Which candidate should be the next U.S. President and why?

1. 0

   lesliebyarsposted 9 years ago

   Why do you like the candidate?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Sandra Eastmanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Very up for grabs. Absolutely will be Hillary for the liberals but she would be a poor choice for the country. Someone could discover where the bodies are buried.  I like Ben Carson myself but he's not a politician but more intelligent than all of them. Rand Paul will have a good shot or Scott Walker governor from WI. Walker is a guy with guts.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         bBereanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         +1 on Ben Carson.  He is likely to be the only one running who I feel is genuinely doing it solely with the good of the country in mind, and he is certainly qualified.  My vote would be contingent on a unification behind him though as we can't afford another division that costs an election like happened with Perot.   Let's not elect another Clinton the way we did in '92 because of divided republican, moderate and conservative votes.

         replyreport
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am hoping John Huntsman gets back into the race. He seems to have a genuine interest in making things work. It's a good thought, making things work that is.

      replyreport
   3. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Elizabeth Warren, as the genuine article and advocate for the middle and working classes

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Still looking at her, based on your first recommendation. I can see where you get your enthusiasm, but I am encountering some "Big Picture" experience doubts.
         
         On another note. I just finished a book I think you would like a lot. "Locked in the Cabinet" by Clinton's first Labor Secretary, Robert Reich.
         
         It is not a heavy political read to plod through, but is a light first person account that gives a real picture of the political workings of government under the covers. It gave me many insights to flesh-out a lot of the perceptions I already had of the underbelly of the business of governing.
         
         I think you and Reich just might be kindred spirits.
         
         Here is part of the promo blurb:
         "Locked in the Cabinet is a close-up view of the way things work, and often don't work, at the highest levels of government--and a uniquely personal account by the man whose ideas inspired and animated much of the Clinton campaign of 1992 and who became the cabinet officer in charge of helping ordinary Americans get better jobs. Robert B. Reich, writer, teacher, social critic--and a friend of the Clintons since they were all in their twenties--came to be known as the "conscience  of the Clinton administration and one of the most successful Labor Secretaries in history. Here is his sometimes hilarious, sometimes poignant chronicle of trying to put ideas and ideals into practice. "
         
         And here is an unaffiliated Amazon link to see some excerpts: "Locked in the Cabinet" by Robert Reich.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, GA, I will look into the publication and yes, Reich and I are kindred spirits as I have seen many of his briefings over the internet. He has a passion for educating people about the reality of the economy from his point of view. I agree with most of it. Rather than really want to dismantle all the financial markets, for me it is as Ms Warren says, I want to hold the bankers and the finance industry accountable. It seems to me that after the 2008 deluge, those responsible received the equivalent of a hand slap. Their lobbies and power are such that even Obama treads lightly around them. That is too much power for anyone to have and I don't trust them.  This deregulation concept has gone too far and needs to be pulled back. What is the matter with reinstituting Glass-Stengall? Why was it so difficult to get the 401K/funds managers to disclose fees and surcharges so that consumers could get a better idea how much money they were losing when they were to trying save? The industry resisted claiming rising costs and government bureaucracy. The reason was that if consumers knew that there was a gaping hole in the bottom of their piggybank, there would be a cry of the banshee.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "Rather than really want to dismantle all the financial markets, for me it is as Ms Warren says, I want to hold the bankers and the finance industry accountable."
               
               A great segue to a Reich example. At one point he, (unless I am confusing my recent readings), was proposing that part of the Financial Market/Wall Street reforms needed, (and this was waayyy back in 1992/1993), was to make CEOs responsible for the actions of their companies.
               
               At the time current legal requirements were only that a CEO needed to be truthful to the point of complying with the GAAP, (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals), guidelines to avoid any liability for his companies actions.
               
               Reich wanted to change that to a requirement that a CEO had to personally sign-off on any publicly available "overall" company performance reports, (like an investment prospectus and such), so that in later situations like Enron and Lehman Bros. - the management could be held accountable.
               
               His thoughts were that if CEOs knew they could be held accountable - they might think twice before acting, or condoning certain actions.
               
               Bam! The business lobbyists jumped into action. CEOs screamed it was unrealistic to expect them to be responsible for every action a company might take - and Reich couldn't even get an adjective like "negligence" included in any reform measures.
               
