Is on in a million, Margaret Thatcher being one, are you willing to take those odds, especially when Clinton starts out with a known criminal background?
Firstly I'm British and I'm talking about Europe, so the U.S. constitution is not relevant.
Secondly the U.S. constitution (and equivalent European laws) ONLY APPLY DOMESTICALLY. I'm talking about border control, not the domestic population.
Do you not believe in borders? What are saying? Just have no borders at all and let anyone come in? Do you realise about 500 million people would show up if the U.S. did that?
If the Muslim population in the U.S. ever reached a large majority they would replace the U.S. constitution with Sharia law. The equivalent will happen in Sweden because liberals are too weak to stop it.
Obviously you are not quoting Trump you are quoting yourself but I can quote Hillary's exact words:
Margaret Thatcher was a racist who believed anyone other than 'whites' should be leaders and be a minority anywhere. I think you already know that, don't you?
Tax and spend social democracies are unsustainable. It looks pretty for now but all the major western social democracies are up to their necks in debt and their birth rates are falling. There aren't enough young people to pay into the system and there is not enough incentive to produce or have children. It's all about to come crashing down.
Your statement is like saying "All the evidence shows that people who borrow heavily on their credit card enjoy a higher standard of living than people who just live off their meagre salary." This is true, but only before bankruptcy not afterwards.
Education does not make people more adept at thinking. It makes people more adept at adsorbing what they are told and repeating it. The differences in graduate demographics occur because the powers that be have been brainwashing everyone to vote left.
It's wisdom and life experience that gives a person insight into the world. I was a young naive kid when I went to university and I was a young naive kid when I came out. Real life has taught me far more.
Highly educated people tend to be liberal because liberalism is the dominant political philosophy of our times. Winning over the intelligentsia is how a philosophy gets power and maintains it. There has simply never been a significant political movement in a democracy that didn't capture the hearts and minds of the intelligentsia. The state moulds the intelligentsia for its purposes, not the other way around.
I would need to write you an essay which wouldn't work too well here in this context.
You can look up Wikipedia for a simple explanation.
It is not necessary to borrow money in order to have social welfare: it works highly efficiently on tax as soon as one ceases to spend over 60% of GDP on overseas warfare.
The USA has the highest national debt of any democracy, closely followed by Japan, Spain, Belgium, and Italy. Yet the USA has always had the least social welfare of any democracy.
With the exception of Iceland, the social democracies have less debt and better credit ratings due to their ability to repay their depts. Iceland, however, has since the GFC changed its policy on debt and now does not borrow beyond its means to repay.
Your argument on education assumes that universities are cut off from the real world, where as in fact they are funded by it and continuously interactive with it. I'm not talking about students, but about the professors and researchers - if their bias leans towards liberal it is due to the research and their discoveries about the inner workings of the system, so when students tend to absorb this leaning it is due to reading that research. Further, although you and a proportion of others may gradually lean further right as you grow older in the wider world, most graduates don't and the higher their level of education the less they shift position.
Try watching the immensely funny Michael Moore movie, "Where to Invade Next." It might both surprise and delight you.
I'm just an observer here. Who is under someone's skirt?
Taken out of context. But that won't be the first or the last time from your side.
*like*
I disagree with you that women are insufficiently stable for the role of president.
However, for the sake of the argument, I shall grant you the highest possible threshold of instability using the US Department of Health and Human Services's statistics.
The Office On Women's Health discusses mood swings associated with pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS) and estimates that 30 - 80% of women are affected, with 75% reporting uncomfortable physical and emotional symptoms in the week prior to their periods. Uncomfortable is not the same thing as being dysfunctional or emotionally unstable.
Apart from the fact that these symptoms are readily treatable, at the worst estimate, this would still mean that 20% of woman have sufficient emotional stability to be capable of working well in the role of president.
The office further mentions Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, or PMDD, a more severe form of PMS which affects 3 to 8 percent of women of reproductive age. Symptoms of PMDD include: severe irritability, depression, anxiety, and mood swings. So let us be vicious and add the worst case scenario: 80 + 8 = 88% of women knocked out by emotional instability. That still leaves 12% of women eligible for the highest office in the land.
