I don't think you've thought that through.

 

Iraq, it doesn't matter to me the fact the economy was in pretty good shape under his premiership, i will always judge him for Iraq and the illegal war/lying/shock and awe

 

Economically there have been many worse PM's than Blair but internationally he set our image abroad back a generation and bought a lot of shit to our doorstep like hate preachers and islamic extremists

 

Well deserving of a -1

Edited November 12, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

Yeah, cos we didn't have those anyway before Iraq.

Yeah, cos we didn't have those anyway before Iraq.

 

We didn't, islamic extremists left us alone

 

We had IRA etc but the islamic extremists only started targetting us after Iraq

jfk is such an interesting president. it's hard to say what legacy he is with his post-death glorification. he was making such sweeping reforms and bringing about a change in social policy and general attitudes in america and botched handling of bay of pigs and the cuban missle crisis and ultimately did very little for the civil rights movement.

 

jfk vs lbj. people would say jkf was the better president yet i'd argue lbj did so much more...

 

From what I've read LBJ was a nasty selfish man, concerned only for himself and wanting to become President. JFK would mostly likely have dropped him as VP in 1964. He only put him on the ticket in '60 as he was blackmailing Kennedy. ;) He's not rated very highly by many Americans. I think he was involved in setting up the Assassination. Ask yourself, who had the most to gain from it? He tried to take Clint Hill, the brave Secret Service agent who leapt on the back of the Kennedy limousine, off his security detail after the shooting but was overruled by the Head of the SS. Horrendous guy.

 

Have you seen the famous photo of him being sworn in aboard Air Force One? He's smiling and then clearly winks at an aide across from him. Even Jackie's said to have noticed it and remarked on it later. ;)

Edited November 12, 201311 yr by Common Sense

If Hillary is half as good as her husband was then she will be a great president, Clinton was the best president of my lifetime IMHO, even better than Reagan

 

But she will probably be too old in 2016, shame, really respect her

 

 

I feel sure she'll stand in 2016. I don't think she can resist.

I really don't like the idea of Hillary being President at all. Apart from being a woman, it's hard to know what she actually stands for,

I'm still hoping Joe Biden might go for it. I do think, despite the polls currently saying she's a heavy favourite (though they also said that in '08...), she's in danger of being beaten to the Democrats' nomination by someone proposing more left-wing and inspirational policies if she just runs on a vacuous "experience" platform again.

 

I feel sure Hillary would beat Biden to the Nomination. Most US political correspondants seem to think so too.

We didn't, islamic extremists left us alone

 

We had IRA etc but the islamic extremists only started targetting us after Iraq

We had a reputation as 'Londonistan' in the 90s as we had so many extremists in the capital preaching hate. Simply being in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War and in Afghanistan was enough to attract their ire.

 

From what I've read LBJ was a nasty selfish man, concerned only for himself and wanting to become President. JFK would mostly likely have dropped him as VP in 1964. He only put him on the ticket in '60 as he was blackmailing Kennedy. ;) He's not rated very highly by many Americans. I think he was involved in setting up the Assassination. Ask yourself, who had the most to gain from it? He tried to take Clint Hill, the brave Secret Service agent who leapt on the back of the Kennedy limousine, off his security detail after the shooting but was overruled by the Head of the SS. Horrendous guy.

 

Have you seen the famous photo of him being sworn in aboard Air Force One? He's smiling and then clearly winks at an aide across from him. Even Jackie's said to have noticed it and remarked on it later. ;)

Where on earth do you get the idea that JFK put him on the ticket as he was blackmailed? He was put on as JFK would never have won Texas and the South without him, which he'd have lost 1960 without.

 

This post is a load of crap. There is no evidence at all connecting LBJ with the assassination outside of wild 'well he gained from it' speculation. He wasn't winking in the photo, and who cares what he was like as an admittedly notoriously unpleasant person? He achieved far more than any Democratic president has achieved, bar FDR.

