My preference for the primaries is for Trump to beat Cruz, and Sanders to beat Clinton.This ^
Even if you gave a sex change and made H Rose Perot, rebuilt Nader into a cyborg and called him Vader, and took away 20 points of IQ from Bloomberg they would still be better than Trump.
I have to agree. Trump is incredibly smart. The things he says to the media, the things that you might call dumb, are said for good reason. In "The Art of the Deal", published in 1987, he outlines exactly how to get the attention of the media, and every day he practices this exact tactic he outlined almost 30 years ago. Nothing he does is the result of any lack of intelligence people say he possesses; it's all calculated and engineered.Even if you gave a sex change and made H Rose Perot, rebuilt Nader into a cyborg and called him Vader, and took away 20 points of IQ from Bloomberg they would still be better than Trump.
Stopped reading right there. Trump's IQ is one of the highest and you know it.
Even if you gave a sex change and made H Rose Perot, rebuilt Nader into a cyborg and called him Vader, and took away 20 points of IQ from Bloomberg they would still be better than Trump.
Stopped reading right there. Trump's IQ is one of the highest and you know it.
Anyway, I really don't like Hillary. I haven't been paying attention to the Republicans, and Bernie seems like a good guy I guess. So + Bernie. I don't really care - I can't imagine he could do too much to fix our political system.
I have to agree. Trump is incredibly smart. The things he says to the media, the things that you might call dumb, are said for good reason. In "The Art of the Deal", published in 1987, he outlines exactly how to get the attention of the media, and every day he practices this exact tactic he outlined almost 30 years ago. Nothing he does is the result of any lack of intelligence people say he possesses; it's all calculated and engineered.Even if you gave a sex change and made H Rose Perot, rebuilt Nader into a cyborg and called him Vader, and took away 20 points of IQ from Bloomberg they would still be better than Trump.
Stopped reading right there. Trump's IQ is one of the highest and you know it.
Sanders is no socialist the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist. Bernie Sanders is center/center right by European standards. The mainstream press in the USA just calls him socialist .. so the positions that Bernie Sanders has staked out look pretty extreme left in comparison.In the European countries who's politics I'm familiar with, Bernie Sanders wouldn't be center-right, rather center-left. I haven't heard him say anything that I'd imagine most Europeans would call extreme, but his views are clearly left.
My preference is for primates to beat Trump, to beat Cruz, and to beat Sanders and Clinton.^^^
The word 'socialism' was misappropriated by the Russians because of the good connotations it had in Europe.And misappropriated by communists... Social-democracy was already an well-established movement when Marx and Engels founded communism.
I have to agree. Trump is incredibly smart. The things he says to the media, the things that you might call dumb, are said for good reason. In "The Art of the Deal", published in 1987, he outlines exactly how to get the attention of the media, and every day he practices this exact tactic he outlined almost 30 years ago. Nothing he does is the result of any lack of intelligence people say he possesses; it's all calculated and engineered.Even if you gave a sex change and made H Rose Perot, rebuilt Nader into a cyborg and called him Vader, and took away 20 points of IQ from Bloomberg they would still be better than Trump.
Stopped reading right there. Trump's IQ is one of the highest and you know it.
I certainly don't disagree here. Trump has proven this time and again. What I question is his ethical stances. I honestly believe that from this point alone, the people are not going to put him into office. Considering a large
number of voters are going to be minority or naturalized citizens, I can't see him getting any support there from his anti-foreigner policies. The people that support this antiquated thinking or either dead or on their way there (elderly).
Considering a largeI've been surprised by how many non-US born people I've met in New York who are outspokenly pro-Trump. I think they like him because they see him as the embodiment of the American Dream.
number of voters are going to be minority or naturalized citizens, I can't see him getting any support there from his anti-foreigner policies. The people that support this antiquated thinking or either dead or on their way there (elderly).
And we all used to think that Bush Jr was the family idiot.
Show Image(https://giant.gfycat.com/SoggyDemandingIndiancow.gif)
I can't tell, is that guy coming into him? And is Jeb down for it?
I have to agree. Trump is incredibly smart. The things he says to the media, the things that you might call dumb, are said for good reason. In "The Art of the Deal", published in 1987, he outlines exactly how to get the attention of the media, and every day he practices this exact tactic he outlined almost 30 years ago. Nothing he does is the result of any lack of intelligence people say he possesses; it's all calculated and engineered.Even if you gave a sex change and made H Rose Perot, rebuilt Nader into a cyborg and called him Vader, and took away 20 points of IQ from Bloomberg they would still be better than Trump.
Stopped reading right there. Trump's IQ is one of the highest and you know it.
The word 'socialism' was misappropriated by the Russians because of the good connotations it had in Europe. The Americans ran with the Russians re-definition of socialism, but turned it on it's head and made it a pejorative. Socialism means production is owned and democratically controlled by the workers. Soviet Russia was arguably less socialist than the United States!I always knew that Murica is a commie.
less bat**** than most the Republican party
How anyone could support Hillary is beyond me.
I need to quit visiting the politics sub-reddit.
less bat**** than most the Republican party
How anyone could support Hillary is beyond me.
Hillary is an unattractive candidate but how anyone could vote Republican is beyond me.
And the down-ticket races are, if anything, more important than the presidential election.
On the Dem side, Sanders hands down. How anyone could support Hillary is beyond me.
I'd rather see Rand Paul than Trump (but he "suspended" his campaign). Rand Paul may have some crazy ideas, but I feel he's less bat**** than most the Republican party and more willing to listen to arguments with evidence even if he personally disagrees with them.
