New U.S. President

[Zeta-Flux]

I was wondering what all you folks from countries other than the United States of America think about the current candidates for President here. What is your impression of the best candidate, who do you think would follow in Bush's trail, is this a big deal in your country, etc...?

[Mr. P-1]

I'm in the UK.

Everyone I know who has expressed a view on the subject thinks Bush is malicious, stupid, and a menace to the world.

As for the candidates, who knows? I'd never heard of any of them before they became (potential) candidates, with the exception of Clinton, and her only in connection with her husband.

I still have only a vague sense of what they're like, and where they stand politically.

To turn this around, would you be able to comment upon the leaders (i.e., potential Prime Ministers) of the major UK parties? Do you know any of their names, other than the current PM? Had you even heard of him before he became PM?

[Uncwilly]

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Dick Cheney

Before he dicks you.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Dick Cheney

Before he dicks you.

Don Rumsfeld

Before they catch you with your pants down.

[M29]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

.... who do you think would follow in Bush's trail...?

If you mean Bush's Iraqi trail, then probably every last one of them except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

[tha]

People from continental Europe are used to vote in multi party elections, rather than choosing between two parties. The two party system is especially efficient in large countries with long (slow, expensive) communication lines. Like the US at the time of founding when it took days to ride a horse to the next town, not the US of today where you can reach the masses instantly at low costs.

So rather than choosing between the candidates let me state what I'd like to see. Of course, we'll and up with a president that has catered to the many sections of society, so no policies will be executed firm and efficient anyway, but let's leave that aside.

1. (foreign policy is important but no country elects is leadership primarily because of foreign policy, so as a foreigner let me not make the mistake by putting it first place.)

A sustainable economy, hence a balanced budget.

2. A sustainable energy policy. Short term: make sure new nuclear fission reactors are build, impose one design on all companies so costs for construction and operating are lowered. Sharply increase taxes on gas for cars. A gallon of gas costs $8,00 in Europe and the economy is running fine here. North-West-Mid Europe has the same standard of living using up 30% less energy. Abandon subsidies on ethanol made from precious crops, food prices have already gone up alarmingly. Long term: heavily invest in fusion energy (Sandia.gov z-ife)

3. Handle the Middle-East decisively, even is Europe lets you down. The trouble of Iran having a nuclear option is a problem. Not because they will use it, but because they will gain a wildcard to increase their many terrorist groups abroad and will destabilize most of the globe. You cannot withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere before you will have removed Iranian agents from there permanently. In other words, regime change in Teheran is the only option. Some people may put the blame for the current misery on George Bush. History will blame Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder instead, they really betrayed freedom and democracy.

4. Create a caring society where counties, states and the federal government guaranty good basic education, health care and security even if that costs money and means raising taxes a little. Always provide people the basic needs they need to improve their lives by climbing up the ladder, e.g. start their own little company or get more skilled work. Do not let people be dependent on groups with religious or other agendas.

I promise, starting January 1, I will review all candidates and keep a watch on them. So sorry I have no citizenship or right to vote.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by tha

A sustainable economy, hence a balanced budget.

This is not possible as long as the US uses Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for goods and services. Most people, including Americans, don't realize that the paper stuff they call US money is no such thing.

People claim they're concerned about counterfeit American money. Well, it isn't technically possible to make counterfeit American money. We were on a metals standard when the first dollar bill was printed, and we still are, although you'd be hard-pressed to convince a cashier to accept gold, silver, or platinum as payment.

The Federal Reserve Bank, which is said to be responsible for printing our "money" is a privately owned, for-profit corporation. A one dollar bill is a promise by the US government to pay one dollar's worth of gold, plus 3.5% interest per year, to the Federal Reserve Bank at some future date. Of course, as profitable as all this is to the people who own the private shares of the Federal Reserve Bank, that day will probably never come.

As far as specific proof of the FRB being private, I don't have it. But there are a TON of little tidbits in things like the US Constitution, and even printed on bills, that most definitely indicate that something fishy is going on.

2. A sustainable energy policy. Short term: make sure new nuclear fission reactors are build, impose one design on all companies so costs for construction and operating are lowered. Sharply increase taxes on gas for cars. A gallon of gas costs $8,00 in Europe and the economy is running fine here. North-West-Mid Europe has the same standard of living using up 30% less energy. Abandon subsidies on ethanol made from precious crops, food prices have already gone up alarmingly. Long term: heavily invest in fusion energy (Sandia.gov z-ife)

Not sure about short-term policy, I'll just leave that one alone.

