Almost started WW3........
Still fear the "mighty" USSR oh it is gone already

I don't believe many or actually any of Toyota U.S. Factories are unionized.

Kennedy wasn't bad, per se.

He was arrogant over Bay of Pigs, and Cuban Missile Crisis, but he did start the "Space Race" and all the resulting technologies that off-shot from that, after initially wanting to cancel the whole shebang. No one can deny those achievements. Fair do's to him, though, he took the blame for BoPs. Stand up guy. Not a shirker.
Khrushchev thought Kennedy a weak man, and that he would back down over the nukes on Cuba - Kennedy knew Khrushchev's opinion of him, and stood up to him - winning in the end, at some minor cost of removing obsolete missiles from ...Turkey, was it?

There's a fair amount of evidence he wanted to pull back from Vietnam - he knew it was unwinnable - but his assassination stopped that cold.
He rebuilt the US Special Forces.
He created the SEALs.
He's regularly mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln and Washington as great Presidents.
His assassination pretty much killed off what remained of American innocence after Pearl Harbor in WW2.

Kennedy was the last REAL president for the American people. Obviously the brother of JFK wanted to take revenge for the assassination but was also shot..........
Is only coincidence of course.....

You are right about JFK for the most part. But I must say that there is no evidence that he wanted to pull back from Vietnam. There are records of him thinking it over as an option, but military planning involves thinking over lots of options. JFK never chose to withdraw from Vietnam or even leaned in that direction before he died.

I would also point to Bay of Pigs as a failure of his. He didn't cancel the operation, which he should have done if he didn't agree with it. He didn't let it go ahead, which he should have done if he supported it. He just canceled its air support, which caused the thousands of CIA-trained Cubans to be massacred on the beach. That was more than foolish.

I'm not a JFK hater; you are largely correct.

JFK was a good president if a little arrogant. You could almost think his early self was an act to get the russians and the houses to think he'd be a push over before ramming home a crap load of changes in a remarkably short time

None of the Arabian countries that have been under unrest have yet become a democracy, and hopefully none of them will.

What we need are strong, wise, determined, intelligent men to lead us. Instead of giving the average person that neither want to decide important matters or are able to, the power of the vote, it should only be given to the most able in society. And who will decide who these people are you may ask, well that is not a problem.

Everybody that has proven themselves able by some criteria gets the power of a vote. (Some of the criteria could be: Manager of a business or organization with more than 20 employees. A scientist that have published more than four papers to a peer-reviewed publication.)

These people would then vote for 50 - 300 people that would form some sort of council. All of these would come from the original group of voters but would have to undergo many tests of skills, intelligence and knowledge before they are given a total score that is the sum of all these tests. If you get a score number above a certain threshold you can run for election to the council. (There should after every election be a review and some research done on the results of these tests to see if the threshold should be raised or lowered or if the tests should be changed.)
These men and women that get elected to this council will then after a further election process among them, choose a leader and 5 - 20 other people (a fixed number) that will form the executive branch of government. Prior to this, everybody that want to run for leader or minister will have to be subjected to many further tests that will be public and debate each other like politicians in democracy do before an election. The common public should be able to watch these debates if they want to, but since they will not partake in the election it is not so important to give them a wide coverage of the process.

This is just a rough draft. This system need many checks and balances like democratic systems do, but if democratic systems can have it there is no reason for this system not to have it.
The main problem will be the anger that the populace will feel for not being able to partake. There are many things that could be done about this. One of them could be to create a criteria that would give you the power of voting that could be possible to get for anyone but would still be so difficult that only the most determined would get it.

He signed a draft bill to pull out a lot of troops from Vietnam. He knew it would probably cost him the next election, but he also knew it would be the right thing to do...That and his public speeches on the subject gave a fair amount of credibility he would have done it....but we'll never know one way or the other, now.

Actually, I'd put Reagan as the last great....but few, if any, between him and Kennedy.
Reagan came from nowhere, with little support if not outright hostility, to win the election.
He made massive changes to policy. He more than faced down the Soviets, eventually driving them to collapse.

Rule by a small elite...that really worked well. Problem is the elite inevitably screws over everybody else in favor of the elite.

CHurchill said it best...Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others.

A lot of theories in this thread that look great on paper but would fail badly in reality.
Tht is just a little too much like what some people in Germany,Italy, and Japan were saying in the 1930's for me to be comfortable with it.
Of course with your persona and avatar I suspect you are just talking the piss anyway trying to get a rise out of people.

I know that 98% of all people are unable to think for themselves and that they let the thinking done by the mass media + "education" in school. It always depends who controls both or ? It's content and message of course....

This kind of rule by an elite has never been tried before, so honestly you don't really know how well it would have worked. This elite is not tightly knit together by family ties, religion or ethnicity. The people that would have the power would be a varied and heterogeneous selection of the population with many differing goals and values. This system would in many ways work as a democracy except that there is a much narrower selection of those that are eligible for participation.

Of course, this system would be less fair and just than the most well-functioning democracies since the goals of even a heterogeneous elite is different from that of the an average of the population. But the strengths of this model over a democracy would likely make the loss of some fairness very acceptable. Especially if we could move away from the modern concept that all men are equal.


Are you an omniscient being?


Of course you are uncomfortable with it, you have been raised from a tender age to despise all systems of government other than representative democracy.
The blind worship of democracy and extreme humanism we have today are just an extreme counterreaction towards the excesses of the Fascists. If you actually believe that representative democracy is the "Maximum Level", "The end of history" as that dimwit Fukuyama put it you are very short sighted.
Of course, finding bits and pieces of information here and there on the internet is much more valuable than any education...

I have studied and i even was on the London School of Economics; i was even wondering where the Brits are since there was almost only people from Asia or other countries just no Brits. You can be very fast indoctrinated in a school...

I just wanted to respond to the comments about how democracy is problematic because it allows stupid people to vote:

When talking about "stupid people," are you making sure to distinguish between people who are actually stupid and people who simply disagree with you? Are you confident that you can make this distinction?

Most people just repeat what they hear on TV or Radio and they do not think for themselves. Democracy is a problem in a sense that people can be easy persuaded by the mass media today and do not think. A republic where the rule of law is applied is the best. Well USA is a republic but the Americans have been persuaded by their politicians that the US is a democracy which is not true...

ANother advocate of elite rule. You have been reading way too much Ayn Rand ,probably.


BIngo.
I am still surprised I am the only way to call out "Osama Bin Laden" for what he obiviously is:Either a fascist advocating authoritarian government or just a troll.