Now let's look at menopause. It starts around 2-8 years prior to 50 years old and continues for a year after the last period. During this time most women experience an increase in emotional fluctuations, anxiety, and rates of depression. All of these are successfully treatable with hormone replacement therapy, and with talk therapy and SSRI's as back-ups for some. But once menopause is fully over, women experience tremendous relief from all these symptoms. Life evens out and becomes extremely stable.
Very few politicians ever stand for president before 55 or 60. So a woman's stability or otherwise is completely irrelevant at this age.
Your statistics on debt levels are not accurate because most of the debt has been hidden by creative accountancy. Governments make deficits look smaller that than they are by borrowing money from a government owned fund and replacing it with a government bond. Since this is an internal transfer of funds, it doesn't count as a government spending. This practice has caused the U.S. to have unfunded liabilities of 100 trillion dollars (or 500% of GDP).
It's not just about what a country owes now, it's about what they will owe later. It's about the black hole in their future. They will be forced to borrow / raise taxes even further to cope with that future when it arrives. If they don't, the system will collapse. Already interest rates are at zero or near zero and the global economy is still struggling under the debt mountain.
Saying the U.S. has the lowest social welfare spending is false. People come up with such statistics by looking at the U.S. budget and forgetting that U.S. massively exceeds its budget year on year. It's also important to remember that governments also redistributes wealth through mandates and tax incentives not just by direct government spending.
https://mises.org/blog/social-expenditures-us-are-higher-all-other-...
Comparing countries is just smoke and mirrors. All the social democracies are all more or less the same. None are sustainable.
It's true some high tax economies like Sweden have lower government deficits, though this sows the seeds of other problems such as serious birth rate declines. High tax economies incentivise individuals not to have children (because it's expensive and because they think the government has their back in their old age). This is the exact opposite of what a country needs. They need young people to pay in. This is all compounded by gender egalitarianism that causes women to put their careers before having children.
Sweden knows it is collapsing. That's why they're allowing immigration in the hope that enough young people will come to Sweden and pay taxes. Though most of the immigrants appear to be a liability. So it's game over.
And you think Trump is emotionally stable? LOL!!! He's nuts. But since when are "scholars" capable of deciding who is emotionally stable? They're not psychologists.
Lol.
Wow. AS, I usually agree with you on most things but this one is out there.
The families of the Benghazi victims would most likely disagree with you and Hillary does play on emotion a lot rather than facts in the end that is going to hurt us because it's still a form of biased politics.
The context is she lied about a protest vs a terrorist attack. And attempted to say the reason they were there did not make a difference.
OS, I agree to disagree. I don't need fancy dancy words and dissertations, the simple facts of the matter is all I need. In essence you're just trying to twist this into bigotry, discrimination, blah blah blah, I'm a realist, not a sexist. Listen here my friend, as far back as I can remember it's the woman that cry's on the man's shoulder and not the other way around. Just an old surfdogs opinion, and you can't change it.
What does white nationalism have to do with women's emotional state, I fail to see the correlation.
Are you answering someone else's question, or are you wrapped up in your own racist fight somewhere, because you're on the wrong page dude.
I'll keep that in mind, but I'd have to be very drunk and on other drugs simultaneously to think of her as anything but a conniving, corrupt, Queen of Hearts, lol.
Lol, Cola, what's that BS about pointing the finger 3 times or some such nonsense, Whoa! Has anyone ever called you a tea pot, besides maybe the kettle, lol. Please!!!!!!!!
What odds did the the "majority of scholars" place on a man being emotionally stable enough?
Austrian School, 
Thank you, Old School, for your reasoning, way of perceiving the world and your values.
:)
The site you quoted brings up the Mises Institute: Austrian Economics, Freedom and Peace.
It offers a library-like anthology of academic PDF's, EPUB's and books for sale on economics, freedom and peace.
The subjects are highly diverse.
Is there an essay that you would prefer me to read that addresses the opinions and issues yo advocate above?
