Exegesisme

My ideal is to understand each word of the bible upon the whole tone of bible, and understand the whole tone of bible in the background of the being of the whole universe and her environment.

For each of the following, please tell me if you have a realistic vision of that person being president of the United States. Just answer yes or no. Yes No Not Sure Donald Trump 29 69 2 Carly Fiorina 33 58 9 Hillary Clinton 47 52 1 Bernie Sanders 34 60 6 Jeb Bush 40 57 3 Ben Carson 35 56 9 Marco Rubio 30 61 9 http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-09-22/150923_wednesday_2121165.pdf The pull numbers show that political outsiders still need hard work to increasing their hope. ​

Should Carson Drop Out or Not?​ By Exegesisme "The leading Muslim civil liberties group in America called Monday for Republican Ben Carson to drop out of the presidential race after the retired neurosurgeon said this weekend that he doesn't believe any Muslim should be president of the United States." http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/ben-carson-muslim-president-cair-drop-out/index.html Recently, I have found that leadership by value is greater than leadership by party. A national leadership by value is more advanced than a national leadership by party. According leadership by value, Carson should drop out automatically. According leadership by party, GOP should force Carson to drop out. The reason is very clear, his belief is unconstitutional. What's your idea?

False Xi Jinping​ and His Party By Exegesisme All the world does not know how Xi Jinping took his power except very few in his party, but knows his arrogance to show off. Although he knows himself is very selfish, so does his party, he still persists to live under the disguise of communism. He knows he is cheating his party members, he knows he is cheating Chinese people, and even he knows he is cheating himself and all the world, he still teaches others his faith is communism. Such a Xi Jinping, I can only call him false Xi Jinping. To such a false Xi Jinping, you can not trust him by default, you can only trust him after scrutiny and overhaul. For example, when he says Chinese people, you will be wrong if you think that he means common Chinese. Chinese people in his actual meaning means only himself and his few followers around him. For common Chinese, he and his party have another word, crowd. Another example, is that each of them is corrupted in corrupted communist regime. Even so, they still take anti-corruption as their disguise, for without that disguise, they can not live. In China, the difference in high ranks between corruption and anti-corruption, is only the difference losing power and getting power.

Our present political system is leadership by party, what we need is leadership by value. Through Direct Election Of The Prime Minister, we can reestablish our national leadership by value.

"A decade studying political science as a hobby", Is this enough for understanding Higher Leadership? A concept who will win as once she or he really understands.

"BASED ON 305 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 139 WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A TOTAL OF 444 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS. 6. I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Republican primaries for president in 2016. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, or if you would support someone else. Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, or Scott Walker. (RANDOM ORDER) Sept 17-19 Sept. 4-8 Aug. 13-16 July 22-25 June 26-28 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 Trump 24% 32% 24% 18% 12% Fiorina 15% 3% 5% 1% 1% Carson 14% 19% 9% 4% 8% Rubio 11% 3% 8% 6% 7% Bush 9% 9% 13% 15% 17%​" http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/rel10a.pdf ​

"Carly Fiorina has rocketed into second place in the Republican presidential field on the heels another strong debate and Donald Trump has lost some support, a new national CNN/ORC poll shows. The survey, conducted the three days after 23 million people tuned in to Wednesday night's GOP debate on CNN, shows that Trump is still the party's front-runner with 24% support. That, though, is an 8 percentage point decrease from earlier in the month when a similar poll had him at 32%. Fiorina ranks second with 15% support -- up from 3% in early September. She's just ahead of Ben Carson's 14%, though Carson's support has also declined from 19% in the previous poll." ​ The debate matters. ​

