US President 2016

[Ry Vor]

Wait, toddlers are killing people?

Its an epidemic, although they don't normally intend to kill you.  Speaking of which, epidemics are also more likely to kill you.

I just can't stand this federal government major theme of trying to keep Americans constantly afraid.  Aren't we the land of the free and the home of the brave? $791 billion spent on "Homeland Security". That is way beyond FBI and NSA and CIA spying and if you live in a major city, now you have armored Humvees on your streets.

http://www.babble.com/mom/scary-this-yea...rists-did/

[Madmardigan]

Its surprising (understatement) to me that national security is the most important issue to Americans according to many polls.  Is it Canada or Mexico we are most worried about invading us?  Suspicious is probably the word I am looking for.  National media is controlled by a handful of families/companies who have their own vested interests.  As an analogy, Americans mainly have no idea how much money is spent by lobbyists to influence the President and Congress.  It's all legal, despite what justifiably happened to FIFA this week, which isn't much different.  In the last 20 years, Washington, DC has become the wealthiest city in the USA.

According to the State Department, 17 American civilians, worldwide, were killed by terrorism last year.  Seventeen.  You are much more likely to be killed by a toddler, struck by lightening, drown in your bathtub, crossing the street, than by terrorists.  You are 100,000 times more likely to be killed in a car crash.  So, I wonder, why do all the politicians talk about national security when we have so many obvious domestic issues, and they think "national" security is us fighting in the Middle East?  Why do we want to send our troops to these places with no definite objective (what is victory?) and say we love our troops when we also do nothing for them when they return?  The suicide rates, the dismemberments, the lack of employment.  We won't be "isolationist" when we stop starting these wars and stop having troops stationed everywhere: we will be like every other country: their troops are in their nation. What other nation has troops deployed everywhere?  Americans should look at what Japan and Germany really think about having 50,000 Americans deployed there for 60 years.  What is the purpose of that?

Its just not getting ratings on the prime time news to talk about something important, like USA infrastructure.  In fact, I think its avoided because its a word not used in common discussions.  Infrastructure sounds vague, like "technology".  But most people that travel internationally will freely say our airports are now like 3rd world countries.  Most are 50+ years old.  Our bridges are collapsing, our trains are a joke and dangerous. 

We have $18 trillion in debt (growing by the day).  The Administration and Congress have no plan.  They are afraid to cut anything, or even say anything other than, "America is great", for fear of losing votes.  We want to continue on the same course: entitlements (many of which are to government employees), defense and interest expense are the biggest expenses.  If interest rates increase 2%, and I have no idea how they haven't with this deficit spending, we about go kaput.  But no one talks about that.  If you say anything about not spending a fortune to have troops in foreign wars and in 100 nations, or that we are 30th out of 36 nations in education, or we are the global leaders in incarceration, you are viewed as not saying facts, you are instead anti-American.  We need a look in the mirror.

I'm a student of the collapse of the Roman Empire.  It's like deja vu.  

Let's get a President who has the guts to do what's needed, not one that tells us we are great and other things we want to hear.  Let's elect the one with the brightest mind and best ideas, not the shiniest smile and favorite platitudes telling us how fabulous we look.  Come on America. 

After leaving the Corps and living in NYC for ten years, I left to work in Asia and I have to say that the US does look more and more like a third world country in some aspects.   

Living here for the past ten years, I have seen incredible new airports, bridges, skyscrapers, etc... And I have to say that their is a buzz in the air as people try to better themselves by working crazy hours and saving their money.  

Whenever I return to New York and try to discuss these things or speak about what I have learned about the US from beyond the corporate media bubble, I am met with apathy and at times hostility.  From my experience, it seems that my friends and family members just do not care or they feel helpless to change things.  

I have been accused of being a communist whenever I criticize what our government does.  

It is as if the words 'question the status quo' or 'dissent' have become taboo.  

And after plenty of reading and watching enough documentaries, I firmly believe the President has very little  say in what happens.  

Which was the last US president who actually attempted to challenge the establishment.  JFK?  

[Drogo]

http://www.babble.com/mom/scary-this-yea...rists-did/

This is less a toddler problem and more of a stupid people owning guns problem (something I would guess Rand Paul is ok with).

