The Next US President is....

[Frenchy]

First, being against mandates doesn't mean you're against vaccines. Second, mandates being a long standing policy doesn't make them right. Third, if the trade off is grinding your life and access to society to a halt, then yes you are being forced. Even if you think this act of force is for the greater good. Lastly, your obsession with the MAGA is a bit annoying. Like you and Frenchy are going to be saviors of conservatism from the dreaded populists. Hate to break it to you two, populism is the future and you guys are the crusty old neocons of yesteryear. I would say you have a new home on the left but populists are having a moment there too. Maybe you can make a centrist movement nobody really wants.

ah, we evolved from neo-libs to neo-cons in just a few posts . There’s progress.

 

[JohnOsaka]

ah, we evolved from neo-libs to neo-cons in just a few posts . There’s progress.

What's the difference tbh?

 

[Frenchy]

What's the difference tbh?

You tell me, since you are such the expert
In my country we don’t use those terms
We just know one thing : the one that PEOPLE really want is not the one who shouts the loudest bullshit but the one who gets the most votes. Macron got 66% of the votes last time. And Biden got a majority of the votes too. Even Hillary did. We’ll see if so-called Populists do better next time.

 

[CharlieSimms]

Back to the Electoral College…. France is not the US - for better or worse. A saddle doesn’t necessarily fit a dog. While by no means perfect, the Electoral College prevents the US of NYC and LA. Can be debated forever but nothing has really changed in the pros and cons since it was adopted. Trump is gone. Press loves to hang on I guess to avoid facing the current reality. Might as well dig up Reagan and Bush and beat them up some more.

 

[Frenchy]

Back to the Electoral College…. France is not the US - for better or worse. A saddle doesn’t necessarily fit a dog. While by no means perfect, the Electoral College prevents the US of NYC and LA. Can be debated forever but nothing has really changed in the pros and cons since it was adopted. Trump is gone. Press loves to hang on I guess to avoid facing the current reality. Might as well dig up Reagan and Bush and beat them up some more.

I didn’t write the “one who should legally win”. Just the one people want. It strikes me as comical that those who brand themselves “populists” are actually more than ok with having leaders chosen by a minority of , you know, PEOPLE.
But yeah, who knows how shitty Al Gore or Hillary Clinton would have been as presidents if the simple majority system was the law of your land.
George W Bush and Donald Trump were obviously the better alternatives

 

[Frenchy]

Back to the Electoral College…. France is not the US - for better or worse. A saddle doesn’t necessarily fit a dog. While by no means perfect, the Electoral College prevents the US of NYC and LA. Can be debated forever but nothing has really changed in the pros and cons since it was adopted. Trump is gone. Press loves to hang on I guess to avoid facing the current reality. Might as well dig up Reagan and Bush and beat them up some more.

by the way, is a majority of American people still in favor of the Electoral Collage system nowadays?

 

[CharlieSimms]

Haha. I have been in Japan too long to even really know. From what I can gather secondhand from my family is everyone - not limited to one political persuasion or another - is just basically going off the deep end and wanting to put down anyone with a different view as Clint Eastwood would say “with extreme prejudice”. Seems a nasty pot of intolerance and hatred ready to boil over. Not necessarily a good thing to be but I am a bit disinterested tbh. With co-vid stuff relaxing in Tokyo, there are erh many other more worthwhile pursuits to keep my attention. Seems the lovelier segment of the population is finally ready to start putting the denmas down. Or at least start using them with a partner or even partners for the more adventurous!

 

[Keihan]

First, being against mandates doesn't mean you're against vaccines. Second, mandates being a long standing policy doesn't make them right. Third, if the trade off is grinding your life and access to society to a halt, then yes you are being forced. Even if you think this act of force is for the greater good. Lastly, your obsession with the MAGA is a bit annoying. Like you and Frenchy are going to be saviors of conservatism from the dreaded populists. Hate to break it to you two, populism is the future and you guys are the crusty old neocons of yesteryear. I would say you have a new home on the left but populists are having a moment there too. Maybe you can make a centrist movement nobody really wants.

