Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 4th Dec 2016, 12:16
  #4581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
Get a grip people. Is China going to dictate who an individual from one country can talk to? China has enough issues on its plate that the west rail against, human rights being but one. And then the South China Sea and foreign recognition of the Dalai Lama. You going to genuflect and say "what ever you want Mr. Xi Jinping"?
megan is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 12:29
  #4582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
Lots of negatives towards Strump in the recent several post above and perhaps some shared by myself.

However, I'm with megan's post on this one.

In my view the phone call was one of no harm intended towards big China and if others infer otherwise, than let it be.

It's interesting how the news searches for negatives against everything Strumpet does, real or imagined.

So I just tend to ignore that side as continued sour grapes
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 13:01
  #4583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post
Lots of negatives towards Strump in the recent several post above and perhaps some shared by myself.

However, I'm with megan's post on this one.

In my view the phone call was one of no harm intended towards big China and if others infer otherwise, than let it be.

It's interesting how the news searches for negatives against everything Strumpet does, real or imagined.

So I just tend to ignore that side as continued sour grapes
I agree. I instinctively dislike him, but that's based on some personal experience having overheard him having a rant when he was over a here a year or so ago, plus the way he comes across.

I think we have to separate out the personal characteristics of the man and put them to one side, as what really matters is what he does when in office.

I do agree that he's starting from a pretty bad place when it comes to the way many countries outside the US already view him. At best he's seen as a bit of a joke, at worst he's seen in ways I couldn't reasonably present here without risking a ban. Suffice to say that he needs to do a great deal of work to establish good working relationships with the friends and allies of the US, and frankly I think he's got an uphill path to tread to do that.

Domestically he may well be seen in a different light. Maybe he is just what the US needs to sort out some of their domestic problems.

I think the big risk is that it's very hard to separate out domestic from foreign politics in so many areas, as the global nature of trade makes it near-impossible to do some of the things he wants to do.

As has been already mentioned, it's not cheap Chinese goods that have damaged the US (and UK) manufacturing sector, it's large domestic manufacturers shifting their work off shore. In the case of the US, pretty much all the big-name US manufacturers, particularly in the IT sector, have just moved all their manufacture out of the US to the Far East. The same happened here in the UK and elsewhere around the world, and there's no quick and easy fix to bring that manufacture back, unless the US domestic market is prepared to accept the higher cost.

I'm hoping that, once we get away from the hysteria that's surrounded this election, we will be able to have a more informed view as to the good and bad qualities of the President Elect.
VP959 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 13:08
  #4584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
The problem isn't The Donald, per se. The problem is that our political situation is in such a mess that he and his opponent in the election were the choices on offer. If those two are the best that we can produce for that job, we've got some problems in the body politic, root cause, of which his selection is but a symptom.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 13:31
  #4585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
I read HuffPo, NYT, more than anything on TV or radio.
That is an interesting claim, GF, considering your political proclamations, accusations, and suppositions are often clearly right out of Breitfart, Drudge, Hannity and their ilk. Funny how your point of view typically dovetails with the news sources I listed, rather than the ones you claim to regularly read.

Perhaps there is a Conservative bat-shit crazy carrier wave that only special people can tune into for their political insights and opinions.
One has to be widely read these and not be influenced by one -sided commentary. A good grounding in economics helps. An African-Indian pilot from Reunion Island, I flew with for for two weeks on Asia complemented by saying I was the most open and thoughtful Yank he'd meet. 'Tis very true that boards like this tip people to their extremes.