Rand Paul reminds me a little of the rep. from my area actually, Justin Amash.
Bernie to win it all. If he can overcome Hillary, he'll win the general. Mathematically, it will be very hard for the republicans to win the electoral college with a candidate like Trump or Cruz. The real question is how effective can Bernie be without the support of Congress.
The real question is how effective can Bernie be without the support of Congress.
This is why Big Money has always been so intensely focused on down-ticket races. If the Democratic Party has anything less than bullet-proof majorities in both houses of Congress the Radical Right can pretty much block anything of consequence, and they have proven that they will do so at every opportunity.
This is why Big Money has always been so intensely focused on down-ticket races. If the Democratic Party has anything less than bullet-proof majorities in both houses of Congress the Radical Right can pretty much block anything of consequence, and they have proven that they will do so at every opportunity.
Fohat, it is more than just that. The democrats are not interested in serious reform even if they have the majorities.
That's why I consider a bruising fight very dangerous for Americans. The more bruising, the more funds need to be raised. The more you have these unaccountable 'donors' coming in and people owing political favours that will eventually lead to laws being passed to benefit this company or that business sector.
This is why Big Money has always been so intensely focused on down-ticket races. If the Democratic Party has anything less than bullet-proof majorities in both houses of Congress the Radical Right can pretty much block anything of consequence, and they have proven that they will do so at every opportunity.
Fohat, it is more than just that. The democrats are not interested in serious reform even if they have the majorities.
That's why I consider a bruising fight very dangerous for Americans. The more bruising, the more funds need to be raised. The more you have these unaccountable 'donors' coming in and people owing political favours that will eventually lead to laws being passed to benefit this company or that business sector.
This is why Big Money has always been so intensely focused on down-ticket races. If the Democratic Party has anything less than bullet-proof majorities in both houses of Congress the Radical Right can pretty much block anything of consequence, and they have proven that they will do so at every opportunity.
Fohat, it is more than just that. The democrats are not interested in serious reform even if they have the majorities.
That's why I consider a bruising fight very dangerous for Americans. The more bruising, the more funds need to be raised. The more you have these unaccountable 'donors' coming in and people owing political favours that will eventually lead to laws being passed to benefit this company or that business sector.
Democrats at-large are not ready for, and do not want, the "President Sanders" reforms; as much as I would like to disagree, I cannot. However, we should not sell ourselves short, as a nation, and simply accept defeat at the hands of big money. This is why Clinton's message of "only small, achievable changes, nothing radical, no mooonshots" is so disturbing. She wants to preserve the status quo because she is very much status quo. If we as a country want to change that normal operating style, we must start somewhere.
We, as a country, have not previously shown a huge appetite for democratic socialism ala Nordic Europe. Sanders, and to a lesser extend Elizabeth Warren, serves as a sole poster child for populism in America. I blame this on the American electorate - we have not clamored for populism for nearly two generations. Without Sanders' influence, democrats will continue to edge (sprint?) right of center. As it stands, nominating Sanders would certainly spark a firestorm of change within the democratic party, but it would take at least one or two congressional cycles until he could count on the support of likeminded legislatures. Realistically, it would probably take far longer because many incumbent democrats would need to be unseated. His policies may never reach the required level of support to win congressional seats, especially because statistics show that democratic voters do a terrible job of showing up to non-presidential elections in recent decades.
3 words......white power.
Why are you guys so concerned with who wins the election.
If you really want change.. go make money.. and buy change..
That's how it's done in the real world..
Voting may sound good in principle, but in truth, it's a least resistance option for the public..
This is how the politicians trick you with voting..
Hey.. Vote for me, you don't have to do anything, vote for me and i'll get the job done..
Now the public thinks, Oh great, awesome, i just gotta sign this little piece of paper and that guy will do everything for me. hurray..
Then, that guy turns out to be hooked up with the guys who ACTUALLY own your house, the land you live on , AND your very life through something called a Salary..
HAHAHA.. . This fundamental concept of Democracy is GREAT, everyone has a say..
But, in practice.. we don't have such a system.. Those votes mean absolutely nothing, because what we say are NOT tallied.. We only DEFER decision to ONE person, who can not and Does not represent the democratic view of the people..
So in practice, Democracy just doesn't work because we don't have the processing power to achieve it..
Maybe today we do, but again, we need a computer president.. Vote IBM..
Why are you guys so concerned with who wins the election.
If you really want change.. go make money.. and buy change..
That's how it's done in the real world..
Voting may sound good in principle, but in truth, it's a least resistance option for the public..
This is how the politicians trick you with voting..
Hey.. Vote for me, you don't have to do anything, vote for me and i'll get the job done..
Now the public thinks, Oh great, awesome, i just gotta sign this little piece of paper and that guy will do everything for me. hurray..
Then, that guy turns out to be hooked up with the guys who ACTUALLY own your house, the land you live on , AND your very life through something called a Salary..
HAHAHA.. . This fundamental concept of Democracy is GREAT, everyone has a say..
But, in practice.. we don't have such a system.. Those votes mean absolutely nothing, because what we say are NOT tallied.. We only DEFER decision to ONE person, who can not and Does not represent the democratic view of the people..
So in practice, Democracy just doesn't work because we don't have the processing power to achieve it..
Maybe today we do, but again, we need a computer president.. Vote IBM..
Objectively the most grounded statement made in this thread
Only country where it's still acceptable to play the race card all the time is Malaysia.