U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[LexusInfernus 908]

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Well it depends on the stereotype. If the stereotype of Asians being better at math is perpetuated and they conform to that stereotype and become good at math how is that harmful?

Because obviously a lot of Asians will not conform to that stereotype, being Asian doesn't make you magically good at math. Sure, perhaps Asians will be better at math at a higher rate than non Asians, but even then there will be plenty of Asians that just can't conform. And what if you are an Asian that is pretty bad at math, yet have everyone assume that they are good at it. It sets up expectations to which a lot of people can't live up to, and that causes problems. You'd be constantly explaining and justifying to people that you aren't great at math. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I don't think he's as bad as you think he is. His policies are xenophobic, but I don't see them as racist, and yes there is a difference between the two even though they can intertwine.

Xenophobia literally means 'fear of outsiders'. While it is technically possible to base that around issues that aren't necessarily race related, when it comes to national politics, its pretty much always race related. That is because it always flows from some form of Nationalism that is strictly defined around a very narrow sense of national identity. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

You don't know that Clinton wouldn't allow war crimes. As Secretary of State she supported groups of would-be war criminals in the form of rebels who eventually formed ISIS. Heck some have even argued the Obama has already committed war crimes with his drone strike program. Not that it makes it ok just because Obama or someone else did it. But if Obama is capable, so is Hilary.

Oh please, people should stop with the nonsense that the US consciously supported IS. No, they did not. The US has always fought IS. IS has been around since basically the Iraq invasion of 2004, although back then they were still part of Al Qaeda. The US fought them back then, actually came close to destroying them completely, but never finished them off. They have been around in Syria before the Syrian uprisings as well, because Assad was actually consciously supporting them and giving them free access to Syrian territory, because he could use their presence in Syria to leverage political and economic support from the West under the guise of being an American ally in the war on terror. 

The US supported rebels, yes, gave them weapons yes, but that support was so minimal and only to some of the weakest, least effective and least relevant groups that they didn't get stuff done. IS on the other hand did get stuff done, so a lot of those small ineffective groups just switched over to the side of IS (probably also because they didn't want to fight IS) because people want to be part of what they think is going to be the winning team, and IS at that point very much seemed to be the winning team. 

None of that means that Hillary supported IS by giving them weapons as part of some official US policy to strengthen IS. It just highlights the dangers of blindly barging in and supporting a group of rebels in a rather nasty and extremely complicated civil war turned regional conflict. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Trump is a celebrity billionaire, he's hardly part of the "elite". Have you ever read or hear of The Bourgeois gentilhomme? That's kind of how I see him. He's a guy with a moderate amount of wealth who tries to project the appearance of being part of the nobility or "elite" when in fact the elite laugh at him for trying to be like them. If anything the "elite" in America are against him - even the Republican elite.

Moderate amount of wealth? Seriously? 7-10 billion dollars on your bank account is a moderate amount of wealth? Sorry but that makes him part of the elite, whether he likes it or not. Any pretension on his side that he is just like the average working guy is just that, pretension. People who have that much money in their pockets are nothing like the average working guy.  

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I didn't mean that you hadn't heard of those, but the left who complains incessantly about the Kochs as if they're the biggest fish in the pond sure haven't. What's with the obsession with the Kochs? When's the last time you heard someone on the left even utter the names I listed? Has Sanders?

They are an easy example, given how much money they spend on bankrolling the Republican party and its support structure of small government think tanks. Not to mention their very visible efforts to stop environmental protection laws while running a rather polluting enterprise which is just so blatantly based around protecting their business interests at the cost of the interests of society. 

Also, I'm pretty sure I have heard plenty of left people criticize Soros his role in causing a financial crisis in SE Asia. Warren Buffet is a rich guy to be sure, but he has also spend tons of money on philanthropy, and as far as I'm aware he doesn't spend millions of dollars on all kinds of think tanks and political action groups. The Rothschilds are based in Europe, so I see no reason why American leftists would be criticizing them. Furthermore, most of the supposed crimes of the Rothschilds are conspiracy theories with no evidence backing them, rooted in anti Semitic bias. As for the Astor family, I can't find any of their businesses or how they have an undemocratic influence on politics. A lot of them just seem to be politicians. And the Rockefellers are not without their detractors either, though in their case they are also far less visible when it comes to any efforts on their side to influence national politics, and even less so when it comes to doing that for personal business interests. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Well of course they expect exceptions for themselves.