Joel Kotkin is always interesting, a transplanted Califorian who thinks local.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-control.html

The US returning to being the United StateS of America would be good for all. The source of our red-blue divisions is the ever increasing Federal government who lacks the suppleness required in a large, populace country. If a state wants weed legal, let 'em. If a state wants one-payer health financing, knock yourself out, Vermont, just don't come to Alabama looking for money

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 13:40
  #4586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by VP959
As has been already mentioned, it's not cheap Chinese goods that have damaged the US (and UK) manufacturing sector, it's large domestic manufacturers shifting their work off shore. In the case of the US, pretty much all the big-name US manufacturers, particularly in the IT sector, have just moved all their manufacture out of the US to the Far East.
Hempy is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 13:51
  #4587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
The problem isn't The Donald, per se. The problem is that our political situation is in such a mess that he and his opponent in the election were the choices on offer. If those two are the best that we can produce for that job, we've got some problems in the body politic, root cause, of which his selection is but a symptom.
I can't help but agree, and still find myself shocked and amazed that those two candidates were the best the people of the US could put forward.
VP959 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 15:10
  #4588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
I can't help but agree, and still find myself shocked and amazed that those two candidates were the best the people of the US could put forward.
blame it on the deplorables that run both parties.

It's mostly money and entitlements but we never imagined that a guy with influence and money could do it on their own
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 02:30
  #4589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post

The US returning to being the United StateS of America would be good for all. The source of our red-blue divisions is the ever increasing Federal government who lacks the suppleness required in a large, populace country. If a state wants weed legal, let 'em. If a state wants one-payer health financing, knock yourself out, Vermont, just don't come to Alabama looking for money

GF
Alabama is ranked #2 overall in reliance on Federal money for its people and the state government, while Vermont is #21. More generally, it is the red states that draw the most from the Federal teat, with some, like the crimson red South Carolina, where for every $1 sent to Washington, they get nearly $8 in return. So tis not Vermont looking for money as much as it is Alabama and her red state compatriots that enjoy the most time feeding at the Federal trough.

Red/blue divisiveness at the personal level comes mainly from social issues, the injection of religion into our secular government, and economics (trickle down vs meaningful tax reform, corporate welfare vs entitlements).

If you sat a group of Americans down at a round table, chances are, despite all of the above, there would be a lot more that unite than divide them, however, that's not how our political system is working these days. Politicians on both sides gain power from dividing Americans - divide and conquer - a method that is generally more favored by those on the right, although the left certainly has issues that also support these (winning, but damaging) modus operandi.

vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 02:50
  #4590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Alabama is ranked #2 overall in reliance on Federal money for its people and the state government, while Vermont is #21. More generally, it is the red states that draw the most from the Federal teat, with some, like the crimson red South Carolina, where for every $1 sent to Washington, they get nearly $8 in return. So tis not Vermont looking for money as much as it is Alabama and her red state compatriots that enjoy the most time feeding at the Federal trough.
There was an interesting NYT article today on this very subject--disparities between money going to DC versus money going out showing exactly your point but asking why aren't the blue states the ones revolting against sending so much tax money to red states. While I might argue over done if the details of the comparison, the glow has been wicket observed for years. Once again, facts argue for more decentralization, more local control, less cross-subsidization among the states. But, if the "blues" happily send money to the "reds", fine with me.

I agree on more unites us than divides us, but trying to bring everything including taxes and regulation to Washington is a major cause of division. The two most divisive social issues have been gay marriage and the forty years-long fight over abortion. Both could have been better and more sensibly solved state-by-state thru the democratic process, but the Left insisted on a one size fit all Supreme Court rulings eliminating any suppleness or variety. Talk about collectivist left wing dictators?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 04:37
  #4591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 10:53
  #4592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
Just what defines the "ideal" Presidential candidate?

Those of you that have posted your objections to Hillary and Donald....just what do you see as being the minimum Resume that such an ideal candidate would possess?

I have no idea....but I do know there is far more to the process than just the Candidates Resume!
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 11:12
  #4593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,640
Community organizer?

Nah, saw how that went.
West Coast is online now  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 11:21
  #4594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
In my view I can only look back at past Presidents in my lifetime that I've thought were good, in that they possessed what I think are the right qualities for the job.

