It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 37
15
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
The deliberate drop to four candidates makes a great deal of fiscal sense for the Republicans. If my theory holds and they know they're going to lose, I'd expect the top party bosses to make a big push to minimize the damage. I'd love to be wrong about this. I'd have no trouble at all making my apologies.

TKainZero might be on to something with that list of choices. If I were on the payroll to advise Fred Thompson, I would suggest to him that he come out of hiding in early October. Spend a million dollars a month right up to the primaries. Get on a bus and go go go on a whistle stop tour of the country. Wave the bloody shirt, invoke the ghost of Reagan, and preach reform like his life depends on it.


His political LIFE would! Actually, Mr J/O, I’d do it differently. I’d advise Fred to hit Iowa OR New Hampshire every 3rd day and then Tennessee about 1 day a week, and South Carolina, California and Texas the rest of the time. You can see my plan. To score as big as possible in the 2 traditional early states and to play to his strength in TN, SC, and TX. I’d go to CA because it is the largest prize.

[edit on 8/14/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Will Rove be a Factor?

I find it funny yesterday all the Democrats were celebrating the fact that Karl Rove will be leaving the White House, but today, it seems their happiness has been muted by fears that Rove may get involved with a Republican candidate for 2008!

Personally I don't think he's going to take a major role in a campaign, but he might be giving some advice from behind scenes now that he'll have some free time on his hands.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

posted by djohnsto77
Will Rove be a Factor? I find it funny yesterday all the Democrats were celebrating the fact that Karl Rove will be leaving the White House, but today, it seems their happiness has been muted by fears that Rove may get involved with a Republican candidate for 2008! Personally I don't think he's going to take a major role in a campaign, but he might be giving some advice from behind scenes now that he'll have some free time on his hands.


Karl Rove would have been a nobody but for Texas and Bush43. Problematic and symbiotic. He or his type would only work there. Rove is actually a mimic of Nixon’s Murray Chotiner. Nixon and Bush43 have a lot in common. I don’t think any of the leading GOP candidates want to be in the same room with Rove. He is finished, IMO.

[edit on 8/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Justin djohnsto77 has already nominated this thread in the relevant thread.

Money wise Fred may have a problem if he chooses to run a million dollars just doesn't buy you much on the campaign trail any more. There was a time when a dark horse candidate could emerge if the delegates were deadlocked. Today four candidates will be retained to maintain the illusion that the candidates who trail in the polls have a shot at the VP ticket. As the days get shorter in the USA and the days get longer here the Republican party will start to plan who would join the ticket as VP. Of course that is depended on the there being no reversal in poll numbers.

There could be five candidates floating around Ron doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who would drop out at the party wishes. Rudy will certainly be around and even if he isnt the VP pick Romney might be kept on for appearance sake. After all Romney seems to have been one of the strongest contenders who have been and will chase Rudy in the Polls.

As for Karl Rove even if he doesn't come on board officially with one of the candidates I'm sure that there will frequent phone calls between him and any candidate he is giving an ear to.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   
With all due respect, I disagree on the matter of Karl Rove. I've made it my business to study political strategists. thye factor strongly in to my writing. rove is leaving the Bush team before he is irrevocably harmed. He's still tops in his field, and he will go on to other things. the only difference will be his much bigger fee.

For those who don't know, political strategists like Rove run their own organizations which harness the power of fixers, P.I.'s, and specialists of all sorts. that's one of the reasons why they are so expensive to have on staff. Guys like Rove or women like Mary Matlin can cost up to four million dollars per year.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
With all due respect, I disagree on the matter of Karl Rove. I've made it my business to study political strategists. They factor strongly in to my writing. Rove is leaving the Bush team before he is irrevocably harmed. He's still tops in his field, and he will go on to other things. The only difference will be his much bigger fee.

For those who don't know, political strategists like Rove run their own organizations which harness the power of fixers, P.I.'s, and specialists of all sorts. That's one of the reasons why they are so expensive to have on staff. Guys like Rove or women like Mary Matlin can cost up to four million dollars per year.


