That says it all right there, I mean you can't even only pin it on race because Hillary is probably the most qualified person who's eligible to be president of the US, yet even she gets reduced and mocked because her husband cheated on her.
Huntsman is now pro-Trump. He was on TV the other day running interference for Trump's bungled Taiwan call (presumably to get a job in the administration).
You should brush up on your history before making such a patently untrue claim. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, Johnson, Hoover were extremely wealthy men, let alone the founding trio of Washington, Madison and Jefferson who were richer men in their time than Vom Clownstick compare to his peers.
Even if Huntsman is running interference for Trump, if he stays clear of supporting crazy stuff Trump says, he can be a reasonable candidate in the future. I always though he was the best chance the Republicans had.
He won the Congressional Medal of Honour, largely as a result of a campaign conducted by his father!
Did his Dad also drive him around in a PT109 in the middle of the Pacific and earn him a Purple Heart ?
He may be considered a "reasonable" candidate among reasonable observers like you and I, but that's simply not where the GOP base is at the moment. They are way off to the right and are now emboldened through Trump's win, that they were right all along that the likes of McCain and Romney were too establishment and centrist to win. Therefore, someone like Huntsman will wouldn't fare any better than Jim Gilmour or George Pataki did this time.
There were a lot of wealthy American presidents - but no oligarchs. JFK's wealth has been estimated at 1B$, which makes him easily the richest US president.
He is right about getting the base out, Dems failed, but he's such a pechulant child.
Didn't George W set the record for number of vacation days? How was he received by his party?
I don't think America's ready for a female president. As Obama said she was held to a completely different standard to other candidates. She had her faults but they're faults many others haven't been attacked for. No one attacks how male candidates look or dress like, her dress/looks was constantly highlighted.
Unfortunately I think Dems are going to have to play along if they want to take office again and get a youngish (late 40's/50s') white male to run.
There's no such thing. He won the Medal of Honour, or Honor as they spell it. Pedantry 101
Actually a black male candidate who also appeals to white lower and middle income families and liberals would get their base out. IE black people would be bothered to vote en mass, which would bump them over the edge in swing states.
Hence 'while he was still alive'. His father established a trust.
I didn't make the phrase up. That's how the medal was described in accounts I've read.
Not gonna happen that easy for 2 reasons
Rich but not billionaires and a few presidents who got rich after the presidency
That would be racism
I know you didn't make the phrase up, it's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's the Medal of Honor and it's awarded by Congress, just not called the Congressional Medal of Honor.
It's bizarre. I thought it was a bit of an act for a while, but now I'm convinced that it isn't. He actually is a man-child. I've never seen anything like it.
To be fully pedantic, I don't think JFK won the Medal of Honor anywayI know you didn't make the phrase up, it's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's the Medal of Honor and it's awarded by Congress, just not called the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Anyway, enough pedantry, as you were.
I think the 2 names people didn't want to see for a long time Bush and Clinton.
It fecks me off that the personality and image are now more important than the ability.
How would it be racism?
I always admired rich people who wants to serve their country and JFK had a very rich father who could find him a desk job but his son wanted to serve and he volunteered to go to the pacific, unlike Bush son and Clinton who voided the war but they had no problems to send our young men to war.
One of the links I quoted recognizes Kennedy as the wealthiest president, the other doesn't as he had yet to inherit the trust money when he died. As I said, it's not worth arguing about. How much 'work' he did depends on your view of the life of a rich, playboy politician.
If you benefit a specific race I would call racism, actually a few years ago a white teacher from New Jersey sued and I believe she won when they fired her because they realized they didn't have enough black teachers in their district - black Hispanics doesn't count. Racism would be over when we apply for a job and they don't ask the persons race, never understood why they need to know the person's race.
Well it's not like he would only be looking out for black people and ignoring everybody else - that doesn't even sound plausible or make sense, but he didn't tackle things such as education funding in poor income cities, or unemployment in poor income cities, over-policing etc these aren't exclusive to black people only, they apply to Hispanics, and Whites too, but during his campaign he did say he wanted to work on improving those disparities.
Although as we saw in the primaries that's something the democratic party will actively try and stop happening.
I think that was more to do with the fact that Clinton was on the ticket and this was "her turn", she was supposed to be the democratic nominee after Bush, not Obama.
In fairness to Bush and Clinton, it was a different era and a much less equivocal war. That's not to say their actions were morally justifiable.
But he had the balls to do it and believe me I'm not a JFK fan he was the one who started the colonial wars (Portuguese)
That happened in the 1950s as well with Adlai Stevenson.