I don't know if they do, and if they do, I wouldn't want to give them exceptions. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

The way the US has presented itself has changed over time.

Nah, American exceptionalism has always been part of the American culture, and thats no different today. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

True, good point.

But it also depends on the state of the world. B. Clinton easily beat Bush Sr. by focusing on domestic policy because there was no big external threat. USSR had crumbled, Sadam defeated, no major foreign policy issues. Now with the ISIS beheadings, Paris and San Bernardino attacks + others, and the Iran deal, foreign policy is probably one of the most important issues - or at least it's easy to highlight as an important issue and win an election on.

I don't know what's more important to the average American. We'll find out.

Terrorism is a danger and an issue that politicians will have to adress, but on their own they are not sufficient to win an election. Also, its not like Sanders or Clinton are completely ignoring the issue, they aren't. They just also talk a lot about other issues that are also important. 

6 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Trump has indeed advocated for "taking out" the families of terrorists which, depending on how he meant it, is a war crime. However, and I can't believe I'm going here, I think it's all chest thumping. Should you elect a guy who thumps his chest like that? No, but I do believe he's being intentionally hyperbolic for the sake of media attention. It's a psychological war tactic. ISIS knows that the US follows rules and they're taking advantage of that by hiding amongst civilian populations. If you're going to fight a war civilian casualties are going to happen, and I understand there is a difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians.

Well we have seen what his 'psychological war tactics' have led to: they are being used in recruitment propaganda for Jihadists. 

These types of tactics, if they are really tactics, are stupid and counter productive, and the people who employ them do not belong in the White house. Hell, its a disgrace those types are even on the stage and being considered as serious candidates. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Senator Sanders seems to be the voice of reason crying in the wilderness.  He is certainly no spring chicken, and looks like a real American.  I am worried that being elected POTUS may kill him.

[Sabretooth78 808]

1 hour ago, Meg said:

Since Romney was too right wing to be nationally elected, (sorry, Larks, but that's what happened),  I don't see how Cruz will be.

I wouldn't call Romney too right wing; remember he was elected in Massachusetts and also effectively inspired Obamacare (and also once famously quoted as saying the US should have a single-payer system like his state had).  I think his problem was that he was simply out of touch (happens to democrats just as often) and seemed to be proud of such as well as being simply boring and uninspiring - his fundraisers seemed as though they were held at a banquet hall the same time as a wedding in the next room and some people just happened to be lost and stumbled in.

His VP nominee now, you could call right wing.  Paul Ryan definitely shows the hallmarks of being the epitome of the say one thing do something else big spending, intrusive republican of establishment old.

 

Regarding the Koch brothers, they're right up there with the Paul Ryan type.  Something ironic about someone who claims to be "small government" while pouring untold sums into campaigns in order to obtain some good ol' corporate welfare, be it monetized or in the form of regulation.  How anybody can't see right through them I don't understand.  Reminds me of the George Carlin quote:  "It's a big club - and you AIN'T IN IT!"

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A fox in the hen house?

Mr. Bloomberg as an independent might give disgusted voters on both sides a place to hang their votes.  Would this be a serious blow to the "front runners"?

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Damn.  I jokingly asked my brother if he'd rather vote for Bloomberg or Trump.  Didn't think that that would actually become a possibility.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I'd have to see more about it.  His nanny-state history in NYC doesn't look too convincing, but maybe that's just the politics of the situation.  This nation has bigger issues than the perceived need for outlawing Big Gulps.

[Munchiez 74]

We Americans missed a perfect chance, about two times, to elect Ron Paul as president. One of the only candidates out there really, at the time of 2008 and 2012, who stood up for true liberty and has a track record to prove it. I agree with the general consensus around these forums, Donald Trump is cringe worthy, and pretty much anyone on the left is haywire. It doesn't look good when you have a Hillary Clinton being investigated for crimes running for president. It is equally embarrassing having Sanders boast his nonsense, mathematically inept, and bogus talking points stirring up the next generation of foolish youth voters. 

