The 3 favs for the next US president is crazy. How can 2 families have so much power?

JRant wrote: »

I like Sanders, and I really hope he gets the nomination ahead of Clinton. She is a wolf dressed in sheeps clothing. She wouldn't look out of place running on the Republican ticket.

Bush seems to be playing the long game and waiting for Trump to dig his own political grave, so to speak.

Both Clinton and Bush are very hawkish.

I like Sanders and agree with a lot of what he says(he's a socialist on the American political spectrum only), but him being nominated by the Democrats would be a death knell for their chances in the general election, people look at Trump as a loon with no chance but I'd wager even he would win against Sanders. We've seen the demonisation and pure hatred thrown at Obama in two elections, and he ran as a slightly left of centre liberal with a lot of buzz words and huge grassroot support and millions of corporate campaign funding from Wall Street. Sanders would get crushed through his refusal of PAC funding alone, the importance of money in US elections cannot be underestimated.

Hilary may not be ideal be she is as close to an electable candidate as the Democrats could get, huge recognition and widespread support. She has a lot of vocal detractors and haters but she beats any of the Republican 'candidates' IMO. The Democrats have tried the uber-liberal, vocal north-eastern trying to take on the establishment before, it almost always ends in tears, they'd be fools to believe the country would elect Sanders.

RichardCeann wrote: »

The part of me that's divilment driven wants Trump to get in just for the fuckery of it all.

I used to be like that about Sarah Palin. It would have been worth the fiery, barren wasteland a post-Palin world would undoubtedly have been left in (scientists thousands of years in the future studying what caused the last advanced civilisation before their own to collapse would undoubtedly have been known as "Palintologists") just for the sheer, unadulterated comedy of eight years of laughing at Tina Fey's Palin impressions, then laughing even more hysterically upon discovering the actual Palin quotes she was parodying, which were invariably even less coherent.

I was listening to Republican Carly Fiorina recently on Crowder and thought she came across very well, doesn't have a hope of getting the nomination though.

I'd say the GOP can will be Jeb Bush. Trump will cause mayhem for them if he ends up running as an Independent because he'll split their vote.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I was listening to Republican Carly Fiorina recently on Crowder and thought she came across very well, doesn't have a hope of getting the nomination though.

I'd say the GOP can will be Jeb Bush. Trump will cause mayhem for them if he ends up running as an Independent because he'll split their vote.

Trump won't run as independent, especially if Hillary wins the Dem nomination. If there's one thing that unites Republicans it's a hatred for Hillary.

However he will have leverage and influence on any incoming Republican administration - not a good thing.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet despite the anti-Obama vitriol, he still got re-elected against Mitt Romney. And Clinton is about as neo-con as candidates get - her stance on internet freedom alone makes many young peoples' skin crawl, she's like a scarier version of our very own Ms Healy Eames.

I think the email scandal has really, really damaged clinton - more than most pundits, and certainly more than Clinton's campaign people, are acknowledging. For her to rant on about how it's ok for the NSA to read a million people's private emails if it means capturing one terrorist who probably could have been caught by other means, and then actually break the law in pursuance of her own corporate privacy is the utter height of hypocrisy, and many Americans, even those who were die hard Clintonists a year or two ago, are extremely pissed about that.

Any more similar f*ck ups and she's a goner. That's my optimistic outlook anyway.

Oh I'd agree, I don't like her as a candidate really, and the entire email thing is just so amateurish in how it's been handled, but even Obama can be considered a neo-con at this stage for many of his actions in foreign policy, along with his drug and privacy policies, I've just accepted them as standards for most of the middle of the road Democrats. I was just addressing this huge upsurge in support for Sanders in the worry that he could actually be nominated, which would just be so typical of the Democrats (perennial losers) in a year with such a weak Republican field to nominate someone who is by definition, unelectable. I'd imagine the email thing will blow over and won't exactly be something for Republicans to use against her next year, seeing as they probably agree with her on it.

Sanders is a better candidate, but I'd still have Clinton over any of that other crowd. I'd also say that for all the people who complain about how 'disappointing' Obama has been, I'd say he'll be looked back on quite fondly in a few years time, similarly to Slick Willy, who was often derided when in office for being a buffoon/sex fiend.

The most powerful person on the earth is not the President of the USA; it's a Russian man.

I know it's a rudimentary analysis but I'm gonna make the point nevertheless, now now that they have improved Chinese relations, they have and will show their might.