Originally Posted by Ezeth
Find it amusing how people care if its a woman/man if he/she is black or white. If he/she is born in USA or not, what name they have and so on. How would that in any way effect their ability to be good leaders what so ever? Jeb Bush seems to be the guy to vote for if you find economic growth and immigration policy important, more open boarders, pro-life while Hillary Clinton seems to be more education and foreign policy oriented, if you want less troops abroad and "hillarycare" to be implemented. It seems like they are both going in the direction of a more open and more covering medical care which is a major issue as of today.
Seeing how the USA has hardly any jobs or carrers booming for needing people, I would rather have a economic growth president. As for Clinton, fuck no because that reject will just be another G. Bush
Originally Posted by Uncas23
The next president will be Hillary Clinton because she is woman and its USA so why not. "Who cares, lets just act like we were nice people and dont give a ... about economy and decisions." The next will be a black woman. After that an asian, a gay and finally conchita wurst.
The last two times I heard this thought, my country elected a terrorist twice. Just because she is a woman, just because she is friend of the last president and so on...
Nobody (more than half of people -.-) paid attention to her qualifications/past and now, imo (or just read the news), Brazil is fucked up.
Originally Posted by Obama
Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort? (Applause.)
Obama gave his State of the Union Address recently. The State of the Union Address is essentially the first indicator we get of the topics that will be contested in the election. Obama focussed his address on income inequality. The rich have been getting richer, and at the expense of everyone else. The top 1% of Americans haven't earned as high a share of national income since 1928. The last decade has been great for the top percentages, but for the middle class, it's been described as a 'lost decade'. Why?
From an article on Bloomburg, Jeff Greene blames globalisation.
“My greatest worry for our country is that globalization and the exponential growth of technology which have destroyed millions of jobs already, will undoubtedly eliminate millions and millions more jobs during the next several years,” he said. “Many manufacturing jobs that we lost will come back to the U.S., but most will be filled by robots and software.”
Krugman, from the NY Times, while recognising the impact of globalisation on income inequality, points to other issues;
Competition from emerging-economy exports has surely been a factor depressing wages in wealthier nations, although probably not the dominant force. More important, soaring incomes at the top were achieved, in large part, by squeezing those below: by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, and diverting a rising share of national resources to financial wheeling and dealing.
Greene also talks about how the perception of middle class isn't in line with the realities of middle class. We're operating on post-war - early 70s (the golden age) understanding of what it means to be middle class, when the middle class (and everyone else) was doing far better off.
“America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence,” Greene said in an interview today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We need to reinvent our whole system of life."
Election topics are picked based on data from polls and focus groups. You get a bunch of people in a room (/poll loads of people), ask them to come up with a list of what's important to them, and then you construct your campaigns based around what the big issues to people are. Evidently, people are starting to get sick of this ever-increasing economic inequality in their country. Good. It's an issue that's been ignored for far too long. No matter how disingenous the politicians' intentions are, at least the issue will finally be discussed. Far too often bipartisan failures are swept under the rug - it doesn't do anyone any good bringing them up.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 9, 2015 at 06:42 AM.
In the Northeast, Bush continues to maintain a three-point lead over his next closest competitor, Walker, winning 18 percent of the potential Republican electorate in New Hampshire to the Wisconsin politicians' 15 percent.
Just behind were Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 14 percent, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, 13 percent, the NBC News poll, released Sunday, revealed.
I want Ron, not Rand! I wouldn't mind Christie either. Jeb Bush is just the setup to some crazy Orwell novel.
So, if Jeb Bush is some Orwell novel, what does that make Donald Trump... some Ayn Rand shiz?
What do we all think about the current situation? "What is the current situation" - Donald Trump is preferred by the voters, over all other candidates, in the Republican primaries. Do you think this will be short-lived, and when election time comes around, America will focus on the more 'serious' candidates (as the other Republicans believe), or do you think he has a legit chance at becoming the Republican's candidate?
Looking further down the line, do you think that Trump would make a good president? Good qualities, bad qualities? Considering that he's not your regular politician, how do you think that'd impact the status quo (with respect to the corrupt political climate)?
What do we all think about the current situation? "What is the current situation" - Donald Trump is preferred by the voters, over all other candidates, in the Republican primaries. Do you think this will be short-lived, and when election time comes around, America will focus on the more 'serious' candidates (as the other Republicans believe), or do you think he has a legit chance at becoming the Republican's candidate?
Looking further down the line, do you think that Trump would make a good president? Good qualities, bad qualities? Considering that he's not your regular politician, how do you think that'd impact the status quo (with respect to the corrupt political climate)?