Hmm? So Karl Rove is another Henry “The K” Kissinger? I never liked Henry. He is a LIAR on the grandest scale and he WORKS only for Henry. You can take this to the bank: Whatever Henry says is wrong. Henry's advice to Nixon cost 22,000 American soldiers KIA. Thanks, Henry!

Well, then, maybe you’d say Rove was a reincarnation of Machiavelli? I have read “The Prince” back when I was a sophomore at Eastern Ky State College, 1957. On the GI Bill. PL 550. Thank you Mr Roosevelt. I have the lingering recollection that Machiavelli was not himself involved in politics as a counselor but rather was an astute observer who watched the very complex goings-on between Florence and Rome for dominance of the Italian peninsula.

A shrewd manipulator Rove is not. He has been open and straightforward about his goals, his methods and his tactics. Karl could have served Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco with equal aplomb and personal enthusiasm. He is not my kind of guy. His advice has wrecked American influence aborad, he has rendered the GOP impotent at home and he has left behind a legacy of incompetence and corruption for Bush43 to take to his grave. Sounds like he rates a real big “F” to me. Grade-wise.

So if not Henry the K, and not Machiavelli then he must be the lineal descendant of Svengali! This fictional character was indeed the master manipulator of others who he captured by flattery and his wiles. He had his victims do that which he would not do himself thereby limiting his own risks. He always wanted to do bad things, never good. He was the living embodiment of EVIL. Ant that is the best description I can offer for Karl Rove. I still say he got his guidance straight from Murray Chotiner and Richard Nixon when running for the Senate from California. By winning, they legitimized their totally unprincipled tactics! Say Hello Karl Rove!

[edit on 8/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Say what you will about Karl Rove, he gets the job done when others can't. That is an huge feather in his cap. Who do the Democrats have.... Bob Schrum? Please.

If Karl Rove jumped sides, someone on the Democrat side would pick him up in a heartbeat. He is sort of like the dirty and tough pro sport player when he comes play your home team, you hate em. But once he is on your team it's "he's such a skilled professional" crap. The man is good at what he does, point blank.

As much as the Dems want to demonize and bury him, Mr. Rove is not tired yet of his profession. It makes sense to for him to leave right now, not for the Administrations sake, but for his own future.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I note with some academic interest today that all of the conservative radio and t.v. programs that I can find are suggesting that the current stock market slump is due mostly to the hype generated by the liberal media which is preaching gloom and doom with a certain...glee. An examination of every liberal t.v. and radio that I can find demonstrates that the Libs are doing just what the conservatives claim.

The simple fact is that both sides are now looking to use this crisis for their political gain. We're all smart people here. We know that regardless of outcome, this snafu is happening on Bush's watch, so he'll take the flak for it and...by extension...so will the members of his party. If a Dem were in charge, they and theirs would take the pasting.

I do think there are a lot of Republicans who could make the fixes needed to head off this disaster, but Bush's propensity to NOT admit his mistakes will play a role in what comes next. I am very much bothered by the fact that the timeline I predicted in my published work is turning out to be an actual fact. I don't want to be right about this.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
I note with some academic interest today that all of the conservative radio and t.v. programs that I can find are suggesting that the current stock market slump is due mostly to the hype generated by the liberal media which is preaching gloom and doom . .


Au contraire, Mr J/O. I, OTOH, have always believed the stock market reflected the future as seen by the R&Fs. Rich and Famous. The issue of insider trading impact aside, the market usually is “pushed along” by the big traders, mutual funds, hedge funds and pension funds. Since like Ivory Snow, 99.44% of Big Traders are GOP types and are not LIBERALS, it makes it all the more unlikely to me that any Big Trader would pay one whit of attention to the ramblings and naysaying of liberals.


The simple fact is that both sides are now looking to use this crisis for their political gain. We're all smart people here. We know that regardless of outcome, this snafu is happening on Bush's watch, so he'll take the flak for it and...by extension...so will the members of his party. If a Dem were in charge, they and theirs would take the pasting.