One younger voting crowd I did side with was the Ron Paul revolution, being a libertarian he remains the only person I'd really vote for. However he's done. He deserves to rest, he fought a good fight for liberty and fiscal responsibility. He wrote amazing books that taught me economics through the lessons of Rothbard and himself. So if you were to ask me who I was going to vote for this election I'd be hard pressed to give you a definitive answer. I do like Cruz, but other than that, I'm not excited for any of it. 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ I am afraid that that about says it.  I guess U.S. voters will have to wait for the dust to settle some more.  There are too many radical agendas and I have yet to see a candidate who espouses the principles that founded the country.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I don't think he's the type of guy to do so, but he has every right to smugly sit back, shake his head and say "I told you so - now you made the mess, you can clean it up."  He has an uncanny knack for being correct about how things are going to go down, and Americans don't much care for that - we like our BS right out in the open for all to see.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

1 hour ago, Sabretooth78 said:

I don't think he's the type of guy to do so, but he has every right to smugly sit back, shake his head and say "I told you so - now you made the mess, you can clean it up."  He has an uncanny knack for being correct about how things are going to go down, and Americans don't much care for that - we like our BS right out in the open for all to see.

Context please.  Are you speaking about Michael Bloomberg?

[krbe 193]

3 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Context please.  Are you speaking about Michael Bloomberg?

Now that the conversation is on Mr Paul? That would be rather rude, changing the subject without telling us.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Yeah I meant Uncle Ron.  My jury is still out on Michael Bloomberg in a national context - he could very well just be another Mittens O'Romney just with a little more (that is to say, any) charisma.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate while D'ump is the most popular.

 

Hilary Clinton is the most experienced Democratic candidate while Bernie is the most likable.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Instead of running for the Oval Office, what if Mr. Bloomberg simply started a third party and fielded candidates for the House and Senate?  He certainly has the funding.

Imagine a House of Representatives with a real opposition party present.  The Senate as well.  Would it break the current deadlock situation?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Whichever wing of the party were to feel more threatened by it would probably move to co-opt it just as the establishment GOP hijacked the tea party movement.

The "two-party system" is unbelievably entrenched right down to local election boards.  Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

[krbe 193]

3 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

he could very well just be another Mittens O'Romney just with a little more (that is to say, any) charisma.

And money! That's the one thing that is to like about Mr Trump.

I subscribe to updates from the Clinton and Trump campaigns. Hillary and her friends are constantly reminding me that Bernie is 'outraising us', the importance of 'donating', a constant whining if I'm not 'with her', etc., etc. Donald on the other hand, only shares his successes and articles from 'respected journalists'. He won't even let me donate anything.

Mr Clinton drew a 2008 Iowa parallell in a recent e-mail. Oh the irony: You lost and the Democrats won. On a side note: Wouldn't it be a crime for Mrs Clinton to receive money from a foreigner to an election campaign?

[GreekMan 246]

I am a registered republican..im 24 and have voted in elections since 2010...the older I get, the more i sway from some of the republican principles. now i view myself as social liberal, fiscally conservative yet i still vote for republicans...the way i see it now is i vote for the lesser of the two evils....i think the democrats and the biggest liars and dividers on the face of this planet. they talk about being open to all view points and caring about everyone's well being....well what happens when a conservative is anti gay marriage? the liberals just tear that conservative up....it is so stupid that they view themselves as true rational people but when a GOP guy walks in, all hell breaks lose. another thing, we (GOP) are always called the party of the old white guys well look at who is currently running on the democratic side!!!! clinton is old, sure not a man but is white. sanders is 75 or whatever and is old and white....democrats have no room to talk. sure my party isn't the best but at least he have young old, men and one woman, black and white, hispanic....look at the diversity on the GOP....seriously, its getting old....also, i am a policial science major and after looking at how other countries do things....we need more parties that can get into congress and whatnot....the two party system needs to go away. we need people far right, center right, center left and far left parties

 

who is my pick? Trump!

i like what he says, he really isnt a republican or democrat. he is really an independent at the end of the day. he really is and he puts america first. he knew that he wouldnt win if he was an independent. bloomberg wont go anywhere....sure he can spend millions but i think a lot of people have somewhat made up there minds....i cant see bloomberg getting any votes from the gop of democratic side. i dont think he has the same name recognition as trump. say what you will about trump but i believe that there are lots out there who are closeted trump supports...they dont want to come out and say it but want him. 

