tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post4236876579191975380..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Forum: Whom Would You Least Like To See In A Presidential Matchup In 2016?Freedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-71137525637162695672014-01-06T10:33:20.488-08:002014-01-06T10:33:20.488-08:00The worst possible candidate for the Republicans w...The worst possible candidate for the Republicans would Jeb Bush. The Republicans are not serious about nominating him are they? <br /><br />No matter how good a leader he may be or have been a governor of FL he has a huge problem. He has the name "Bush." His brother left office as the most reviled man in American history. He remains so to this day. While this may not be fair to Jeb, this is the case. Nominating Jeb would be suicidal for the Republicans. <br /><br />As far as the candidates on the Democrat side, I think it is a mater of who is least bad. Frankly I don't knew who it is? The same really applies to the Republicans as well. Who is least bad? They are all quite bad right now. <br /><br />"...the issue for America is not our destruction. We're far to powerful for that..." With all due respect, this is exactly what it is about and to suggest that we are far to powerful suggests an attitude of extreme hubris. I'm sure you are familiar with the statement that pride comes before the fall. I don't think many Americans actually believe the statement that America is to powerful to be destroyed. If they do, we are in more trouble than I thought. <br /><br />The analogy to Rome is interesting, especially the historical context in 83BC. I could envision a scenario where an American general might attempt to assume power in a time of crisis to hold the nation together or in the aftermath of an attack on the US mainland. While I could envision something like that, there are several problems that make it VERY unlikely. 1.)Rome had no real international rivals for power during the time of 83BC. America does. If America disintegrated to that point today, foreign rivals would take advantage of the situation long before an American general could assume power. 2.)America has no generals who possess the competence of the of General Sulla nor are there any on the visible horizon. 3.)While America is currently an influential country, Rome ruled much of the known world at it's time. RELATIVE to the time period America's power today is not even close to what Rome's was. Additionally, except for perhaps a very brief period immediately following WWII America has never had this kind of power relative to it's time period that Rome had. Very respectfully, this is where this comparison of America's current situation to that of Rome breaks down. <br /><br />I agree that it's hard to envision someone actually wanting to be the next POTUS unless they have an ulterior motive. I also agree that the next POTUS needs to be someone not of the ruling class. At a minimum they will need to focus on the following two things. 1.)Publically renounce the idea that POTUS is "the leader of the free world." He/she is President of the United States. Our own nation has enough problems of it's own. The resources are not available to focus on the problems of "the free world." Focus on getting our own house in order. Also, it's a bit confusing on just who the "free world really is!!" 2.)The dollar will lose it's role as world reserve currency in the next few years, if not sooner. American leadership including POTUS needs to start preparing for this. Of course all of this assumes the country actually survives long enough to get a new POTUS and new leadership in place. I pray it does.B.Posternoreply@blogger.com