General News Americans and Non-Americans alike, who do you want to see as President?

Josiah Edward Bartlet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw

If only he weren't fictional.


In reality I can't see any of this sorry lot being a decent president. Let's see in a few months.

 

If I could vote, I'd probably vote for the Libertarian runner whomever that'd be. I really like the fact that they are completely against government restraint. They basically are like a "you do you" party.

(Am I the only one who hates the rule that only born citizens can become president? You can't help where you're born, and probably many non-Americans know more about the country than some Americans.)

 

On a more serious note than my suggestion above...

I have become a burned out cynic when it comes to Presidential elections. I have seen, I guess, too many "interesting possibilities" who never make it past the early phases of the primary season, if they get that far. It generally ends up, in the end, a choice between two candidates on Election Day, neither of whom would be my #5 choice, let alone my #1 choice. And some years we don't even do that well. This is probably inevitable. A viable winning candidate needs to be at least "hold my nose while I vote for her/him" acceptable to enough people to win. This is not easy when one realizes the US is large, different regions, different demographics at work.

So...I've become somewhat of a resigned cynic. To that end, at this point, I'll realistically be a Hillary Clinton supporter once she wins the nomination. I don't know that I really like her., Indeed, a part of me cringes--I already lived through 8 Clinton years; let's have someone fresh! But no matter...she'll be better than any of the Republican candidates for a number of issues I'm concerned about. For that matter, even Alfred E. Neuman would probably do a better job than most of the Republicans out there.

 

This is just not true. In the beginning, Obama was compromising with himself. Before he even sat down at the table, he was making compromises and concessions. Let's use the ACA as an example. Those of us on the left wanted a single payer healthcare system, comparable (ideally superior) to what other first world nations have. Obama threw that off the table immediately, and tried to placate us with the "public option." He threw that off the table as well. He basically twisted himself into a pretzel to get it passed, and it still didn't get any Republican votes. This was predictable. If you are going to have to own a piece of major legislation like that, then you damn well better make sure it is something you want to buy.

The other major thing he did was the Stimulus package. That was something that every mainstream and respectable economists said we needed to prevent the country from falling into an economic depression. Now, in fairness to Obama he was in a tough spot here. It involved timing. Had the economic meltdown happened a year or so prior, then the blame would have entirely been on Bush. However, it happened right at the very end of the Bush Presidency, and so the worst had not yet hit the American people. This meant that Obama had to come in and craft a policy to avoid an economic depression, but unfortunately in politics you don't get credit for averting disasters. You only get credit for how you manage and guide people through them.

If I were Obama, I would have to make a calculation. Do I act now, avert disaster, but be seen as someone who is overreacting? Or do I let the disaster happen, while sending out surrogates to let everyone know that it is coming and happening--surrogates who are blaming the previous administration--and then once things are really bad, that's when I act to make things better? There are pro's and con's to both, with the second being more dangerous for obvious reasons.

The real issue with how Obama handled the Stimulus was that he allowed Congress to have too much control over the bill. If you are going to do a huge spending bill, then it's best to dump it on infrastructure: A) Because it is an investment. B) Because it is something tangible that you can point too. C) Because the country needs to update our infrastructure anyway.

He used the crisis poorly, and he made bad political decisions.

 

I would like to see Ben Carson run and win.
Hillary is not the answer, she would complete the destruction of this country started by Jimmy Carter, continued by her Bill Clinton, expanded by George Bush out of ignorance, accelerated by obama out of revenge.
We need someone that will put a hold on foreign aid for a while, repeal the ACA, Cut taxes and regulations on business so they will come back to the country and stimulate job growth, and at the same time put effort into investigating welfare fraud and ending it. Then we have that whole amnesty thing, that has to end, our immigration laws dont need to be fixed, they just need to be enforced. And before those from the south American countries get on me about that, think about what would happen to me if I were caught illegally crossing the border into your country with the intent to work and stay. Deportation is much more a humane response than what your countries would do.
One thing I never understood is that the democrats vote for democrats because they are for the poor, yet, every year the number of poor is greater than the previous, and still, the poor have some idea that the democrats are doing something for them.
Look at it this way.
If you depend on poor people to vote for you to stay in office, do you really want to get rid of the poor people?
if you depend on the upper middle class and the rich to stay in office, is it more likely that you would want to increase the number of upper class and rich.