You know, I actually like you. For one, you're at least marginally more informed than most who wade into political bitching. You're obviously very passionate about what you perceive to be major political issues. You read enough online to pick up on catch phrases, albeit outdated catch phrases. You want to know what your problem is? Because you've obviously spent so much time online reading about politics, and probably on extremely biased fringe boards and forums, you see yourself as someone with a very firm grasp on the politics of the day...but you've never actually worked in politics, never even worked an actual political campaign--be that on the municipal, state, federal or national level--and are clueless as to the dynamics of electoral politics and campaigning and to the overall reality of the political process in America. Now, I'm no "expert" in national politics, but I'm pretty fucking close (and I'm not trying to brag, believe me). And so I'll leave you with one thing to think about.

Populism. It is NOT, as you claim, "the future." Populist movements always have, and always will be, TEMPORARY. They are based on negativity and revolt. They come about when people are scared or angry or desperate. They are merely irrational episodes between calmer periods of rationality and general satisfaction, although they are never the root cause of that rationality or satisfaction. They result from the ugly underbelly of human nature, not our better angels. They prey on the weakness of the ignorant, and because the ignorant are ignorant, populist movements are fundamentally unsustainable.

Marx. Hitler. Mussolini. Teddy Roosevelt. Ralph Nader. Ron Paul. Bernie Sanders. And, yes, Donald Trump. All populists. How long did their runs last, and how much of an impact do they still have today?

Now, I'm not saying that populism doesn't have a purpose in politics, but I've never pretended that it was anything other than obscene bullshit targeting the dumbest and weakest for short-term, temporary gains. The populist politician is like that fucking creep at the bar who looks for girls recently broken up with long-term boyfriends; the guy who preys on a person when she's at her weakest, lowest, saddest and most susceptible. That's what Donald Trump is/was, that's why he's not President any longer and that's why populism, as you claimed, is NOT "the future."

If you'd actually worked in politics in any meaningful capacity you'd understand that.

 

[JohnOsaka]

You know, I actually like you. For one, you're at least marginally more informed than most who wade into political bitching. You're obviously very passionate about what you perceive to be major political issues. You read enough online to pick up on catch phrases, albeit outdated catch phrases. You want to know what your problem is? Because you've obviously spent so much time online reading about politics, and probably on extremely biased fringe boards and forums, you see yourself as someone with a very firm grasp on the politics of the day...but you've never actually worked in politics, never even worked an actual political campaign--be that on the municipal, state, federal or national level--and are clueless as to the dynamics of electoral politics and campaigning and to the overall reality of the political process in America. Now, I'm no "expert" in national politics, but I'm pretty fucking close (and I'm not trying to brag, believe me). And so I'll leave you with one thing to think about.

Um no. I've been involved in several campaigns and organizations from state representatives up to volunteering for Trump's 2016 bid. Not least being an election judge and once ran for committeeman. For the record too, I formed my politics during the Bush 43 years. I've read books, watched news programs, documentaries and interviews, went to lectures and tried to understand both sides in viewpoint where I read the nation one day and national review the next. But even with all that, I don't claim to be an expert on politics, it's not my chosen profession, I don't see a future in participating further than what I already done, it's barely a hobby of interest nor do I claim to have all the answers to anything really. I don't. And I'll recognize that you know more about how politics works than me. Doesn't delegitamize my opinions or concerns. But even then that's not my central point of my gripe with you or Frenchy.

Populism. It is NOT, as you claim, "the future." Populist movements always have, and always will be, TEMPORARY. They are based on negativity and revolt. They come about when people are scared or angry or desperate. They are merely irrational episodes between calmer periods of rationality and general satisfaction, although they are never the root cause of that rationality or satisfaction. They result from the ugly underbelly of human nature, not our better angels. They prey on the weakness of the ignorant, and because the ignorant are ignorant, populist movements are fundamentally unsustainable.

This is a narrow view of populism. Populism can take on many forms and modes to simply be characterized as a bunch of opportunistic demagogues. They can form in times of relative ease like how the US democrats began under Jefferson and Jackson or the LDP in Japan to an extent. They can also become a permanent political force like the Peronists in Argentina or a huge example but also the PRI in Mexico, the CPP in Turkey, Fianna Fail in Ireland, the Khomeini people in Iran, and the KMT in pre-communist China now Taiwan. One can make the argument that social democracy in Europe started out as populist. All can be a positive, negative or neutral impact in the aforementioned examples. But lets take your definition into account. You say they come about when people are scared or angry or desperate. The important question you should ask is why are these people scared or angry or desperate? Are these fake concerns gin up by these so called demagogues to be dismissed. Or maybe they are legitimate concerns of policies and actions of an established order that has failed them and such this order no longer works for, represents or benefits them. Like are the concerns of farmers and urban workers at the turn of 20th century America any less legitimate because of a short lived political party, a three time failed presidential candidate from Nebraska and the solutions they came up with? Populism is typically viewed as the people going against the elite. So the ruling order has two has two options to survive. Either address the concerns of said people head on and come up with solutions or make an impassioned and convincing case that the policies in place are good. The people who bemoan populism today are barely doing the former and suck at the later.