Can Trump keep first runner position? "But that was not the end of questions about Trump: The debate hosts continued to press candidates about why Trump, a political neophyte, was beating all of them so badly." Will Fiorina up？ “Fiorina, who hadn’t even been on the main stage for the August debate, jabbed Trump for his insults of her appearance, and for his record as a businessman. She pointed out that Trump had lost money in his famous Atlantic City casinos. “You ran up mountains of debt, as well as losses, using other people’s money,” Fiorina said. “Why should we trust you to manage the finances of this nation.”” Will Strategy of Ben Carson work, or not work? "In this debate —— Carson himself was a low-key and largely invisible presence, repeatedly refusing to take the moderators’ bait to argue with the others around him." "The second-place figure in the race, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, was mostly a quiet presence in this debate, a low-key contrast to Trump and those throwing bombs at him.​" Say more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-tonights-republican-debate-its-still-all-about-the-outsiders/2015/09/16/b670b674-5c6f-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html ​

Trump as an aggressor and an entertainer finnally hit political Trump, pulls down his national poll number from 32 (Sept. 10) to 27 (Sept. 15), Carson gained from the downturn of Trump from 19 (Sept. 10) to 23 (Sept. 15).

Apparently, yes. In deep, no.

"The first known human lived in Ethiopia 2.8 million years ago, according to two remarkable new studies that also reveal the conditions under which the earliest humans evolved." http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/remains-of-first-known-human-found-in-ethiopia-150304.htm The whole creation began about 3 million years ago and has persisted to now. The creation about 15 000​ to 10 000 years ago is the latest major creation preparing for the warming phase of the climate from the cold phase. Now another major creation may begin for preparing the coming of the next cold phase of the climate, which may be lasting for 1 000 years according to Bible （millenium）.​

Something now I am experiencing is very complicated. The experience is in process, the whole meaning is still not very clear, and many meanings are away from tradition, so I should be very careful. My self keeps a skeptical attitude about my experience, so my expression somewhat shows my skeptical attitude. For example, "I believe in God", this is no problem. But who is God, this is very hard to answer according to my experience. "God created Climate Change." This is what I want to tell, but the farther evidences are very hard to tell, so I should hold myself to say this way. I am in a process of spiritual exploration, this fact may affect my expression. I notice that English is a language for clearness, so sometimes I feel that some expression may be too clear to express the unclear nature of an object.

The topic is about the relation between the real meaning of the verses in the Bible and the real history, although is not very clear. What I try to say is, first, the real process of the creation of God, for both human and human civilization; second, the creation is around the climate change, as the genesis is from the cold climate to the warm climate, and then the job in the warm climate, (which is implied by pointing out the clear time of the relevant verse), and the revelation is about the preparation from the warm climate to the cold climate (this part is about future and very important, but this thread does not talk about, just now I tried to talk this topic in a new thread, but it disappeared). Do you have any suggestion?

Bible and History, "Who Never Know".​ By Exegesisme Genesis 1:26 Then God said: " Let us make man in our image,..." (Time from 3 million years ago to 15 thousand years ago.) Genesis 2:7 the lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.. (in Africa about 15 thousand years ago, the man was a man with new genome, or new nuclear information genetics.) Genesis 2:8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. (In Middle East, time from 15 thousand years to 10 thousand years. The trees in the garden became oils today.) Genesis 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden (the source of four ancient agricultural civilizations); from there it was separated into four headwaters. (Ancient China, ancient India, ancient Mesopotamia, and ancient Egypt. Ancient China and ancient India lose their relations with the source. Civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt had interacted repeatedly to form the civilizations of ancient Greece and ancient Jews, which in turn had interacted repeatedly to form the civilization of Christianity, until our era, have formed the main stream of general human civilization.)

This is a definition for who well prepares to be higher leadership, not for who does not well prepares to be higher leadership. Only very few people can achieve it. If out of your range, it is not surprising. You should know a definition is not just at the level of your understanding. As you see a higher leadership, you even do not know it is a leadership. Some job may be farther into history, and then one talent historian surprises to find it. Take it ease.

Using your experience to fill the gap of understanding.

The Higher Leadership, Historical example: the leadership in the process of making the constitution of USA. Ongoing example: the leadership of Trump in his campaign. Definition: the higher leadership, is the leadership which should creatively solve hard issues, breakthrough deadlocks, make great achievements, create new momentums, and rebuild balance at higher level. Application: I hope that the higher leadership appears everywhere in Canada.