Well, in my mind, the DJIA rise to 14,000 was a sham. There was nothing in our economy that justified that quick rise. As I have read often, the smart boys buy before the rise, then sell before the fall. What I call “insiders trading.” I am not a R&F-er, so I leave the stock market to those who “own” it to tell me about it. OTOH, if it was up to me, I’d stop the news people from reporting on the NYSE. Free advertising. Now that Rupert Murdoch is in charge of the news, I’d stay ever further away.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite


You can blame Bush if you want but the Historical facts are that about every 3 1/2 to 5 1/2 years our stock market has gone through a Bear Market.

We are overdue when you look at the Bull Market starting in Nov. of 2002. It has been a very long Bull Market just like the Clinton Era, which ended with the Tech bubble bursting at the start of the Bush Admin. You gonna blame Clinton for his Bear Market too?

The average decline in the modern era of a Bear Market is -38%.
The average durantion of the Bear Market is 1 1/2 years.
The average time it takes the average investor to Get back to even after the Bear Market is 5.2 years.
Nobody ever officially guesses the start of the Bear Market right, it's always in hindsight. We are at the start or already in the Bear IMO.

It's the same with every President and both parties. The only time you usually can count on being good is the run up to a Second Term of the incumbent President, provided there are no major outside influences (Carter and G.H.B.)



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

posted by pavil
If Karl Rove jumped sides, someone on the Democrat side would pick him up in a heartbeat. He is sort of like the dirty and tough pro sport player when he comes play your home team, you hate em. But once he is on your team it's "he's such a skilled professional" crap. The man is good at what he does, point blank. As much as the Dems want to demonize and bury him, Mr. Rove is not tired yet of his profession. It makes sense to for him to leave right now, not for the Administrations sake, but for his own future.


You’re certainly right about KR being successful in what he does. Whatever one thinks about the 2000 election, the 2004 was decisive.


posted by pavil
You can blame Bush if you want but the Historical facts are that about every 3 ½ to 5 ½ years our stock market has gone through a Bear Market. We are overdue when you look at the Bull Market starting in Nov. of 2002. It has been a very long Bull Market just like the Clinton Era, which ended with the Tech bubble bursting at the start of the Bush Admin. You gonna blame Clinton for his Bear Market too? The average decline in the modern era of a Bear Market is -38%.The average duration of the Bear Market is 1 ½ years. The average time it takes the average investor to Get back to even after the Bear Market is 5.2 years. Nobody ever officially guesses the start of the Bear Market right, it's always in hindsight. We are at the start or already in the Bear IMO. It's the same with every President and both parties. The only time you usually can count on being good is the run up to a Second Term of the incumbent President, provided there are no major outside influences (Carter and G.H.B.)


I don’t think I laid blame for the 2001-2002 decline to Bush43, but rather, in my title, reminded that he had been president during the previous great decline - loss of billions to someone - in the DJIA, albeit he had inherited a rising DJIA and etc. OTOH, Herbert Hoover lost the 1932 election not because of the 1929 market crash, but because he was flummoxed about what to do in response to it.

I’m older than you Mr Pavil. When I was younger, one best selling book on the stock market tried to link its ups and downs to the sunspot cycle. (ca. 1950s) Like so many social phenomenon it is easy when looking backwards, but remains impossibly elusive as a guide to the future. Which tells me we have not yet established a reliable link of one thing to another. This is the error of causation. There is no reliable link between presidents and the DJIA.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
This may not be the most heavy flagged threda on ATS, but it certainly has lived a while. Somebody may want t oint this one out to Dave and Johnny for the ATS Mix. They ARE looking for participants in long lived threads.


It was posted, thats how i found it.

The stock market flucuates and it will continue a downwards motion until it gets below 11k, then up to 15k...16k... mabye in several years. It takes sevarl bad decision from a president body and congress to destroy an economy.

And for Karl Rove, you got to give the man some respect. Could you have pulled off what he did? Can anybody else have gotten these nobodys ELECTED to the highest position in the free world.