[Skimbo 304]

Please see Trump's true self: He's just a loud noise jelling populist words. Plus: Everytime, some republican took over the oval office, something bad had happened:

>Regan destroyed the tax system basically causing thebillions of debt U.S. are into right now

>Bush: *uses war-drums* *Cries out: "WAAAAAAAAAR"*
 

 

[Hellken 1,658]

 

In recent news, Pixar is negotiating a biopic about Mr. Trump.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The attempted absorption of the TEA partiers by the Republicans seems rather Spartan.  They've taken a fox to their breast.  Really too bad that any attempt at a third party would see the same fate from one side or the other.  This almost looks like the 1930s and the Trust Busters are necessary again.  Could these party organizations be classified as trusts under the anti-trust legislation?  They act like it.

[Munchiez 74]

13 hours ago, GreekMan said:

I am a registered republican..im 24 and have voted in elections since 2010...the older I get, the more i sway from some of the republican principles. now i view myself as social liberal, fiscally conservative yet i still vote for republicans...the way i see it now is i vote for the lesser of the two evils....i think the democrats and the biggest liars and dividers on the face of this planet. they talk about being open to all view points and caring about everyone's well being....well what happens when a conservative is anti gay marriage? the liberals just tear that conservative up....it is so stupid that they view themselves as true rational people but when a GOP guy walks in, all hell breaks lose. another thing, we (GOP) are always called the party of the old white guys well look at who is currently running on the democratic side!!!! clinton is old, sure not a man but is white. sanders is 75 or whatever and is old and white....democrats have no room to talk. sure my party isn't the best but at least he have young old, men and one woman, black and white, hispanic....look at the diversity on the GOP....seriously, its getting old....also, i am a policial science major and after looking at how other countries do things....we need more parties that can get into congress and whatnot....the two party system needs to go away. we need people far right, center right, center left and far left parties

 

who is my pick? Trump!

i like what he says, he really isnt a republican or democrat. he is really an independent at the end of the day. he really is and he puts america first. he knew that he wouldnt win if he was an independent. bloomberg wont go anywhere....sure he can spend millions but i think a lot of people have somewhat made up there minds....i cant see bloomberg getting any votes from the gop of democratic side. i dont think he has the same name recognition as trump. say what you will about trump but i believe that there are lots out there who are closeted trump supports...they dont want to come out and say it but want him. 

Well my friend, I do agree with some of what Trump says. You made me chuckle when you said you are a social liberal and fiscal conservative, that's where I was at one time before I discovered Libertarianism. Now, some things socially liberals do not get or are compatible with liberty. On the conservative side there are still those who have non compatible views on liberty. So you are absolutely correct when you say that the two party system is a sham, and indeed it needs to be exposed that these politicians have been bought for by big corporations and such. Trump doesn't rely on anyone to fund his campaign. That's one thing I like about him. He doesn't owe anything to anybody except the promises he's made to the American people. I think Trump needs a little refreshment on liberty values though, I love his outstanding support for my gun rights, but his ideals for house to house searches for "terrorists" and high government force is a bit disturbing. 

That being said, If Cruz does not get the nomination, and I am sad saying he probably won't, I will more than likely look at Trump or Rand Paul. I still am angry that our nation was dumb enough to miss three opportunities to elect his daddy, Ron Paul, who would've been the most liberty loving, non interventionist, and fiscally responsible person for the job.

I like to give credit where it is due. Trump has taken advantage of the system, but I would have done the same thing too. According to people close to Trump, he is genuinely not a racist man. I think the issue with his whole "Keep muslims out" is too simplified and appeals to common voters who, are scarily uneducated or have the ability for higher level thinking, and they rally behind it. As for building his wall, I can see where he is going with that, perhaps a wall is not needed. Simply cut overly wasteful government entitlement programs for illegals. Our country needs to support our citizens who have worked so very hard their whole lives, payed years in taxes, and built this nation. We do not owe them ANYTHING. Thus, that would cut down on the need to come here illegally, and push for legal immigration reform. Come to the U.S, pay taxes, and help contribute. No more hand outs anymore.