We had a reputation as 'Londonistan' in the 90s as we had so many extremists in the capital preaching hate. Simply being in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War and in Afghanistan was enough to attract their ire.

Where on earth do you get the idea that JFK put him on the ticket as he was blackmailed? He was put on as JFK would never have won Texas and the South without him, which he'd have lost 1960 without.

 

This post is a load of crap. There is no evidence at all connecting LBJ with the assassination outside of wild 'well he gained from it' speculation. He wasn't winking in the photo, and who cares what he was like as an admittedly notoriously unpleasant person? He achieved far more than any Democratic president has achieved, bar FDR.

Far more? Truman might have something to say about that. Not saying he's equal but presiding over the UN and Marshall Plan isn't bad.

Well if we're talking foreign policy yeah, but I was more referring to his domestic agenda.

Coincidentally (and I'm aware this is going majorly off the original topic, but still), Justin Webb in the Times today wrote an editorial also saying he has doubts if Hillary will be the Democrats' nominee. Says that Bill de Blasio's win in New York could be taken by Democrats as a sign there's a "market" for radical leftwingers who want the rich and big businesses' dominance ended for good. Key parts (typing it out manually so sorry for any errors!):

 

 

"The question this raises is whether the de Blasio election might change all America - embolden the American Left to campaign openly on a programme of social and economic change that would make centrists' eyes water...

 

At the moment, the party is gearing up for non-change change. Mrs Clinton would be something new - a woman - but also a lot of things that are very, very old. In particular, she would bring an association with Wall Street that for many Americans is gloomily familiar and utterly depressing ....

 

So here is the game plan. A serious left-wing candidate is found, preferrably a woman (Senator Elizabeth Warren perhaps, a critic of the Clintons' closeness to Wall Street) to see off Hillary with style...Gone will be talk of a grand bargain with the Republicans to get budget deficits under control. There would be calls for an extension, not a reduction as currently planned, in the state pension. And, most crucially of all, a big rise in the federal minimum wage and an extension of the healthcare reforms."

There's a market, yeah, although extrapolating a national market from New York's mayoral election - an electorate more left-wing than the nation as a whole - would be playing with fire. I love Elizabeth Warren, but it'd be total electoral Russian roulette with both sides playing solely to their base. For all Obama had a moderately populist message, independents were a key component of his electoral base that the margins are too narrow for any successful candidate to do without.

Coincidentally (and I'm aware this is going majorly off the original topic, but still), Justin Webb in the Times today wrote an editorial also saying he has doubts if Hillary will be the Democrats' nominee. Says that Bill de Blasio's win in New York could be taken by Democrats as a sign there's a "market" for radical leftwingers who want the rich and big businesses' dominance ended for good. Key parts (typing it out manually so sorry for any errors!):

"The question this raises is whether the de Blasio election might change all America - embolden the American Left to campaign openly on a programme of social and economic change that would make centrists' eyes water...

 

At the moment, the party is gearing up for non-change change. Mrs Clinton would be something new - a woman - but also a lot of things that are very, very old. In particular, she would bring an association with Wall Street that for many Americans is gloomily familiar and utterly depressing ....

 

So here is the game plan. A serious left-wing candidate is found, preferrably a woman (Senator Elizabeth Warren perhaps, a critic of the Clintons' closeness to Wall Street) to see off Hillary with style...Gone will be talk of a grand bargain with the Republicans to get budget deficits under control. There would be calls for an extension, not a reduction as currently planned, in the state pension. And, most crucially of all, a big rise in the federal minimum wage and an extension of the healthcare reforms."

 

As Hollande has shown with France, there is no place in the civilised world for the outdated sharp left 'soak the rich' politics

 

France's most unpopular president, even riots during the Remembrance Day parade

 

 

Except Hollande gave off the impression of being an anti-austerity candidate when he was running on an austerity platform, which is why he's so unpopular - he's not austere enough to win over his enemies and he ran giving a dishonest impression of the kind of government he'd lead so his former supporters can't stand him. He should have chosen either anti-austerity or moderate austerity in his platform and portrayal. By choosing both he dissatisfied everyone. It's a lesson Ed would do well to learn from - he can pick either but he can't do both.