And mabye on a related note why is it that most people of note in th curret administration have.. stepped adside and gotten out of the spotlight of the trainwreak!
Its been many years of people stepping out of thier positions. Remember Colin Powell, who said at the begining of the Iraq war, 'There is a way to fight the Iraq war, and if we you don't fight it that way I'll quit.', to that effect. And after about a year in Iraq (aKa Iwreak), and he left. I think a general retired, then Runsfeld, and now Rove, and i know i missed many retireis there, im sure you can fill them in.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by TKainZero]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I have to admit, the stock market does not bode well for the national economy as a whole. Not at this time. I myself am looking at gold and silver, along with a few of the more prudent options. Based on what I understand, this slide doesn't stop until roughly 10,000 (give or take).



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Gosh, J/O, my advice is never sell in a down market. If life goes on, the market will rise again. If Bush43 had his way, your social security money would be in the stock market. Can you imagine how much money the “owners” of the NYSE and the brokerage firms must have paid to Bush43 (or promised) to get their hands on a trillion dollar “slush” fund? Sweet Jesus! Never Come Till We Get All Their Money!

Gold or Silver? I have read the intrinsic value of gold si about $150 an ounce. That is, when used for industrial proposes. But because of the great beauty and the ageless durability of gold, it is so much desired that the market price is in the $500 an ounce range, I believe. Once it was over $800, during the Nixon years, which if corrected for inflation surely would be $2,000 today.

A long time ago the price on the London Gold Exchange where the world price is set, was based on the 1000 ounce gold bar. 80 pounds av. Any smaller quantity of bullion was priced higher. If you have a lot of gold - like the guys who turned in Saddam - $25 million - about av. 3,600 lbs - then you have to hire someone to guard it. When you want to sell it, you have to have it assayed because no one could be sure its purity had not been compromised, i.e., mixed with lead, etc. Assays are costly.

And no matter how long you keep it, it will always be the same amount as you bought. Gold is popular in Europe and Asia, but look at the currencies of any country over the last 100 years. How many times have they “crashed?” America has never had to endure that calamity. That’s why gold has never been a MUST HAVE as is the case in Europe. The only paper you can buy that will NEVER fail is US Treasury paper. As long as there is a GOD in Heaven or the United State of America, you can trust the US Treasury. When the US Treasury fails, you will not need money.

Ten years ago, Ford and GM would have made sense. Ford was selling for mid-40s but today, it barely fetches $8. Even the notion of buying land because “they are not making any more of it” fails if you OVERPAY. There is NO sure thing except Schwab and Scot-Trades that will MAKE a commission off every transaction. That’s the only sure bet.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I’m older than you Mr Pavil. When I was younger, the best selling book on the stock market tried to link its ups and downs to the sunspot cycle. (Pre-1950s) Like so many social phenomenon it is easy when looking backwards, but remains impossibly elusive as a guide to the future.


Quite honestly, yes you are older and make good points, but finances, especially things like this are my area of focus. While you can't predict with total certainty, there are trends that you plainly can see if you don't blind yourself.

The numbers I quote are accurate averages for the modern era. We never have continual Bull markets or Bear markets, they follow a relative pattern of growth and contraction.

Warren Buffet gets it. It really is quite simple. You continue to buy quality Stocks until there is no value in the market, meaning prices are too high. You then sell off and sit with cash on the sidelines, waiting till the stocks drop and become a bargain again.

I swear it sounds so simple but 65-70% of the people I meet buy high and sell low, just the opposite of what you are taught. They wait too long to get in when things aren't a great value, then ride it up but don't sell and hang on to it far too long as it drops in value. Who can blame them, the media is full of talking heads telling them, it's just a correction, we were due. Stay the course blah blah blah. The few that do sound the warning bells get drowned out by the rest.

Here's a good one for you In the last eight years ending 2006, out of more that 8,000 mutual funds, how many do you think have outperformed the S&P 500 for the past eight calendar years? One. And even their streak is broken.

I've met people who told their brokers they wanted to get out of their stakes in WorldCom and Enron and were convinced by their broker to stay in since they were "due for turnaround".

