http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/209921-if-you-had-vote-one-these-president.html ...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.
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.
I picked John Searle, since he's the granddaddy of kicking Commie ass ! Oh wait, I got confused with Richard Perle. crap...
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).
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
They were meant to be a bit 'off' and a lot eclectic. 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.
Yeah, the problem is that you can't be a profound thinker without the requisite intelligence... but you can be an idiot even if you are intelligent enough to be a thinker!
Idiots, by definition, tend not to do a lot of thinking. Indeed, idiots fear thinking, either for themselves and for others.
You don't take an interest in the policy of other nations? I personally like to keep abreast of what is happening in other countries, esp their foreign policy.
Only one of those is true, and I am not going to say which. Feeling a bit bad that Steve Jobs died today. I didn't even realise he was ill. Too young to die.
Yeah, he changed the world in a good way. I don't know anyone who got pancreatic cancer and survived for long.
Sad. Cancer - the great leveller, for no matter what you have money wise, it WILL get you in the end, if it's going to get you.