 

O'Malley is my personal favorite, or Elizabeth Warren, but I'll vote for Hillary over any of those crazy Republicans they have this time around.

But really, I think we should just do the reasonable thing:

Abolish the whole system, and appoint me all-powerful ruler and King!

 

Two words: Elizabeth Warren

 

are you serious? O'Malley.. after what he did to Maryland? really?
wow....

 

On a side note, as someone who aspires to hold elected office, this isn't exactly something the politician in me would want being shared around. However, it's how all of politics works.

[youtube]wz_V4lRdtjo[/youtube]

Some people may run for office with good intentions, but to stay in office, you have to understand how DC works, and get over the shame that comes with it. Better to do that before you start plotting a campaign strategy, in my opinion.

 

Yeah I agree he handled some things very poorly but politics is complicated you have to cut deals and get the votes and that takes a lot of time and work and think about the political affects of decision you make. I am sure Obama meant well with what he has done. Look at the bright side he is way better than George W Bush. The point that i was getting at is Obama may have pushed too much partisan legislation through congress in his first years causing a loss of house seats and governor races which caused republican governors to redistrict and the democrats to lose more house seats. I do give Obama credit though for a improved economy and I think Hillary will make it even better.

 

Rand Paul from the right, Bernie Sanders from the left. Honestly I don't really care. Any one but Hillary. Most likely I'll exercise my right to abstain.

 

You have to cut deals and negotiate, but you don't do it like Obama. When you know you have to negotiate, you start by staking out a position far beyond what you actually want and far beyond what you think you'll actually get. This gives you room to negotiate, and you only sit down with people who are interested in making a deal.

A great example of how Republican's have operated was seen early in Obama's Administration. Seven Republicans, John McCain was among them, came out with a legislative plan called PayGo. Basically, that meant that if the government wanted to increase spending, it had to either cut spending somewhere else or raise revenue--all new spending had to be paid for. Obama decided that he would support this plan as proposed by them, and every last Republican turned against it--including the Republicans who proposed it. That's the type of people Obama was dealing with.

When you are dealing with people like this in a deal, and once you've given some concessions to try and earn their vote, you can start putting on the breaks on their concessions. If they decide that they want to make DRASTIC changes, or changes far beyond what you are willing to accept, make it clear that it is unacceptable. If they decide to walk away, inform them that everything that they've negotiated down will be added back to the bill if they walk. You may even add some stuff to punish their state and districts--such as cutting spending that specifically goes to those places--just to make it clear you mean business. Once they are back at the table, you negotiate with a little pork to sweeten the deal--a little honey to make the medicine go down.

What you are trying to do in a negotiation is to get the most favorable deal possible for yourself, but at the same time you want to give enough away to let the other side save some face. This way they can turn to their supporters and say, "Hey look, we couldn't stop it, but this is what we did to make it better." Then they can also turn to their constituents and say, "Hey, look, I know you may not like this, but here is what they offered us, it's something we need, so I couldn't vote against it."

This is how deals are made in democratic representative governments. You have to be willing to stake out a firm position, give your opposition enough to save face, and then find ways to sweeten the deal when necessary. You also need ways to punish those who walk away from the table.

Obama didn't do any of this. As I said, he was negotiating with himself, giving stuff away before he had wiling partners on the other side. He also was not feared enough in his own party, and he allowed the more conservative members of his party too much freedom.

This was one of the political disasters of the ACA. It was negotiated piecemeal, it was difficult to explain, and it was complicated. Naturally, Republicans attacked it--that's not a shock--but then Democrats fled from their own legislation. By running away from the ACA, they were not defending it. When you are under attack like that, your response should never be to run away or flee. It should be to counter attack. The best defense is a good offense, and so when Republicans started attacking the ACA, the Democrats should have come out guns blazing.

When the "Tea Party" started up, they should have immediately launched a smear campaign against them. The goal should have been to humiliate, demonize, and stigmatize them in the eyes of the American people. They could have killed the movement in its cradle before it took its first few steps. There would have been no red tide against Democrats.