The Market is down 8-9% from it's high, still about 20 to 30% to go. Better to not make any money this next year than lose 20% of what you have IMO. Or you can stay with your broker who will "only" lose you 18% when the market goes down 24%. They don't call them "brokers" for nothing.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   

posted by pavil
The numbers I quote are accurate averages for the modern era. We never have continual Bull markets or Bear markets, they follow a relative pattern of growth and contraction. Warren Buffet gets it. It really is quite simple. You continue to buy quality Stocks until there is no value in the market, meaning prices are too high. You then sell off and sit with cash on the sidelines, waiting till the stocks drop and become a bargain again.

Here's a good one for you In the last eight years ending 2006, out of more that 8,000 mutual funds, how many do you think have outperformed the S&P 500 for the past eight calendar years? One. And even their streak is broken. The Market is down 8-9% from it's high, still about 20 to 30% to go. Better to not make any money this next year than lose 20% of what you have IMO. Or you can stay with your broker who will "only" lose you 18% when the market goes down 24%. They don't call them "brokers" for nothing.


I know a fellow who made a lot of money in the stock market. He followed 2 rules. 1) Buy only quality stocks - you mentioned that - and 2) NEVER sell. His son still enjoys the first stock his dearly departed father bought, Dollar General Store. My friend knew the founder of Dollar General - both were from Scottsburg KY and of the same age - and when that fellow asked my friend to help, my friend bought 15,000 shares at $1 each. That stock is now worth more than $1 million. But that’s rare.

Well, you know the old conundrum. You can throw darts at the WSJ taped to a wall and buy the stocks your points penetrate and have a pretty good change of beating the mutual funds. The problem with mutual funds is the people who run them. As a theory, they are good. But when they sell off a stock, they are generating commissions but not necessarily wealth for the mutual fund investor. I’d say 99% of the mutual funds are in the hands of scam operators. That’s the great tragedy of America. That such grand theft is tolerated. You’re right on the name “broker” as that is what you will be if you deal with them.

Aside: There are more than 500 firms, many in the Fortune 1000, that sell directly to small investors. Always without commissions, and usually with no fee or only a token fee. I have bought several stocks in small quantities and fared family well. But I have now sold off all but one stock which I keep as it was my first stock, Harley Davidson. I only wish I had bought 1000 shares instead of 1. When I was dabblilng in the stock market I used Raymond James as a broker. Not cheap, but they never called me to hustle a stock either.

[edit on 8/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Edit


[edit on 16-8-2007 by pavil]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Well with the rise of a middle class in India , Russia competing by at the same game as the USA and China continuing its economic growth the US is staring down the barrel of not only being knocked off its economic perch but being relegated to a lesser economic power. No matter who is elected in 08 there going to have face up to the fact that the US is facing another cold war with fewer allies. The trio of China , Russia and India could form the most powerful economic and political alliance in history.

India will be the key player the US needs to maintain and improve its economic standing in order to give India access to the worlds most lucrative market and the political ties that come with such access.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
With the rise of a middle class in India , Russia competing by at the same game as the USA and China continuing its economic growth the US is staring down the barrel of not only being knocked off its economic perch but being relegated to a lesser economic power. No matter who is elected in 08 there going to have face up to the fact that the US is facing another cold war with fewer allies. The trio of China , Russia and India could form the most powerful economic and political alliance in history. India will be the key player the US needs to maintain and improve its economic standing in order to give India access to the worlds most lucrative market and the political ties that come with such access.


You are right to be alert to the challenges faced by the EU and US from those 3 potential super powers, Mr X11. But from my perspective, none of those 3 pose any serious threat to the continued dominance of the US.

First, Russia. Yes, they have lots of oil. But they also have lots of COLD. Russia’s food growing capacity is limited by their geography. Too high latitudes. Russia east of the Urals is largely undeveloped in terms of its infrastructure. They have put the Caspian Sea in environmental jeopardy and destroyed Lake Baikal. Perhaps the worst aspect of Russia post 1991 is the gangsterism that the West permitted to arise in the dismemberment of the USSR. We could have aided the lawful element but we sat by while the criminal element TOOK 20% of the country. We’ll pay for that.