[Drogo]

I'll also agree that there is something VERY attractive about having the USA mind their own business a bit (or a lot). Especially since if you look at basically all our interventions around the world post WW2 you can see that we have almost universally made things much worse. Still the thing that gets me is less the violence the Fundamentalist terrorists perpetrate and more their views and treatment of women. I would love for the USA to take care of itself first but do we really want to just stand by and let a whole population of women be so horribly subjugated? I am especially sensitive to the idea that women are being denied access to education which would be the only thing that would potentially lift them up. Of course this is also happening in Africa and other places that don't have oil...

I will agree that the USA doctrine of going into countries and basically saying 'Democratize or we'll shoot you' is a broken philosophy.

[Lord Diamond]

I would also like to see those trillions of dollars invested at home. While they are at it, foreign aid has become complete BS. I am happy to help for natural disasters and to protect the weak, but what we have now is broken.

I have three tours in the Middle East and nearly 10 years in the USAF, so this isn't coming from someone without a clue about the real world. I simply disagree that so much of what we do truly is in the best interests of the American People.

[Diamond Cutter]

"I firmly believe the President has very little say in what happens."

I think the Presidents are victims of circumstance (Bush 2 is a good example) and lately agents of change not in our best interest. I think we're in some downward spiral and due to our massive immigration I'm doubtful our previous National character will carry us through, ala Great Depression/ WW1-2 to where we wind up in some better position in its aftermath.

[Ry Vor]

"Which was the last US president who actually attempted to challenge the establishment. JFK?"
"I firmly believe the President has very little say in what happens."

Without trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, it does seem there is a man behind the curtain. Look at Obama, who campaigned on changing everything and bringing hope, bringing "the most transparent administration in history", and then when he was in office, he changed virtually nothing. The wars ended on Bush's timetable. We didn't substantively alter relations with any country, friend or otherwise. We seem to constantly be searching for new enemies. I think there are things beyond the FBI, CIA, and NSA domestic spying we have discovered, that we do not yet know about. While administrations change every 4 to 8 years, the State Department, the CIA, and others go on forever. I think certain things are "splained" to the incoming President. Don't upset the applecart, in fact, don't change the apples in the cart.

On Diamond Cutter's remark, I in casual conversation sometimes ask what has been our most constructive war since WWII. Usually the reply is the first Gulf War. Oh, the one where the Kuwaitis flew their Rolls Royces to the south of France and said, call us when you've cleaned it up?

I have two recent college grad kids, graduated with honors, that have no idea and no apparent interest in politics and couldn't tell you much at all about national issues. Sadly, that is true for 95% of our youth. Anyone can have a different opinion on any issue, but the important thing is to have an opinion. We get the government we deserve.

[Ry Vor]

Its an opinion piece by the NYT.  Brian Doherty's main complaint is that Rand Paul isn't Libertarian enough.  Compared to who, other than his father?  The main problem for Rand Paul is he actually takes and articulates positions on issues.  It's well beyond the typical politician's, "I want a strong America.  I believe in America.  I want an America that leads."
The media is convinced the American public has no patience to understand issues and solutions, so it just attacks any kind of stand on an issue and endorses empty rhetoric void of solutions.  The author here refers to Rand Paul's positions as "heady".  As though he is saying don't hurt your bwains by thinking too much.  The moronic refrain "He wants an isolationist America" gets lots of play.  By that measure, what country other than the United States is not isolationist? 

Here is Hillary Clinton's official site for her presidential run:  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
See if you can identify a position she holds on any issue.  Good luck with that, but you do have a link to "like her" on Facebook.

Here is Rand Paul's:  http://www.randpaul.com/.  Note the first navigation button is "Issues", with his position on 17 of them articulated.  

So if you are a critic, Rand Paul is giving you plenty of opportunity.  Hillary gives you nothing, but I doubt the NYT objects to that.

Here is a similar length NYT article on Hillary.  Note there is no mention of her position on any issue, just that the Clintons can raise lots of money and so can win the election.  No cynicism here.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/pol...-2016.html

As expected, its happening.   The Donald actually was today wearing a bad ball cap (covering that perfect hair), that said "Make America Great Again".  Does that platitude resonate?  Wow, great idea Donald.  And you would do what, exactly?  Shoot illegal immigrants?

[DuPont]

I'm busy getting all excited about John Kasich. I know better than to fall in love with dark horse candidates - 25 years from now, I may be on a game forum with the user name 'Kaisch' - but I can't help it.

[Ry Vor]

I like Kasich.  Basically, I like sincerity / authenticity / vision.

Sadly, that criteria excludes most.  Wish it weren't so, but as long as people want to vote on who has the best smile, this is what we get.