Analysis of Numbers of Polls, Sept. 3 By Exegesisme Numbers of polls(1): Thursday, September 3 Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Monmouth A Trump 30, Carson 18, Bush 8, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Fiorina 4, Walker 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +12 B General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Trump 44 Clinton +2 C General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 42 Clinton +4 D General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Carson 44 Tie E General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Rubio 43 Clinton +4 G General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Fiorina 43 Clinton +2 H General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Cruz 42 Clinton +5 I General Election: Trump vs. Biden PPP (D) Biden 47, Trump 41 Biden +6 J General Election: Bush vs. Biden PPP (D) Biden 44, Bush 41 Biden +3 K General Election: Trump vs. Sanders PPP (D) Trump 43, Sanders 42 Trump +1 L General Election: Bush vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 40, Bush 41 Bush +1 M General Election: Bush vs. Clinton vs. Trump PPP (D) Clinton 42, Bush 23, Trump 27 Clinton +15 ​ My analysis: A, Trump 30, Carson 18, Bush 8, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Fiorina 4, Walker 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +12 The implications of these numbers in A: ​1) Very clear numbers, the 1st runner Trump 30 is far ahead of the 2nd runner Carson 18 (by +12), 2) And the 2nd runner is far ahead of the two 3rd runners Bush 8 Cruz 8 ( both by +10). 3) The only female runner Fiorina marks by 4 . 4) All other numbers plus together 19. All numbers plus together, 87. 5) Support for Republic outsiders 30+18+4=52, over support for Republic tradition 8+8+5+3+4+2+2+2+1=35 (by +17). B vs C vs A B General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Trump 44 Clinton +2 C General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 42 Clinton +4 A Trump 30, Carson 18, Bush 8, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Fiorina 4, Walker 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +12 ​The implications of these numbers in B, C, and A: 1) Trump A 30, wins Bush A 8 by a big gap +22, does not make an obvious contribution for Trump to win Clinton in the pull. 2) Trump already has been gaining the obvious 1st runner position, next should aim less at his republic rivals, and aim more at democratic side with one goal to unify the republic side into his campaign, with the other goal to press the space of the democratic side, to make his big gap ahead in the republic side to contribute more in winning the democratic side. B vs D vs A B General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Trump 44 Clinton +2 D General Election: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Carson 44 Tie A Trump 30, Carson 18, Bush 8, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Fiorina 4, Walker 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +12 The implications of these numbers in B, C, and A: 1) Carson A 18, loses to Trump A 30 by -12, wins Bush A 8 and Cruz A 8 by +10, and Carson D 44 ties Clinton D 44. 2) the analysis of 1) mean that Carson's major fight is still in the republic side, his rival is mainly the 1st runner Trump. Carson ties Clinton which implies his advantage over the democratic side, but he should win Trump first. B vs G vs A B General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Trump 44 Clinton +2 G General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Fiorina 43 Clinton +2 A Trump 30, Carson 18, Bush 8, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Fiorina 4, Walker 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +12 ​The implications of these numbers in B, G, and A: 1) Fiorina A 4, loses to Trump A 30 by -26, to Carson A 18 by -14, to Bush A 8 by -4, to Cruz 8 by -4, to Rubio A 5 by -1, but Fiorina G 43 only loses to Clinton G 45 by -2. 2) ​Fiorina as the only female of the republic runners should mainly concentrate on express her own positive image as a female. 3) Trump A 30, wins Fiorina A 4 by +26, the big gap does not give Trump any advantage on Fiorina as Clinton is the rival​, implies the value of Fiorina as the only female runner for the nomination of GOP. B vs C vs M vs A B General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Trump 44 Clinton +2 C General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 42 Clinton +4 M General Election: Bush vs. Clinton vs. Trump PPP (D) Clinton 42, Bush 23, Trump 27 Clinton +15 A Trump 30, Carson 18, Bush 8, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Fiorina 4, Walker 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +12 The implications of these numbers in B, C, M and A: 1) Trump A 30, shrinks to Trump M 27 by -3, which transfers to become part of Clinton M 42. 2) Bush M 23, which represents republic tradition, over Bush A 8 by +15, which is from part of other runners' A for republic nomination other than Trump. 3) Clinton M 42, is shrunk from Clinton B 46 by -4, which prefers 1st traditional republic politics, 2nd traditional democratic politics, to political outsider, transfers to become a part of Bush M 23. 4) Clinton M 42, is shrunk from Clinton C 46 by -4, which prefers 1st political outsider, 2nd traditional democratic, to traditional republic, transfers to become a part of Trump M 27. 5) Trump M 27, which represents republic outsider, plus Bush 23 makes 50, which represents republic in the poll group, over Clinton M 42 by +8, which will shrink or overturn as one more democratic runner in the poll. ​ ​ Suggestion: 1, for Trump, Keeping the current style for its momentum, and adjusting it subtly to make it more stabilized for traditional trust, and shrink its hurt, and leave space for flexibility until to get the Republic nomination, and then making a reasonable change in the flexibility of the current style partially through choosing a good VP partner to absorb the decisive population in the campaign 2016. 2, for Carson, Learning from Trump, running more passionately, and increasing absorption, especially towards the part pushed away by Trump's aggression, closing the gap to the 1st runner. Focusing on foreign affairs, trying to win Trump on this domain, preparing for the much larger and sophisticated international space. 3, for Clinton, Receiving the reality, and preventing or shrinking the possible hurt from the email event in all directions. 4, for Fiorina More passion on the identity of female, running for support from women by the same identity, running for support from men by the complementary identity. Studying Trump deeply, doing early and good preparation towards the possible offer as partner running for VP once he gains the nomination and provides the chance. 5, for Bush Trying the goodest running for the nomination, then after turning from public domain to private domain. The meaning to meditate on and work for far future of Bush large family is not less than to be a common US president for 4 or 8 years. Reference (1) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Climate change is real, out of human hard ability, and in human soft ability. Farther more: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24921-8-controled-climate-change-of-earth-political-philosophy-for-human-future/ ​

