You could make a case that he's done well in the art of the possible in most of his domestic policies. But on issues concerning the Bill of Rights and interventionism, he's carried on far too many awful policies of a breathtakingly unpopular president for no apparent reason. We're spending trillions on an anti-terrorism policy which recruits, trains and arms terrorists in effect, and can't even manage to keep a terrorist off a plane when his dad takes the trouble to go to a US embassy and tell them, "Hey, my son is about to commit a terrorist act." You couldn't make it up. Obama is an excellent ceremonial head of state, though. That's something. The substance gets worse and worse the harder you look at it, but the style is good.
This lady probably has impeccable manners and sits around a dinner table making polite conversation with her friends. She also thinks killing half a million children is a difficult choice but in the end decides killing them was worth it. Next time you vote perhaps just remind yourself to check very carefully for whom you are voting, don't just look at the party label or you might end up electing the nice Mrs Albright, and her Nottoobright friends. I won't bring in the Hitler argument here; I don't have to.
Unfortunately for the American public, and they have only themselves to blame in a way, is that they are left with a rather perverse Hobson's choice. One of Trump or Clinton is going to be their new president. Like it or not! In my view, given that choice, there is only one option - Clinton.
Yes - and America doesn't need a right wing President now, given the state of world affairs at present. An ultra right wing one, who is the loosest of loose cannons is an absolute no. I think Obama was a decent President by and large - and one who gave American a more congenial profile around the world. The last thing anyone needs right now is a white, ageing, old school right wing fascist.
I agree that Obama was a good president. I see earlier comments calling him "average" etc, but "average" means things generally went ok, and that's pretty much as good as it gets i'd have thought. Where things didnt go ok, was libya and syria, but at least obama put a lid on the maniacs like McCain and learnt as he went along. With regards to a white, ageing, old school right wing character, I'd say the world needs a dose of that far more than it needs a dose of the opposite. The bullying, ill considered feminist movement sweeping through our society at the moment is an absoloute scurge, and it needs someone prepared to soeak their mind to stand up to it. In that respect at least, for me Trump's just the man.
No offense RS, but the day that a Trump becomes 'just the man' is the day that we should all just shut up the shop, turn the lights out and gracefully head for Mars!! I would be the first to say that society is fast losing its balls under the weight of an intense politically-correct rhetoric, but the likes of that racist, redneck maniac are a bridge far too far.
I thought Bill Clinton was a great President.If Hillary can be as good( if voted in!) that will be great. p.s. Why do the people in Kentucky keep voting that idiot Mitch McConnell in? I don't get it. More "No's" come out of his mouth than were spouted by De Gaul!
Well the Reparation costs hurt Germany. Both financially, and emotionally (the sentiment by some that Germany had not actually lost the war) . Start there, and throw in the Great depression, and the primordial soup for someone like Adolf to rise is bubbling along very nicely.
<wikipedia> according to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. <wikipedia> 1. As good as any definition. 2. All "democracies" , past/present/future, can be objectively evaluated on the degree to which all of the above have been achieved (democracy X is/was better than democracy Y etc) .
AND: All in all the word Democracy has so many variations it's use tends to cloud the issue rather than illuminate. My point remains, so define your terms when using the word. Political Science? that is an oxymoron if ever I heard one and is as much use as a Christian Scientist or an Economist. Political scientist on a par with Estate Agent. NEXT!
Someone has offered a definition that IMHO seems to be as good as any, for the purposes of discussion. If you have a better definition, feel free to put it here.
Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He also serves as the Peter E. Haas Faculty Director of the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford. For more than six years, he directed FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, and he continues to lead its programs on Liberation Technology, Arab Reform and Democracy, and Democracy in Taiwan. He sounds like an arrogant know-all interfering bastard. Arab Reform? that's gone well hasn't it.
It's not so much a definition as an aspiration and is of little use in any particular discussion about the real world. It would be useful if you were starting from scratch in a new country.
So put the things you think a democracy should aspire to, and then we can discuss how much/well some past/current "democracies" have done on achieving those aspirations. You are not being judged on the definitions (assuming they are not utter nonsense) .
Really! In a world where there is religious or cultural discrimination against women in most countries, they are under-represented in senior jobs, they receive lower salaries at all levels, and are victims of societal and domestic violence you think the feminist movement is 'bullying'. Please show me some examples that are even close to the list above.
You're talking about 2 different things. On the one hand there is a potentially legitimate and valuable movement to improve womens' rights in less developed countries. On the other hand there is the illegitimate, immoral, illogical, and unmeritorious movement in western society, which is effectively a war of harassment and bullying being waged by a left wing movement, against corporations and individuals, blindly obsessed with gender employment ratios.
Feminism's like every other issue that becomes politicised. There are genuine problems that need to be addressed, but some lunatics try to attach their own idiocy to things and muddy the waters.