Marx. Hitler. Mussolini. Teddy Roosevelt. Ralph Nader. Ron Paul. Bernie Sanders. And, yes, Donald Trump. All populists. How long did their runs last, and how much of an impact do they still have today?

You can say Marx was a failed academic in his time. But he formed the basis of what we call communism today. One of the most consequential ideology of the last three centuries. Fascism and Nazism died with Hitler and Mussolini but they did leave an impact and informed the current global order. The fact of the existence of America's national parks, our food health regime and the Panama canal among others is all you need to know about the impact of Teddy Roosevelt. Ralph Nader was a consequential consumer advocate before he became lampooned as the Green guy that gave us Bush. Ron Paul is a tricky one but considering his ideas were the only other current the GOP wanted other than Trump post Bush 43, he does have some impact. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are still active so it's hard to say but seeing they are currently the driving forces of their respective parties and the people who oppose them are offering no attractive alternative, what does that tell you?

Now, I'm not saying that populism doesn't have a purpose in politics, but I've never pretended that it was anything other than obscene bullshit targeting the dumbest and weakest for short-term, temporary gains. The populist politician is like that fucking creep at the bar who looks for girls recently broken up with long-term boyfriends; the guy who preys on a person when she's at her weakest, lowest, saddest and most susceptible. That's what Donald Trump is/was, that's why he's not President any longer and that's why populism, as you claimed, is NOT "the future."

If you'd actually worked in politics in any meaningful capacity you'd understand that.

You make it seem like no one other than the "anointed" should come up with solutions when a country is in crisis. Which is bad thinking and just as dangerous to a democracy as a demagogue. So in truth unless the someone can come up with an alternative, yes populism is the future rather you like it or not. Rather this is good or not also.

But I give the floor to you. Since you think Trump and populism is so bad, what's your alternative? What is your vision of the American rights moving forward. How do you address the limits and failures of the policies of Reagan and the Bushes? What should be done on deindustrialization, mass immigration, economic disruption if at all? What do you think America's role as a global leader should be? How do address the concerns of intervention and the failures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as well as the burden the US takes as a superpower and the expense of ignoring domestic concerns. What of racial strife, the gender war, the LGBT community? You talk about "fundies" but is the proper role of religion in society if at all? What are the social norms your vision of the right should embrace? What should be done about the dominance of the left in our institutions, if at all? Like really what do you think the right should do and embrace? I'm waiting.

 

[Frenchy]

I know it feels weird to say so, but I’m team Keihan on this one

 

[CharlieSimms]

 

[JohnOsaka]

I know it feels weird to say so, but I’m team Keihan on this one

OK!

 

[Keihan]

Um no. I've been involved in several campaigns and organizations from state representatives up to volunteering for Trump's 2016 bid. Not least being an election judge and once ran for committeeman. For the record too, I formed my politics during the Bush 43 years. I've read books, watched news programs, documentaries and interviews, went to lectures and tried to understand both sides in viewpoint where I read the nation one day and national review the next. But even with all that, I don't claim to be an expert on politics, it's not my chosen profession, I don't see a future in participating further than what I already done, it's barely a hobby of interest nor do I claim to have all the answers to anything really. I don't. And I'll recognize that you know more about how politics works than me. Doesn't delegitamize my opinions or concerns. But even then that's not my central point of my gripe with you or Frenchy.