Next, China. Geographically China is weirdly similar to the US. About 2/3rds of the population lives in the eastern one-third of the country. About the same distribution as in the US. More or less located at the same latitudes as the US. China’s 3 great rivers run west to east. China has even less fossil fuels resources than the US. Regrettably, China has neglected to protect its rivers and air so now everything is in jeopardy because of uninhibited pollution and uncontrolled environmental degradation.

It appears to me the Chinese ruling elite have given up on the original unifying political social and economic theories that drove them to victory in 1949. It is reported that about 300 million of the Chinese along the Pacific Ocean or coastal region, are participants in the economic miracle since 1977. There is much unrest in the interior regions however, where the remaining 1 billion Chinese live. Economic differences are so extreme, I can see TWO Chinas in less than a decade, much like I can see THREE Iraqs. Let’s hope the Chinese can do it more peacefully than the Iraqi.

And last, India. During the 18th century, the British exercised hegemony over the largest region ever dominated by a single power. From Persia (Iran) on the west extending eastward including today’s Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, (Myanmar), Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and the Jewel in the Crown, India. Nepal and Bhutan were complaint to British wishes. India was like Germany before Bismark, divided into 100s of quasi-independent states and cities. The British were able to play off one region or state against another, until they had effective rule over it all.

India is less well situated than China or the United States. Further south in latitude, it is subject to annual monsoon rains. Smaller by a lot, India has less than 1 million square miles and 25% of that in the south is sparsely inhabited. Population density is the highest of any large country. India's 1.2 billion population - unlike China which has gained control of its growth - is growing too fast for it to ever be satisfactorily accommodated. India has one great river system, in the northern half of the country, the Ganges, which discharges in Bangladesh at the Bay of Bengal. The problems of India are so large that it is hard for me to imagine India ever being anything but a competitor on the cheap.

The United States OTOH, has it all. A favorable climate. Served by a single humongous centrally located river system. The Mississippi-Missouri Rivers and the largest tributary, the Ohio River. This great central plain, lying between the Appalachians and the Rockies, is the best situated, latitude wise, best drained farming wise and the rivers most capable of serving for heavy transport of any river system on the planet. We have unmeasured coal deposits. We have some oil. Some iron. We have hydroelectric power. We have potential for geo-thermal power. We have a heterogenous population with components from every land on the planet.

There is no real comparison of the US to any to the other 3 great powers. Brazil is large and has many people. Indonesia has more people, but is like India, overpopulated. Japan is competitive but is a regional power, not a world power. Australia is large but much too dry to ever make it big.

So, relax, for good or for ill, the US is on top and will stay there for the foreseeable future.

[edit on 8/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
There is no real comparison of the US to any to the other 3 great powers. Brazil is large and has many people. Indonesia has more people, but is like India, overpopulated. Japan is competitive but is a regional power, not a world power. Australia is large but much too dry to ever make it big.

So, relax, for good or for ill, the US is on top and will stay there for the foreseeable future.

[edit on 8/17/2007 by donwhite]


Exellent anaylasis of the furture of the countries... one point you left out for the US is access to 2 Major Oceans, and couple this with no competitor on its landmass, a major advantage that Russia/China/India don't have, as they are all over each other and either take an allience from the 3 to challenge the US, or a conflict between the 3 that would propell one of them into the world power.

Now in the disastor secnereo, if the Global CLimate starts a HUGE increase in overal global Tempature, this would give areas of land in the higher longitudes more airble land to grow crops on. An increase in Temp would be disastoristis for India, Nuetral for China and the USA, but would give Russia much larger amount of land that can be used. The USA might also recive more land as Cannada would also gain more land for farming and crops.

Brazil could rise up and be the reginaol power in South America, but in my opinion the world should start giving brazil some money to STOP destroying the rainforeset and building farm land. Japan cannot rise under US sanctions that have been in place since the end of WWII.







 
15
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join