There's a market, yeah, although extrapolating a national market from New York's mayoral election - an electorate more left-wing than the nation as a whole - would be playing with fire. I love Elizabeth Warren, but it'd be total electoral Russian roulette with both sides playing solely to their base. For all Obama had a moderately populist message, independents were a key component of his electoral base that the margins are too narrow for any successful candidate to do without.

 

That's debateable. They're more socially liberal than most of the US for sure, but they're not that left-wing economically... I'm sure you know that New York regularly elects Republicans on the local level, even though they always go with the Democrats heavily in presidential elections (another piece of evidence showing the US has a less divided political system than Britain :P ).

 

If Hillary has an unashamedly left-wing platform and promises to keep on with the Obama agenda and not give an inch to the Republicans (and essentially disowning much of Bill's presidency) then she will probably have no problems getting the Democrats' nomination. But if she doesn't do that, I think it's very possible that Democrats will want someone who keeps fighting the leftwing cause in the debate about government, now that they're finally gaining an upper-hand over the Republicans in that debate, rather than have someone who surrenders and lets the Republicans setting the terms of the debate unchallenged.

 

Btw, Obama actually lost independents to Mitt Romney last year. The reason Obama won overall is because he took advantage of the Democrats' natural majority and focussed on firing up his voters and making sure they all turned out to vote.

 

 

As Hollande has shown with France, there is no place in the civilised world for the outdated sharp left 'soak the rich' politics

 

France's most unpopular president, even riots during the Remembrance Day parade

 

Firstly, Hollande's record unpopularity has been overstated by the British media; his approval ratings are extremely low compared to past presidents, but that's true for virtually EVERY politician in EVERY country, it's simply a sign of the times of how hated politics is (which is why similarly people put too much store in Ed Miliband's ratings being "worse than any previous opposition leader"). To state the obvious, you don't have to be as popular as figures from the past, you just have to be more popular than your opponent, and the polls actually show Hollande still has a decent chance of being re-elected next time compared to his most likely rivals.

 

But anyway, Hollande has not had a "sharp left" politics, with the exception of the 75% tax band :lol: In reality, he has gone even further than Sarkozy went on austerity, which is why the economy has sunk.

That's debateable. They're more socially liberal than most of the US for sure, but they're not that left-wing economically... I'm sure you know that New York regularly elects Republicans on the local level, even though they always go with the Democrats heavily in presidential elections (another piece of evidence showing the US has a less divided political system than Britain :P ).

 

If Hillary has an unashamedly left-wing platform and promises to keep on with the Obama agenda and not give an inch to the Republicans (and essentially disowning much of Bill's presidency) then she will probably have no problems getting the Democrats' nomination. But if she doesn't do that, I think it's very possible that Democrats will want someone who keeps fighting the leftwing cause in the debate about government, now that they're finally gaining an upper-hand over the Republicans in that debate, rather than have someone who surrenders and lets the Republicans setting the terms of the debate unchallenged.

 

Btw, Obama actually lost independents to Mitt Romney last year. The reason Obama won overall is because he took advantage of the Democrats' natural majority and focussed on firing up his voters and making sure they all turned out to vote.

New York as a state regularly elects Republicans at a local level. New York City doesn't - the current council make-up is 46 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Using that the state regularly elects Republicans locally and that its biggest city has a Democratic mayor/it votes Democratic in presidential elections to claim that politics there is less divided is like trying to say the same for the South of England during the 00s because Ken Livingstone was London mayor :lol: The very fact that Democratic turnout from NYC et al is high overrules that there are a lot of Republican rural precincts in the state when it comes to presidential elections.