This is a narrow view of populism. Populism can take on many forms and modes to simply be characterized as a bunch of opportunistic demagogues. They can form in times of relative ease like how the US democrats began under Jefferson and Jackson or the LDP in Japan to an extent. They can also become a permanent political force like the Peronists in Argentina or a huge example but also the PRI in Mexico, the CPP in Turkey, Fianna Fail in Ireland, the Khomeini people in Iran, and the KMT in pre-communist China now Taiwan. One can make the argument that social democracy in Europe started out as populist. All can be a positive, negative or neutral impact in the aforementioned examples. But lets take your definition into account. You say they come about when people are scared or angry or desperate. The important question you should ask is why are these people scared or angry or desperate? Are these fake concerns gin up by these so called demagogues to be dismissed. Or maybe they are legitimate concerns of policies and actions of an established order that has failed them and such this order no longer works for, represents or benefits them. Like are the concerns of farmers and urban workers at the turn of 20th century America any less legitimate because of a short lived political party, a three time failed presidential candidate from Nebraska and the solutions they came up with? Populism is typically viewed as the people going against the elite. So the ruling order has two has two options to survive. Either address the concerns of said people head on and come up with solutions or make an impassioned and convincing case that the policies in place are good. The people who bemoan populism today are barely doing the former and suck at the later.


You can say Marx was a failed academic in his time. But he formed the basis of what we call communism today. One of the most consequential ideology of the last three centuries. Fascism and Nazism died with Hitler and Mussolini but they did leave an impact and informed the current global order. The fact of the existence of America's national parks, our food health regime and the Panama canal among others is all you need to know about the impact of Teddy Roosevelt. Ralph Nader was a consequential consumer advocate before he became lampooned as the Green guy that gave us Bush. Ron Paul is a tricky one but considering his ideas were the only other current the GOP wanted other than Trump post Bush 43, he does have some impact. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are still active so it's hard to say but seeing they are currently the driving forces of their respective parties and the people who oppose them are offering no attractive alternative, what does that tell you?



You make it seem like no one other than the "anointed" should come up with solutions when a country is in crisis. Which is bad thinking and just as dangerous to a democracy as a demagogue. So in truth unless the someone can come up with an alternative, yes populism is the future rather you like it or not. Rather this is good or not also.

But I give the floor to you. Since you think Trump and populism is so bad, what's your alternative? What is your vision of the American rights moving forward. How do you address the limits and failures of the policies of Reagan and the Bushes? What should be done on deindustrialization, mass immigration, economic disruption if at all? What do you think America's role as a global leader should be? How do address the concerns of intervention and the failures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as well as the burden the US takes as a superpower and the expense of ignoring domestic concerns. What of racial strife, the gender war, the LGBT community? You talk about "fundies" but is the proper role of religion in society if at all? What are the social norms your vision of the right should embrace? What should be done about the dominance of the left in our institutions, if at all? Like really what do you think the right should do and embrace? I'm waiting.

As I said previously, I actually like you. And I'll give you credit for volunteering. Most people who piss and whine about politics have never spent five minutes doing lowly grunt work on even a city council campaign, yet somehow turn into foremost geopolitical authorities online. You have a very academic approach to politics, which is commendable but, as I stated previously, not very applicable in the real world of electoral political campaigning. Now, I'm not going to write an entire dissertation here to answer everything (plus I'm on Super Dry #3 and it's only going to get worse) but I will mention this: you'd be surprised how closely our positions align.

Like I've always said, I'm a washed-up "establishment" GOP operative and consider myself a center-right moderate...but by early 2000s standards. Not anymore. And for the record, I actually agree with most of Trump's policies; what I don't agree with is the fundamental impact he had on traditional electoral politics and campaigning, set aside his lack of basic political decorum or even just simple decency. He royally fucked the GOP and he's now threatening to do it again.

 

[JohnOsaka]

As I said previously, I actually like you. And I'll give you credit for volunteering. Most people who piss and whine about politics have never spent five minutes doing lowly grunt work on even a city council campaign, yet somehow turn into foremost geopolitical authorities online. You have a very academic approach to politics, which is commendable but, as I stated previously, not very applicable in the real world of electoral political campaigning. Now, I'm not going to write an entire dissertation here to answer everything (plus I'm on Super Dry #3 and it's only going to get worse) but I will mention this: you'd be surprised how closely our positions align.

Like I've always said, I'm a washed-up "establishment" GOP operative and consider myself a center-right moderate...but by early 2000s standards. Not anymore. And for the record, I actually agree with most of Trump's policies; what I don't agree with is the fundamental impact he had on traditional electoral politics and campaigning, set aside his lack of basic political decorum or even just simple decency. He royally fucked the GOP and he's now threatening to do it again.