Reagan's first term impressed me (and a lot of others), and it was a great pity that his second term, when dementia was sadly setting in, is probably the way he's remembered. Bush Senior impressed me, too. He seemed to have both authority and a good grasp of statesmanship (in complete contrast to his son, who was an imbecile by comparison). There are some aspects of President Obama that I admire, even if I don't wholly agree with his politics. He is at least intelligent and a good orator, and probably the one US President in recent years that has a good grasp of what the world is like outside the borders of the US.

As for the others, it's fair to say I don't have a great deal of knowledge of JFK or Johnson, as I was too young to take much interest in politics then. Nixon I really only recall because of Watergate. Ford and Carter seemed pretty nondescript to me, with nothing that stands out as being memorable about either of them. Clinton seemed to me to mark the slide into farce for the US Presidency, primarily because he never seemed to come over as being honest, and the Lewinsky affair confirmed that in my view. Bush junior I've already mentioned, but worth adding that outside the US he was seen as a bit of a joke, primarily over his clear lack of understanding about the world outside the border of the US. What I most remember about him was how he fell apart over 9/11, rather than do what was needed very quickly in that tragic crisis. I recall a TV interview, shortly after our loathsome Tony Blair had flown over to the US to see Bush Junior, and I hate to say it, but Blair came over as being the senior statesman in that interview; one of the most bizarre things I've seen.

So, I guess you guys over there don't want or need advice from someone several thousand miles away, but I'd say that a good President would be one that had some of the best qualities of Reagan, Bush Senior and, I think, some of the global insight and intelligence that President Obama has. Find a way to condense out those characteristics, and put them into some sort of candidate selection process, and I think you stand a chance of getting a good future President.
VP959 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 11:49
  #4595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,612
I asked for a Resume....not a vague UK -Centric appraisal of past Presidents.

Lay out your version of the perfect Resume....private sector jobs held (if any), education, Honors, accomplishments, past responsibilities....political offices held (if any)....that sort of description.

We get it you don't like Reagan, Bush Junior, Trump and like Obama.

Does holding political office show fitness for the Office?

Does having been a successful Business Owner qualify one for Office?

Must one be Married....have children matter?

What education is needed...must one be a Lawyer, PHD in Quantum Physics....and Education Major?

Must the Candidate attend Religious Services...be an Atheist....be pro-Life....or pro-abortion?

What role does the Candidates political philosophy play in the process?

What Vision must he hold for the Country and what does the Candidate want to accomplish....does that matter?

What about Gender....should that play a role?

Record of Charitable giving....does that matter?
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 12:18
  #4596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
I asked for a Resume....not a vague UK -Centric appraisal of past Presidents.

Lay out your version of the perfect Resume....private sector jobs held (if any), education, Honors, accomplishments, past responsibilities....political offices held (if any)....that sort of description.

We get it you don't like Reagan, Bush Junior, Trump and like Obama.

Does holding political office show fitness for the Office?

Does having been a successful Business Owner qualify one for Office?

Must one be Married....have children matter?

What education is needed...must one be a Lawyer, PHD in Quantum Physics....and Education Major?

Must the Candidate attend Religious Services...be an Atheist....be pro-Life....or pro-abortion?

What role does the Candidates political philosophy play in the process?

What Vision must he hold for the Country and what does the Candidate want to accomplish....does that matter?

What about Gender....should that play a role?

Record of Charitable giving....does that matter?
Sorry, best I could offer, but I'd rather not be misunderstood when I've been pretty clear.

FWIW, I greatly respected Reagan (until he became ill) and also greatly respected Bush senior. I did not say I respect President Obama without caveat, I said I respected some specific attributes, like his global insight and intelligence.

Addressing your request, then I'd say these are the qualities I think would be useful, ranked in order of importance:

Honesty
Integrity
Intelligence
In-depth understanding of US and global affairs
having an in-depth understanding of the things that are really important to all the people in the USA
Statesmanship
Being a good orator

What I don't think has any relevance is whether the President is married, has children or holds any particular religious belief (accepting that the USA is secular, so any religious belief should not form a part of his or her role, as I understand US law and the constitution).