 

Obama did lose independents to Romney last year, but the independents he retained from 2008 were key to his coalition. My point is that any Democrat serious about winning wouldn't want to take the risk of a platform which surrendered independents entirely - the only way they could get away with that would be if the Republicans went with someone like Ted Cruz. I wouldn't want to take the risk, because I think someone like Warren would be obliterated by anybody half-appealing to independents from the Republicans - Jeb Bush et al. Even up against someone like Rubio, it would be a risk I wouldn't want to gamble on.

Edited November 12, 201311 yr by Cassandra

As Hollande has shown with France, there is no place in the civilised world for the outdated sharp left 'soak the rich' politics

 

France's most unpopular president, even riots during the Remembrance Day parade

You have a very odd definition of "riot". There were a few people chanting slogans. If that is a riot then there are dozens of them in football stadiums up and down the country every weekend.

You have a very odd definition of "riot". There were a few people chanting slogans. If that is a riot then there are dozens of them in football stadiums up and down the country every weekend.

Explains why the Tories hate football.

New York as a state regularly elects Republicans at a local level. New York City doesn't - the current council make-up is 46 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Using that the state regularly elects Republicans locally and that its biggest city has a Democratic mayor/it votes Democratic in presidential elections to claim that politics there is less divided is like trying to say the same for the South of England during the 00s because Ken Livingstone was London mayor :lol: The very fact that Democratic turnout from NYC et al is high overrules that there are a lot of Republican rural precincts in the state when it comes to presidential elections.

 

I meant New York City, and I meant that they regularly elect Republican mayors, who although liberal on things like gay rights and immigration, were pretty conservative economically.

 

Obama did lose independents to Romney last year, but the independents he retained from 2008 were key to his coalition.

 

Not really. He could've lost independents by up to 10% and still come out on top with all the registered Democrats who turned out. And if you're suggesting there's a risk of a Democrat losing independents by an even bigger margin than that, I'm not sure that's very realistic... I'm not even sure the Democrat candidates at their nadir in the 80s lost independents by margins much bigger than that. Plus, the demographics get more fundamentally in favour of the Democrats (as the proportion of Hispanics and blacks grows) with every election.

Edited November 12, 201311 yr by Danny

I meant New York City, and I meant that they regularly elect Republican mayors, who although liberal on things like gay rights and immigration, were pretty conservative economically.

Not really. He could've lost independents by up to 10% and still come out on top with all the registered Democrats who turned out. And if you're suggesting there's a risk of a Democrat losing independents by an even bigger margin than that, I'm not sure that's very realistic... I'm not even sure the Democrat candidates at their nadir in the 80s lost independents by margins much bigger than that. Plus, the demographics get more fundamentally in favour of the Democrats (as the proportion of Hispanics and blacks grows) with every election.

Losing independents 55-45 in 2012 gave him the result he got. I definitely think there's a realistic risk of a Democrat losing independents by a bigger margin than that in the future, given Obama wasn't all that toxic to independents last year. Someone like Warren definitely would be to fiscal centrist independents, even if I do agree with a lot of what she has to say.

 

On New York City, they don't really regularly elect Republican mayors - Giuliani and Bloomberg are pretty much the exception to the rule, and as Republicans go they're about as moderate and generally appealing as you'd ever get - Bloomberg defected from the Democrats to the Republicans in the year of his election and first won a week after 9/11, for example, and Giuliani was the first to win in a generation, running on an anti-crime platform to 'clean up' New York at a time when things were at a low under a Democratic mayor. It's still an overwhelmingly Democratic city, hence though de Blasio's victory does represent a break from before, if it was going to happen anywhere it'd be in one of the big Democratic cities. I'd disagree that someone running on a more traditionally left campaign winning there translates to the US as a whole as the Times editorial proposes - although I could see a more left-wing insurgency causing Hillary trouble if she runs from the centre in the primaries in 2016.

Interesting documentary on Ch.5 tonight, saying that a Secret Service agent in a follow-up car fired the third and fatal shot by mistake. Then a cover-up of the autopsy followed. Have read that theory before.