               So I can see why you would like Warren's stance. But do you think she would have the moral fortitude that Clinton lacked? What are her ties to Big Business?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  She has a background that is naturally adverse to 'big banking and finance'. She has been persona non grata after  the President suggested creating a consumer advocacy agency. That went no where fast, the industry much like getting a saddle on a new colt, kicked and screamed. They did not like the agency and they did not like Elizabeth Warren. They considered her a trouble maker, based on her background and experience. It wasn't going to be business as usual when she was put in charge and the industry knew it. Obama had to back off, because of pressure from the industry itself. Her moral fortitude is where the attraction is. Hillary Clinton is fine with me, if I had to choose between her and a right leaning GOP party candidate  in 2016. I consider the weakness of  American economy and the changes over the last generation as our Achilles heel, or the soft underbelly where we are the most vulnerable into the near future. This issue is important and any candidate will have a hard time putting up both dukes, when one hand already is in the cookie jar. The person that does not appear to have that liability is Liz Warren.

                  replyreport
2. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   I would support Clinton, but I think other candidates may make a late run.  After all if the Democrats lose the presidency they are screwed. So they will be very concern about getting the most popular possible candidate and Hillary delivers pretty well in planned speech settings but always comes off badly in TV interviews and talk shows.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The thought of Hillary Clinton as president turns me into a pretzel.
      
      On one hand, I think she would do a great job leading us on the International stage. I think she has the steel of a Margaret Thatcher, and would jealously guard and promote our best interests globally.
      
      But on the domestic side - I just don't trust her or her policies. Everything I have read about the Clintons, (and I have read several books on them, both by supporters and detractors), paint the picture of someone that has no scruples about doing whatever it takes to get what she wants.
      
      Just sayin'
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 83

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         People see her differently, clearly.  I am probably biased in that we share a gender, age group, and inability to have a flattering picture taken. Oh, and some fundamental beliefs too.  But as I am not yet a full citizen I can't vote anyway.  I just take an interest because ... well I live here and all that involves.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I really enjoy your responses in these forums. Thanks.
            
            ps. That "flattering picture" problem is one I too share. I have such dark circles that I always look like an old raccoon. Otherwise I am a pretty good looking dude. (or so my wife says)
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 61

         John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         But Margaret Thatcher did not jealously guard and promote our best interests globally.
         She sold us out and not even always to the highest bidder!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            LOL  That's always the problem isn't it?  I doubt that either Thatcher or her supporters will agree with you.
            
            You can't please all the people all the time, or even all of them some of the time and when it comes to how a country should be run that is doubly so.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               As many of her supporters would also have been benefactors I'd have to agree with you.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Ouch!  That piece of sky falling hurt! 
                  
                  You're going to have to stop saying such things, John.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     What? I agree?

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes.  I always wonder, when that happens, whether the sky will fall or Hell freeze.  'Cause I know it's gonna be one or the other.

                        replyreport
3. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 9 years ago

   The last Clinton left us at peace and prosperous.  I'd go for that again.  I don't expect to admire my politicians.  I like them when they do what I want.  Clinton did.  For that matter, Obama has: return to financial stability, bring the majority of our troops home, provide health care to those in need, get bin Laden, put more women on the Supreme Court.  And it is past time for the majority in this country to have representation on the executive level.

   replyreport
4. 55

   retief2000posted 9 years ago

   I have no clue who will be the nominee for the Republicans. I do know that Hillary will never be President, she is a severely abrasive person and the country is in no mood for dynasties. That is why Jeb Bush will not be President. I also know that Elizabeth Warren will not be President. She may be the Democrat nominee but she is damaged goods. She is an unreconstructed and dedicated redistributionist, leftist and a race hustling phony.
   
   The next President is far more likely to be a Republican, as the electorate seems to be turning away from Democrats and Obama is accelerating that turn. It will only be a close race if the Republican is squishy like Romney or McCain. Walker from Wisconsin is a winner, despite long odds and protracted battles. Ben Carson is brilliant, articulate, Black ( since we are supposed to think skin color or sex organs matter) and a profoundly accomplished professional - bonus, He is not a politician. Ted Cruz is firey, articulate, fearless, smart and hated by the left - everything I like in a candidate. He is also not a darling of the establishment Republicans, this to redounds to his benefit.

   replyreport