In terms of long-term policy, I'm thinking solar panels in undeveloped countries with a lot of sun. Also, if we could get the cost of carbon nanotubes to under $1/gram(maybe closer to $$.10 or $.25.gram), we could use the nanotubes as capacitors, and make ultrathin layers of them, progressively charging a layer, then adding a layer, charging that, and so on. I'm not saying that's the best idea, but it's my favorite by far, since it (1) would almost certainly increase the standard of living for people in those countries, and (2) It has the potential to solve the whole CO2 problem(not sure how to make that 2 behave).

3. Handle the Middle-East decisively, even is Europe lets you down. The trouble of Iran having a nuclear option is a problem. Not because they will use it, but because they will gain a wildcard to increase their many terrorist groups abroad and will destabilize most of the globe. You cannot withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere before you will have removed Iranian agents from there permanently. In other words, regime change in Teheran is the only option. Some people may put the blame for the current misery on George Bush. History will blame Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder instead, they really betrayed freedom and democracy.

I realize that this is not a wholesale endorsement of President Bush, but I'm glad to find at least one person outside the US who doesn't seem to be assuming he's a raving lunatic.

4. Create a caring society where counties, states and the federal government guaranty good basic education, health care and security even if that costs money and means raising taxes a little. Always provide people the basic needs they need to improve their lives by climbing up the ladder, e.g. start their own little company or get more skilled work. Do not let people be dependent on groups with religious or other agendas.

Can we just use the general term 'agenda' here? I doubt there's even one group, of any form, that doesn't suffer from some form of selfish ambition.

I promise, starting January 1, I will review all candidates and keep a watch on them. So sorry I have no citizenship or right to vote.

Even though I have no plans to vote at the moment, I'm looking forward to your update. :)

[philmoore]

Originally Posted by tha

A sustainable economy, hence a balanced budget.

Probably not possible give the amount we presently spend on the military.

Originally Posted by tha

Not because they (Iran) will use it, but because they will gain a wildcard to increase their many terrorist groups abroad and will destabilize most of the globe.

I think that there is probably a lot more terrorism being planned in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both U.S. allies, than in Iran. This idea that Iran is the orchestrator of world terrorism, and that a change of government will magically solve our problems, sounds like a neo-conservative fantasy to me.

[tha]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I think that there is probably a lot more terrorism being planned in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both U.S. allies, than in Iran. This idea that Iran is the orchestrator of world terrorism, and that a change of government will magically solve our problems, sounds like a neo-conservative fantasy to me.

You are right, at least not wrong. The problem of a concentration of dictatorships in one part of the world and free, open societies on other continents, interacting more and more as time progresses due to increasingly cheaper and faster modes of transport and communication has build up for several decades. Since Sept 11, 2001 it became clear to a large part of the public that the amount of friction as a result of people striving for freedoms and thereby threatening existing regimes and countermeasures as inciting the masses against open cultures is no longer sustainable. Convergence between the Middle-East and Europe/America is needed and will happen. This can be done in several ways. Cleaning up closed societies by overturning them is one method. We did Afghanistan first (good choice), Iraq second (in retrospect Iran was a better choice), and sure we cannot stop then. However some regimes have proven to be able to change a bit under pressure, e.g. Libya's colonel Khadaffy moved a bit in the right direction under the right amount of pressure. Following Iran we will need to do the Ba'ath regime in Syria, but by then the message will reach Riaad, Islamabad and Cairo. Notice Musharraf goes along with us as far as needed. More need to go along further will move Pakistan along. If there is no need to fight all of them at the same time we can do them one by one. But we cannot allow to take a break or retreat.

[garo]

I think it is rather insulting for you to assume which closed society 'we' can choose to clean up. Who is this 'we' anyway? There is plenty of historical evidence that suggests that when outside forces are involved, there is more dirtying than cleaning up. I mean even you cannot call Iraq anything like a clean-up can you? It's a f***ing disaster with perhaps half a million killed and at least 4 million made refugees. There is no likelihood of it getting anywhere near peaceful for at least the next 2-3 years.

Afghanistan is not much better. The Taliban is resurgent and the NATO is busy killing innocent civilians to the point of the Afghan president - who is a stooge after all - telling them that this is intolerable.

I think you are living in a fantasy world and I do hope the next US president will not think like you. That is my first and foremost hope.