like. Behind the scenes "fixers" are always viewed with suspicion. Rove is the architect of Bush's success, as Mendelson was for Blair. That's the way it is in any democracy. People don't like unelected strategists "pulling the strings". It goes the the terroritory and is no different in the US than the UK or anywhere else I can think of.

It's nothing to do with your usual bugbears of bias in the "liberal media" etc etc. It's just people.

Erm... no they won't. He's gone for good in about three years. :D


Mr Mephisto

Huh?

Well, if "the right wing media" are to be believed... heck, if Ustwo is to be believed, then most US people love him and support his policies. Besides, wasn't he returned with a higher percentage of the vote than his first term?

Sure sounds like a "bloody nose" to me...



Mr Mephisto

Mephisto, your facts are a few months behind ;)

Bush used fabricated evidence to trick the people into supporting his little war. Now that it's not so little, people are dying, we're running out of money, and it's patently obvious to all but the ones with their heads in the sand that the war was waged on false pretenses, the people are getting pissed.

Bush is currently at his lowest approval rating. He's pretty much in the toilet, and even some republicans are pissed off at him.

Man we're off-topic in here.

1. A few of you danced (or crossed) the line of "personal", but have retracted and gone back to fighting opinions, not each other. The next personal comment gets removed and a PM sent explaining why.

2. As for the comment about bush starting a war on fabricated evidence (shakran)... Been there, had 5000 threads on it, this isn't one of them. Don't respond to that part, just respond to the rest of his post and move on.

From me personally, not as a mod...

Blair had to go along with Bush, Blair doesn't dare sour the US/UK relationship by not playing along with Bush in his war games. When a post-9/11 Bush says if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists, you choose your opposition carefully- and once you say you're on board to avoid being labelled as uncaring, you have to stay the course or you're a deserter. You know that's how the headlines would read, and so does he. Don't make Blair out to be some selfless "do-right". He was protecting himself from being seen as indifferent to terrorism- and like I said, once you agree at the beginning, you can't pull out until Bush is done with you.

In light of the interesting hypotheticals raised in here, whatever did happen to Steve Forbes? I don't remember much other than his flat tax proposal.

I think Trump should try mayor first and move up from there if he really wants to play (sorry Pan!). Politics isn't always like business. Personally, egomania aside, I don't think Trump would be interested in the job anyways. Too much red tape LOL!

On another point, I don't think he "gets" how politics, especially foreign affairs "works".

What? The way France did? The way Germany did? The way Russia did?

Blair knew from the start that any action against Iraq, without explicit UN approval (and probably even then), was extremely unpopular with the public. I'm at a loss if you don't realize that.

Don't you remember the anti-war marches and demonstrations? The largest the world have ever seen?

Blair went ahead anyway.

What?

Like Poland? Like Bulgaria? Like Spain?

The facts speak for themselves.


Mr Mephisto

I said those comments to explain WHY the people are pissed. Just saying "the people are pissed" without explaining why wouldn't have made any sense. It wasn't intended to start a debate on whether the evidence is fabricated or not.