I'm not american so really not my business however narcissists do not make good social leaders. They make really terrible & dangerous social leaders.
Prepare for the Bill of Rights to be eroded further when either of these two idiots are elected.
The conservative will win even though 60% voted liberal. You don't have this problem if there are only two choices.
You aren't the one deeming them worthy, the democrat and republican establishments are.
Or at least, Republican party members were given the choice between Donald Trump and "I'll work with martians" Ted Cruz.
As long as first past the post is the voting system of the US actual democracy is impossible.
In actuality, your statement in addition to Pew's research is unfounded and extremely fuzzy. Where do you and others get off on deriving a person's social leadership capabilities with their individual psychological leanings?
Funny to see FDR right near the top of the list, because it has always been a surprisingly unpopular view of his presidency that his Trump-like ability to manipulate the media to his advantage (his fireside chats and his rather quotable speeches) led to the American peoples' renewed confidence in the markets even though it took WWII to truly end the economic hardships more than a decade later. If do wish to wholly agree that narcissism does not make good social leadership, we must then question and re-align the most widely-held views of the 20th century in the US.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/14/the-most-nar...
It's nearly impossible to get anywhere in politics without one or both of these qualities. And people like you happily elect them. ("People like you" being a voter in a democratic republic. If you vote, you're most likely guilty of helping to elect narcissistic and/or sociopathic people to power. There's probably almost no one on this message forum who isn't guilty of this.)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/27/trade-policy...
If Trump were not in presidential race and putting on public face, how do you think he would treat TTiP based on his lifetime actions? I think he would support & exploit it every way he could, & i think thats what he will do in reality regardless of what he states publicly but that's just me.
Never trust what politicians say if all their actions run contrary.
No idea whether this is consistent with his actions, though.
I'm not going to claim to know Trump's ambitions but you're dismissing the source and countering with "that has no weight...I think..."?
The article yesterday about the uninformed vs the misinformed mentioned this: in a time where we are overwhelmed with information, people dismiss things that don't agree with their preconceived notions as "baseless", while seeking "news" that supports their biases. It's a problem.
So I was trying to generally say 'Don't trust what politicians say, look at what they do'. That's it. I should have used somebody other than Trump as example, it was just a contrived example.
side note - I saw cruise/cruse/cruze (ted) introduce his running mate recently. She started singing some song.. I don't know either of them or their politics but it was the weirdest, most awkward creepy thing I've seen politicians on tv do.
It was seriously creepy and weird. That can't be hard to beat.
>side note - I saw cruise/cruse/cruze (ted) introduce his running mate recently.
"Cruise" is either a kind of ship or a reference to a nutty but highly successful actor. I don't know what "cruse" is. "Cruze" is a car by Chevrolet, an American company, and probably not a model sold in Europe.
"Cruz", however, is Lyin' Ted's name, and it's a pretty common Spanish surname as I understand. Spain is in Europe, and assuming you're European, as most non-US posters are, probably not that far from you. (And if you're not European, the main other likely region would be Latin America, where it's completely preposterous that you wouldn't be familiar with that common surname.)
It's not quite like George Bush's offhand "we will not do nation building" or Obama's offhand "this will be the most transparent administration ever". The unfairness of US trade deals is fairly central to his campaign and his support base of working class whites in hollowed out ex-industrial America.
Then again, can't rule it out either.
"TPP is going to be worse... we can't let it happen... if I am president first day - boom - it's over... you know what it is 5,000 pages... that none of our people even read..."
Edit: Seems, I said something right here -- hence the many downvotes!
For those not knowing: Obama was much criticizing the spying when he still was Senator.
Or are you just want to say, that it is an improvement that he at least kept one of his promises?
But Obamas voters where US citizen, of course.
(and I choose to take the most obvious problem for my statement)
She only recently did an anti-TPP U-turn - who knows what she stands for after being elected. Fortunately for us she won't be elected though!
What's going to happen with this election is anyone's guess IMO. It could be Trump vs. Clinton, in which case Clinton will likely win (lower unfavorability). Or it could be Cruz vs. Clinton, which again probably favors Clinton (IMO, Cruz is far more dangerous than Trump, but that's my opinion). Or, we could get a brokered GOP convention and Kasich could get the nomination, and in a Kasich vs. Clinton fight, Kasich will likely win. Or, Kasich could get the nomination, Trump could run as an independent splitting the ticket, and who knows who'll win, though likely it'll again be Hillary because Trump/Kasich will split the GOP voters. Or Bernie could change his mind and run as an independent since the DNC has screwed him over so much, making a 3-way or 4-way race with a completely unpredictable outcome (though it might end up with the House of Representatives making the decision).
Trump and Clinton have been tied in national polls recently (there was even an outlier showing +3 Trump) and this is before he has started attacking her and before any debates. She's going down.
Its pretty unlikely that either candidate will have a sufficient number of pledged delegates. Hillary seems far ahead because of early statements of support from superdelegates, made at a time when her support numbers (both overall and within the party) were much higher, and here unfavorable ratings with the general election electorate much lower, when no one could imagine any other Democratic candidate garnering anywhere close to as much support through the primary and caucus process, and before she was roundly out fundraised by Sanders.
Now, while the media coverage of delegate counts has largely treated these superdelegate statements of support as equivalent to pledged delegates awarded through the primary and caucus process, they are not.
https://www.predictit.org/Market/1232/Who-will-win-the-2016-...
If you believe he has any reasonable shot, I encourage you to put your money where your mouth is. Should be a good investment.
62% on predictit, where people are estimating with their money.