Again, I'll recognize you have a better understanding of politics than me. To clarify, I am just a conservative with some moderate stances. I'm not a populist nor do I see it as ideal for the GOP. Nor do I think Trump's demeanor or actions is something I really endorse (though I sometimes question that, if the left is going to act like destructive asswipes). Trust me, I didn't like the chaotic nature of his presidency and I often seriously question should he continue politics and run for another term. Then I look at most of the alternatives and I come to realize why the right worships Reagan so much.

But regardless of Trump or no Trump, I don't see a bright future for the GOP or the American right at the moment. Part of it is because of Trump but I see mostly as the demographics and especially the conversation and zeitgeist not favoring the right at the moment. And this isn't just the US but much of the west if not globally. It seems like leftist parties are winning more often than not. Sometimes I envy the LDP in Japan being immune to that, despite the host of severe problems Japan faces. Either way I'm at a point where I'm sick of politics anyway. They're now a major distraction of what I truly want to do, so you won't be seeing me in this thread much from now on. You do you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[CharlieSimms]

Hallelujah! But never expected these wise words to have relevance on TAG…

 

[Keihan]

In case anyone is even remotely interested in this, and since it does pertain to the original theme of this thread, the GOP just had a landmark, historical victory tonight that even CNN is grudgingly admitting is a major referendum on the Biden presidency. Glenn Youngkin, a virtual unknown Republican nobody a year ago, just wiped out well-known, prominent former-governor Terry McAuliffe in the solid-blue state of Virginia's gubernatorial election tonight, and it looks like Jack Ciattarelli, another Republican, may possibly do the same to incumbent Democrat Phil Murphy in the NJ governor's race. I would say that the NJ race is nowhere near as significant, since NJ elected another big mouth Italian GOP governor (Chris Christie) in the not so distant past, but for the state of VA, this is fucking huge. McAuliffe was widely considered to be a potential presidential candidate, considering his close ties to Obama and Clinton and national name recognition.

Most telling is how both of these GOP candidates ran their campaigns--Trump endorsed them, but they kept him well beyond arm's length and had zero coordination with his outfit, instead focusing on the solid-blue suburbs, centrist issues and letting Joe Biden's royal fuck-up of a presidency work its own brand of magic on independents and disillusioned Democrats.

This is shaping up to be a pretty interesting mid-term election. Trump has all but announced his 2024 campaign, yet savvy GOP candidates are winning in previously un-winnable blue regions by shunning his brand of nonsense and focusing on centrist, practical campaign themes; meanwhile, the Democrats and Joe Biden are being held hostage by the radical-left snowflake millenials who want a multi-trillion-dollar social welfare bill rammed through and old guard Democrats (like Joe Manchin) are stubbornly standing in their way; meanwhile, Biden can't even stay awake at the supposedly-critical climate change meeting in Scotland, even though only FoxNews was mean enough to show him falling asleep during speeches and his staffers having to step in to wake him up; meanwhile, DNC leadership is in meltdown panic mode trying to figure out what the fuck to do in 2024, since it's painfully obvious that Joe Biden will not by the party nominee for president again--even if he's alive, he'll probably be in an assisted living facility by then--and absolutely no-fucking-body wants Kamala Harris anywhere near the podium on convention night or anywhere/anytime else...so what to do now?

I know, I need to get a life...but old habits die hard. I'll keep swilling my Costco vodka till I cease caring about politics and turn my attention and affections back to ladyboy porn.

 

[SugoiBoy]

by the way, is a majority of American people still in favor of the Electoral Collage system nowadays?

The strongest arguments against the Electoral College are George W. Bush (2000) and Donald J. Trump (2016). The two worst presidents in recent memory were also ones who won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote. Coincidence?

Of course, Bush had some help from the Supreme Court. Having his brother as governor of Florida at the time didn’t hurt
either.

As bad as Trump was, Bush was arguably worst. The war in Iraq was unnecessary. (By contrast, the war in Afghanistan could be justified). At least Trump didn’t start a needless foreign war.

Had Trump not screwed up the federal response to the pandemic he probably would still be in the White House rather than lying about the outcome of the 2020 contest.

 

[Frenchy]

The strongest arguments against the Electoral College are George W. Bush (2000) and Donald J. Trump (2016). The two worst presidents in recent memory were also ones who won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote. Coincidence?