The first thing I would have done when the Tea Party started showing up on the scene, would have been to find the most extreme most out there person, someone I know who would do the movement more harm than good, and then give them a platform to speak and do stupid shit. Then I paint the entire movement with a broad brush.

But no, the first instinct for Democrats was to freak out and try to appease the Tea Party. Of course, once the Tea Party became more well known, and Democrats finally started pushing back, they became hugely unpopular. Unfortunately, by that time redistricting had already taken place.

Obama's problems had nothing to do with his "partisan legislation"--every piece of legislation he has advocated for or supported in his entire Presidency has been acceptable to mainstream Republicans both on the center right and the right. His problem is not that he was too partisan, it was the fact that the far right hated that he existed, and they took over the Republican party. There were two major things he did at the start of his administration: the Stimulus and the ACA. Mainstream economists on the right and the left supported the idea of a Stimulus, and had there been a Republican President there would have also been a Stimulus. The core parts of the ACA was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation back in the 90's in response to Bill Clinton's healthcare proposal AKA "Hillary Care" and then it was implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. The ACA was a Republican plan from the very beginning, and only became more Republican as time went on. The left has always supported a universal single payer system.

This is the reason Republicans clearly have no idea on what they'll do if they repeal the ACA. It's already a Republican plan. They can't make a plan that strives for universal coverage more Republican. This goes back to my argument about negotiations. Republicans already have the plan they would have supported enacted into law through Obama. In fact, it is probably further to the right than a universal coverage plan they would have enacted were the power roles at the time reversed (with a Republican President and Congress). Since Obama gave them everything that they wanted in the ACA, they have no where to go except to repeal it entirely, and abandon the concept of universal coverage all together.

 

As a complete outsider, my preference would be Hillary Clinton. History shows that Europe works better with a Democrat President and I think it's important for US voters to consider that most important bilateral relationship. In an increasingly unstable world we don't need a strained or fractured relationship between the United States and Europe. I would hate to see Americans look inwards, rather than outwards.

 

Realistically....Hillary Clinton. Idealistically...Bernice Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Dennis Kucinich.

I would never vote Republican again for any reason.

 

Actually, History and current events show that the US works better under Conservative leadership, look at the shape of Democrat run cities and states VS Conservative cities and states. As far as how well a certain party works for Europe, thats not really the concern when we vote, the concern is my table, my cost of living, my fuel costs etc... If those in Europe have an issue, they need to vote out the existing law makers and vote someone in that will change it for them. start ignoring the U.S and live how you want.

 

Seems a rather parochial view, but that's your privilege. In a globalised world, I think we have to look beyond our own shores when casting a vote. Hopefully, most of your countrymen and women will take a broader view.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, I have to wonder how many Americans realize that there are other countries out there, let alone the fact that it's nice if we can get along.

 

This might be the craziest thing I've read on here...ever. Repeal the ACA? And what go back to the way it was? No thanks. The ACA is not perfect but a step in the right direction.

Cut taxes and regulations on businesses so they'll come back to the US? This is almost as laughable as "Trickle down theory".

Last time I checked I'm middle class so the poor voting for democrats is insulting. What about all the poor people in the south that think voting Republican will help them, it's even more laughable.

 

I think we have to worry about our own shores first. and right now the U.S has some serious problems from our debt to our borders. We need to stop borrowing money just to turn around and give it to other countries, this makes no sense, we need to close the borders and as cold as it sounds, send those here illegally back, we cant afford to keep them and pay for them. The money does not magically come from the U.S government, it comes from the paycheck of the individual tax payer, every dollar spent on these things is one less dollar to spend on our own families. it adds up and it has to be stopped.
Plus we really dont need other countries dictating our laws on human rights, gun control, military etc... as we do not need to be sticking our nose in the way the European countries conduct their business.

 

Not to mention Ben Carson is bat shit crazy:

"Tea party favorite Ben Carson has said some out-there stuff. The former neurosurgeon, author, and possible Republican presidential candidate once compared women who get abortions to dog-abuser Michael Vick, blamed the decline and fall of the Roman Empire on gay marriage, and concluded that believing in evolution was like thinking that "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could somehow assemble a fully equipped and flight-ready 747."

Just what we need, someone that thinks Gays were the fall of the Roman Empire.... This guy should stay with the other crazies at their tea party