SpankyMcFarland

From an atherosclerosis point of view, the best age for a leader is as near to 40 (or less) as possible for a man and 50 for a woman. The older you go, the bigger the risk. This is no job for geezers.

Does he walk the course or take a kart? Looking at that dodgy BMI number just below obese, he needs to walk more and eat less. Anyway, there's no excuse for the LDL. That should have been brought down with more medication.

He's a busy guy who doesn't listen well. He should be lighter, more active and have a lower LDL.

Like most men his age he does appear to have some coronary artery disease, albeit sub-clinical, so I'm not sure how 'excellent' that is. His doctor should have increased his statin to get the LDL at least below 100 mg/dl in US units and preferably below 70. The weight should come down too. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/us/politics/trump-physical-heart-health-cholesterol.html It sounds like Trump hasn't spent a lot of time with his physicians. If he has then there's been a failure in implementing optimal management.

I’m impressed by that but not by Trump.

I think most of us agree that Iran would benefit from democracy.

And in Turkish Cyprus: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/06/were-not-muslim-enough-fear-turkish-cypriots-as-poll-looms

Sir William Osler said something very similar about older doctors with erroneous views of medicine, the point being that many people don't change their minds when they should.

Washington was an English colonial and then war hero born hundreds of years ago. He's a special case. The sort of modern celebrity we are talking about only became possible in the 20'th century and has really taken off with TV and then social media. The way things are going a lack of wealth may preclude being president in the future.

Kennedy was a senator and congressman, Washington didn’t get the chance to represent anybody before being prez (hence the unpleasantness that divides us still) and are you sure about Teddy? I had to wiki this but it looks like he had prior political and gov experience, even leaving aside his VP job. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt Of the failures, Forbes was a policy wonk and Rocky had extensive gov experience before his first run as well as being governor of NY. Perot is the only real parallel. Something deep is shifting in the tectonic plates of society. Celebrity is assuming moral significance.

It also makes his job as president more difficult.

What you have said about NRO is clearly and simply false by any reasonable criteria. It’s just nonsense. Try reading it sometime and get back to me. With these inane outbursts, Trump makes his own agenda more difficult to carry out. That’s OK for online nonentities like us - not so good for the leader of the free world.

Who were the previous billionaire presidents with no political experience? Granted, this bad trend is not confined to the US. Voters are less rooted in local organizations and are migrating towards the pseudo-communities created by media on tv or online. This makes them more vulnerable to populist demagoguery.

The people of Turkish Cyprus need more of that ‘political atheism’ right now: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/06/were-not-muslim-enough-fear-turkish-cypriots-as-poll-looms

The British parliamentary is a somewhat stronger defence against celebrity politics than the American presidential model. In addition, the head of state and of government should not be the same person.

Any reasonable person would like to see democracy in Iran. The question is how best to assist that process. The Iranian people continue to choose the most liberal they are offered. We may have to simply wait for the current leadership to die off before deeper reforms occur.

The outlook is not entirely bleak. India has a fertility rate around 2.4 and Bangladesh is 2.2 now. Africa is the big outlier: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate One major factor is female empowerment.

It’s a fairly mainstream topic as is overfishing.

I doubt Winfrey would go through such an ordeal. Unlike Trump, she hasn’t had to endure relentless criticism in her business dealings and would find the change highly unpleasant. The emergence of celebrity and mega-rich candidates is a disturbing trend in US democracy. Policy is being superseded by personality which means voters will have even less say on what happens.

Trump isn’t some random drunk in a bar or swivel-eyed loon online - he’s the president and people at home and abroad pay attention to how he behaves, how he expresses himself. He sets the national tone and tact is a sine qua non for the job he holds. By these foolish remarks he has caused himself, his party and his country considerable unnecessary grief. Here’s an opinion from Jonah Goldberg of NRO, not exactly a liberal outfit: http://www.nationalreview.com/

To summarize your argument - might is right. That has a 19'th century flavour to it. 'Losers' are still human beings with rights.

If Israel wishes to be judged by the deplorable standards of its Arab neighbours then 1.1 will be fine.

The two state solution is going to be slowly strangled.

The word you are probably thinking of there is whataboutism which has been used by Soviet and pro-Russian commentators as well as many others including Mr. Trump. Whataboutery is associated with both sides in Northern Ireland, many of whom were never leftist in any way. The meaning is the same: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism This form of rhetorical argument is also called 'you also' or 'tu quoque'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

As one wag observed, Britain is going to go from half-in the EU to half-out.