Of course, Bush had some help from the Supreme Court. Having his brother as governor of Florida at the time didn’t hurt
either.

As bad as Trump was, Bush was arguably worst. The war in Iraq was unnecessary. (By contrast, the war in Afghanistan could be justified). At least Trump didn’t start a needless foreign war.

Had Trump not screwed up the federal response to the pandemic he probably would still be in the White House rather than lying about the outcome of the 2020 contest.

well , I kinda agree with you , but not about the fact that the outcomes justified a rule change .

after all a majority of people can still elect an inept president (eg Francois Hollande in France aka “Mr Nobody”) . And maybe a minority can elect a better one, who knows… it’s only in hindsight that you can do the assessment

And I understand why at the Senate less populated states are over-represented . We have something similar in some EU countries too , including mine

but when it comes to the President… well it’s only one guy and he’s supposed to represent the whole country . So if he’s not even elected by a majority of the citizens and the other guy got more votes, that doesn’t seem to be a good start

Also if it’s so important to give some “extra points” to minority populations like the poor people of Idaho or Montana oppressed by those evil NY or LA urbanites… then why not applying the same concept for Native Americans, Blacks etc? Or even just giving normal votes to Puerto-Ricans…. The whole argument smacks a bit of double-standards to me

 

[Sudsy]

I have a great idea. Let's just put @TAG Manager in charge, with @Tabanico as veep - his scandals will keep the rest of the administration out of the news cycle.

@Frenchy can head up Treasury, @MikeH can take defense, @Manami TMK would make a great Secretary of State, @Simonka for Attorney General, and clearly @Keihan needs to be in charge of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

@Sakura japanese is clearly fit to be Secretary of (apparently limitless) Energy.

 

[Frenchy]

I have a great idea. Let's just put @TAG Manager in charge, with @Tabanico as veep - his scandals will keep the rest of the administration out of the news cycle.

@Frenchy can head up Treasury, @MikeH can take defense, @Manami TMK would make a great Secretary of State, @Simonka for Attorney General, and clearly @Keihan needs to be in charge of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

@Sakura japanese is clearly fit to be Secretary of (apparently limitless) Energy.

you’re too modest Sudsy, you’d deserve a big job too. This US government needs a Canuck.
Labor? Education? Surgeon General?

 

[MikeH]

you’re too modest Sudsy, you’d deserve a big job too. This US government needs a Canuck.
Labor? Education? Surgeon General?

The obvious job for him is to become the Whip.

 

[Sudsy]

I have a great idea. Let's just put @TAG Manager in charge, with @Tabanico as veep - his scandals will keep the rest of the administration out of the news cycle.

@Frenchy can head up Treasury, @MikeH can take defense, @Manami TMK would make a great Secretary of State, @Simonka for Attorney General, and clearly @Keihan needs to be in charge of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

@Sakura japanese is clearly fit to be Secretary of (apparently limitless) Energy.

I forgot to nominate @Camellia Marie as Secretary of Agriculture - she clearly knows how to manage huge.... tracts of land.

 

[Sudsy]

you’re too modest Sudsy, you’d deserve a big job too. This US government needs a Canuck.
Labor? Education? Surgeon General?

I was planning to take over from Hunter Biden and run quality assurance on the escort industry and cocaine supply.

 

[Frenchy]

I was planning to take over from Hunter Biden and run quality assurance on the escort industry and cocaine supply.

Hopefully using a better laptop than his

 

[Keihan]

I have a great idea. Let's just put @TAG Manager in charge, with @Tabanico as veep - his scandals will keep the rest of the administration out of the news cycle.

@Frenchy can head up Treasury, @MikeH can take defense, @Manami TMK would make a great Secretary of State, @Simonka for Attorney General, and clearly @Keihan needs to be in charge of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

@Sakura japanese is clearly fit to be Secretary of (apparently limitless) Energy.

No thank you, I'd prefer the position of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (or Director of either the CIA or NSA), where I can use my position and visionary brand of leadership to spy on college students having sex, stalk ex-girlfriends, Miran and Ariana Grande and hack the social media accounts and cellphones of all the female cast members of Full House (especially Lori Loughlin) in a vast, sweeping search for a sex tape or even just some hot, steamy texting to masturbate to while I'm supposed to be working.