Having experience of running a business could be a useful attribute, but I don't believe it's an essential requirement - someone who's just been a worker may well have a better insight into many aspects of business.

A good level of education pretty much goes along with the intelligence requirement above, but I think it would be unwise to exclude someone from standing just because they don't have a university degree.

The political philosophy comes down to the party they represent, so to a great extent is going to be driven by that. I'd not expect a candidate that professes to support a particular party act in a way that is clearly at odds with that parties policies - that comes under the honesty and integrity qualities above.

The Presidential election should be won or lost on the deliverable vision the candidate puts forward for the country and its people, not side show issues as has been the case in this election, with the emphasis on deliverable.

Gender is immaterial, in my view, as is race or religion. The US is probably the most diverse nation on earth, and the candidacy for the President should respect that.

Who gives a stuff about charitable donations? It's the record of the person as an honest, hard working, well-meaning and altruistic (in the sense of genuinely wanting the best for other people) person that matters, not whether they've given x% of their income to any particular charity.
VP959 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 12:48
  #4597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
He or she would have to have a solid political philosophy that I can agree with--limited government, individual freedom and responsibility, property rights, respect for consenting adults making voluntary agreements, and respect for tradition. That what benefited Reagan--everyone knew, even when he compromised on legislation, he did it to achieve a goal based on his philosophy. Otherwise, I'm with VP959

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 13:39
  #4598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not where I want to be
Age: 66
Posts: 248
Does holding political office show fitness for the Office?
To a certain agree, makes finding your way around easier.

Does having been a successful Business Owner qualify one for Office?
No, has been tried in other countries. Running a business and a country requires different skill sets.

Must one be Married....have children matter?
Don't understand the question.

What education is needed...must one be a Lawyer, PHD in Quantum Physics....and Education Major?
None.

Must the Candidate attend Religious Services...be an Atheist....be pro-Life....or pro-abortion?
Don't understand the question.

What role does the Candidates political philosophy play in the process?
Don't understand the question.

What Vision must he hold for the Country and what does the Candidate want to accomplish....does that matter?
Now we're talking, and this is what the campaigns should be all about, and the also the time in power.

What about Gender....should that play a role?
Don't understand the question.

Record of Charitable giving....does that matter?
Only in the UsoA.

My 2 cents, and my opinion is general, not US-specific.
Per
Ancient Mariner is online now  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 14:16
  #4599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
I think the best resume of recent vintage, since I was born, was held by GHW Bush, aka Bush 41. He had a well rounded career if a variety of fields (private and government) and also a goodly time as VP to see how it all works. Had turns in House of Representatives, State Department (Ambassador to China), CIA, and previous to politic was involved in business. Tough to find a resume like that anymore.

LBJ's extensive experience and expertise in domestic politics and a few years as VP (where he was sadly not kept in the loop due to hostility between him and Kennedy's inner circle) was a good background, but his shortage of savvy on international matters was a serious down side. Obama was too green, but he was electable. (I also think he learned on the job and whether I agree with his policies or not, held up OK overall).

My father and I (we talk politics a bit) tend to like previous governors as candidates because executive level leadership experience is a necessary skill set. Granted, the difference in styles between, say, Clinton and Bush 43, both of whom had been governors, hardly supports that criterion ... and Truman's effectiveness in the Oval Office argues that it's not necessarily the best background qualification. (And Jimmy Carter's example also argues that having been governor may be irrelevant ...)
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 14:33
  #4600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Out of interest, is the résumé of past US Presidents (as SASless so politely put it) that I gave in post #4621 above, one that would resonate with some of you in the US?

Clearly it's an outsiders view, and can never be as well-informed as that of a resident in the US, but I'd be interested to know, just the same. Our political system is so different that it's hard to draw parallels when it comes to leaders, but my own thinking is that we are better with leaders that don't have an exclusively political background.
VP959 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.