US President 2016

[Ry Vor]

A big problem is the 4th Estate has really failed us.  Even 24 hour news networks don't get below surface level on issues.  Their main purpose is not to inform, its to get ratings.  They don't even pretend otherwise, they constantly talk about their ratings.  This wasn't always the case: networks used to have their news divisions be loss leaders but it established credibility for the whole network.  Now, even on those 24 hour news networks, they just want soundbites that will "trend".  An expert on any area is not allowed to talk for even 5 minutes on a subject that might take years to understand.  So once again, someone trying to explain solutions to economic troubles or foreign policy is interrupted by an impatient interviewer who wants themselves to be the story and add to their own acclaim.  American people are to blame as well for being shallow and apathetic.  The cynicism by commentators is pronounced.  They are projecting who will win nominations by who is tall, who raises the most money, and who is "likeable".  They show almost no interest in solving problems, so most politicians don't bother.  How many times will we hear trite, fallow platitudes like, "I believe in a strong America", "I love this country", "I want to make America great again", "The world needs American leadership", without ever offering any substance to exactly what they will do.

I wish Presidential candidates would, or the media would let them, focus on issues they can impact.  I'm not too interested in what they think on various social or religious issues unless they are planning new legislation there, and even if there was a rare case there of that, those issues are not as important to me as economic and foreign policy.  So a President is in great position to effect tax policy for example, a federal budget proposal, and foreign policy.  That's what I want to hear about.

[Lord Diamond]

To be fair I don't think Rick was saying that he wouldn't countenance alternative opinions, only that he wouldn't be censored on the subject himself.

Having said that I just read some of Rand Paul's stances on abortion and gay rights and I think it's hilarious how one's libertarian philosophies extend right up until the point it's corrupted by his Christian dogma.  

As I said I'm loathe to discuss politics because it seems that we are all so entrenched in our opinions.  We all seem to be getting our news almost exclusively from places that confirm our own biases.  Me as well so take that for what it's worth.

It seems so plain to me that gay rights are the new civil rights issue (not that we've come close to solving the old civil rights issues!) and I don't have a terrible amount of patience for anyone who can't see this as well.  And don't even get me started on abortion.  If you can't count on a libertarian candidate to protect an individual women's right to choose without exclusions I don't know what he's good for.

Sorry.  Couldn't help myself.

Not a thing here that I disagree with. 

[DuPont]

I'm supporting John Kasich for now. If he doesn't get in, I'm not sure who I'll go for. Marco Rubio probably.

[Ry Vor]

Kasich would be my second choice if he runs and if Rand Paul continues to attract bullets from both sides. Meanwhile, I'm ready to put my first bumper sticker on my car ever.

[unclemike]

I don't know much about Rand Paul's views but here's an article by a NY Times editor that also wrote a book about his father Ron Paul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/opinio...egion&_r=0

Seems he likes the father better than the son but I still say vote for me if I decide to run...

[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

[Madmardigan]

A big problem is the 4th Estate has really failed us.  Even 24 hour news networks don't get below surface level on issues.  Their main purpose is not to inform, its to get ratings.  They don't even pretend otherwise, they constantly talk about their ratings.  This wasn't always the case: networks used to have their news divisions be loss leaders but it established credibility for the whole network.  Now, even on those 24 hour news networks, they just want soundbites that will "trend".  An expert on any area is not allowed to talk for even 5 minutes on a subject that might take years to understand.  So once again, someone trying to explain solutions to economic troubles or foreign policy is interrupted by an impatient interviewer who wants themselves to be the story and add to their own acclaim.  American people are to blame as well for being shallow and apathetic.  The cynicism by commentators is pronounced.  They are projecting who will win nominations by who is tall, who raises the most money, and who is "likeable".  They show almost no interest in solving problems, so most politicians don't bother.  How many times will we hear trite, fallow platitudes like, "I believe in a strong America", "I love this country", "I want to make America great again", "The world needs American leadership", without ever offering any substance to exactly what they will do.

I wish Presidential candidates would, or the media would let them, focus on issues they can impact.  I'm not too interested in what they think on various social or religious issues unless they are planning new legislation there, and even if there was a rare case there of that, those issues are not as important to me as economic and foreign policy.  So a President is in great position to effect tax policy for example, a federal budget proposal, and foreign policy.  That's what I want to hear about.

I believe most Americans know the government is broken and they realize their votes do not matter.  They also realize, the corporations have infiltrated all levels of the government and that they own the fourth estate and manipulate the truth.

Clinton was bad. Bush was horrible and some argue Obama was even worse.  

I do agree with you that we Americans have brought this upon ourselves.  But who is willing to fight for something they knowing nothing about or won't bother looking into themselves?

In my opinion, democrats and Republicans are just opposite sides of the same coin.  

Will either party reign in the military-industrial complex?  Will either party dig deeply into what the Federal Reserve is really doing?  Will any of our wars ever truly end?

So does it really matter who wins?  

[Ry Vor]

I think you are right about the small distinctions between parties that are blown out to be radical differences.  Ron Paul in The Revolution in Chapter 1 talks about the false choices offered by the "Republicrats".   Neither says a word about the military industrial complex or has a serious proposal to balance the federal budget.  The media wants to focus on $400 haircuts rather than matters of substance.  The book was written in 2008, and in that Chapter 1 "The False Choices of American Politics", he writes, "Our country is facing an unprecedented financial crisis precisely because the questions our political and media establishments allow us to ask are so narrow."

Here is Ron Paul's Preface to his book The Revolution, from 2008 that entered at #1 on the New York Times and Amazon best seller lists:

Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.

Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear….

With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of "free" goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in – this is not a misprint – 130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.

This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.

If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
That is why I wrote this book.

[Ry Vor]

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. 

[Drogo]

Wait, toddlers are killing people?