Who should be the next candidate and win for president in the year 2016? A simple black-and-white question with a near color blind answer; it’s hard to tell since many candidates have a set of policies that not only are straight forward, however, controversial. At first glance, one could fathom at ideal factors which make up the perfect to near meticulous president their country could have. A president that listens and acts to issues pertaining peoples’ financial burdens, a concentration on economic nourishment; configuring different ways to make life a little easier and witness first-hand how traveling across the country is bearable in contrast to years when a gallon of gasoline was nearly an eyesore to look at. Nonetheless, these are merely scratching the surface to my interpretation that depicts some level of success a leader of a nation could obtain, in my opinion. Furthermore, I will be evaluating and criticizing four potential candidates for president such as, Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rudyad Kipling, and Karl Marx. Only one of them will reach my vote and explain why. Staring through one’s rear view mirror, one could see Karl Marx racing vigorously through this presidential race. Karl Marx, a German philosopher and economic theorist was accompanied by Friedrich Engels to establish the communist society in 1848, where not only was the foundation formed to be adopted by many communist countries; it gave the antithesis to a capitalist society. For instance, Karl Marx truly believed that capitalism will die because of machines and went further to acknowledge capitalism being the antagonism of what one would want to pay for labor. Clearly, He was a straight forward policy man and made several guidelines in following several principles that would make class distinction disappear. For example, forming equality among all social classes, free education for all children, abolition of child labor in factories and freedom of expression are things I agree with Karl Marx because not only is it logical, however, it reaches a consensus among people that an education and labor–free lifestyle for all children should be something attainable in a sane society. Ultimately, it is something that is agreeable. Conversely, things I do not agree with on Marx’s behalf would be the limited to almost no rights of private property, practically, no one really owns anything and has to be subjected to be hand held by their government and this feels very much like being suffocated. Furthermore, in reference to land ownership, this also means that in today’s communist environment, the state could take one’s property away if one attempts to overthrow the government. In addition, that same idea connects with the money of all people being placed in the peoples’ banks and redistributed equally in the hands of the government. In my opinion, that is a little too much government for my taste and easily makes one vulnerable to a great and powerful government, a clear road for corruption. Although, Niccolo Machiavelli was criticized for being too harsh, he was an Italian philosopher, humanist and writer who lived in Florence during the Renaissance era. Niccolo Machiavelli was one of the founders of political science and led several principles that are indicative of common sense and logic, where he believes man is rational and irrational. The central aspect being of Machiavelli relied on the role of leaders and why leaders are necessary in any complicated community and environment. Moreover, there are several things I concur with Machiavelli, as well as the ones I disagree with. For instance, Machiavelli showcases his cut throat principles that convey a very head strong leader and brings up philosophical thoughts such as, it being worthless to think of wars as just or unjust as it’s only vital to know when wars can bring triumph. That is bluntly honest and obvious for many reasons that suggest a similar analogy in my opinion, why worry