My title implies that the wrong system causes the wrong doings of the parties. And the change or the intention to the change of the retirement age is an example. The C did something right here, but the N and the L intend to change the right thing for their political benefits to get elected because the wrong system weighs too much on the election itself other than the real great leadership. So, the case well supports the title and the topic of this thread. I see from your discussions in this thread we maybe share some other ideas.​

The change the Conservatives made to OAS is responsible. It is a case that shows what the other two parties are not right. I mean exactly that the political system made the corruption of the parties, and the parties should be saved from the wrong system.

What you understand is not enough. Your second issue is from the topic, but twists my topic. My topic is that the political system is the source of the political wrong doings of all the three major parties, especially the conservative party, which has taken the power in the past ten years. Your first issue is not my topic, but appears in the discussion for understanding that immigration is not an absolute way to offset the issued of aging tendency. In this field, the NDP made a wrong promise in the election, and so did the liberal but not as obvious as the NDP, and the Conservative policy is right.

Voting for Who Can Face the Economic Reality​ By Exegesisme Voters should vote the person who can face the economical reality. Canadian economy is on the edge of recession, and now is still faraway from the coming bottom. As you consider that the lowest interests can not continue all this way, Canadian economy will be reasonably worse than now as the interests kick off the way up. The prices of home are historically high, what is the result as the interests begin to wave up? The next PM should face this event directly, and not try to fight with the tendency in vain and waste a lot of resources. The good leadership should be along with the tendency carefully, and only deal with the emergency along the tendency, and strengthen the elements for economic growth in long period. China and other fast developing countries will be the first group in the coming global economic recession, and Canada with others whose economies mainly depend on natural resources and high prices of home may come to the second position, US may come to the third positon. Germany economy will be the least influenced by this global recession.

Immigration is an asset, but is not ease to offset the aging process as you claim. I have a message that implies there is issue of over-population even in Canada, as we consider the challenges from environment and far future.