That's it for now. I'd be keeping my eyes on either Cruz, Paul, and Trump. Other than that, I am not excited about this election much. It seems like a reality TV show at times, in part by Trump hate and tensions by the media. 

[Munchiez 74]

On 1/25/2016 at 4:16 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

^ I am afraid that that about says it.  I guess U.S. voters will have to wait for the dust to settle some more.  There are too many radical agendas and I have yet to see a candidate who espouses the principles that founded the country.

I take it you liked Ron Paul, right? He is a true liberty hero. I look up to him a hero of true freedom and fiscal knowledge. It is a shame people are too thick that they won't see that this is a clown show in the states. I hope we don't run into the ground.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I'm afraid that if that analogy is to be made, we are Marvin Jacob Lee, drunk and spun out in a ditch.  Only in our case, perfectly able to sober up and drive out and pretend it never happened, but we won't.  We like to shoot people who offer real solutions by labeling them as elitist or barring anything substantial to dig up we'll just contrive some allegations of racism or sexual deviance somewhere in their history.

[nos.17 5,120]

1 hour ago, Munchiez said:

I think Trump needs a little refreshment on liberty values though, I love his outstanding support for my gun rights, but his ideals for house to house searches for "terrorists" and high government force is a bit disturbing. 

Can someone please explain the definition "liberty values" please? I hear talk of this everywhere and an confused as to what it actually means. Folks say they want to restore liberty...what liberties have we lost as American citizens, in a country where we can do basically anything? Likewise, what liberties need to be protected or are we in danger of losing which aren't already today by law? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

1 hour ago, Munchiez said:

I take it you liked Ron Paul, right? He is a true liberty hero. I look up to him a hero of true freedom and fiscal knowledge. It is a shame people are too thick that they won't see that this is a clown show in the states. I hope we don't run into the ground.

Do remember that I am only a voice observing from the frozen north where our electoral system is so different from yours that there is no comparison.  Having said that, the current government has set up a Parliamentary committee to choose a different form for our elections and we will probably wind up with something completely different from FPTP (First Past The Post) that we have now.  The trend seems to be towards preferential voting which is rather complicated.

Frankly, colleague, I don't like any of the candidates you have for either party.  With perhaps the exception of The Donald, they are all owned in fee simple by one corporate outfit or another, which really means that the whole shebang is corrupt.  Most of your politicians satisfy the general definition of an "honest politician":  when you buy him, he stays bought. 

Instead of having big party conventions to nominate candidates, why not just have corporate general meetings and be honest about it?  And stop blowing millions if not billions on primary hoo-haw, and have a short campaign of about two months instead.  What are all these legislators doing when they spend two years on the hustings?  Who is minding the store?

[Munchiez 74]

1 hour ago, nos.17 said:

Can someone please explain the definition "liberty values" please? I hear talk of this everywhere and an confused as to what it actually means. Folks say they want to restore liberty...what liberties have we lost as American citizens, in a country where we can do basically anything? Likewise, what liberties need to be protected or are we in danger of losing which aren't already today by law? 

There are so many personal liberties that have been slowly eroded. A lot of these under the guise of "security" enabling large defense contracts and more government power. A few real examples of our personal liberties that are being eroded bit by bit are: NSA spying and data mining on personal information (all under the fear mongering of big government cronies and defense contracting lobbyists, Restriction of movement domestically (Real ID act now changing the way we fly domestically, rendering many state drivers licenses invalid, and requiring a passport or Real ID to be used, Freedom of speech has been hit little by little as well. Now there are "free speech zones" in cities like New York, Boston, LA, etc... where you have to request permission to hold rallies. Another big one is militant police. Following last year’s protests in Ferguson against police brutality, the Pentagon’s 1033 program has faced intense scrutiny for arming local police with high-powered military gear, from armored vehicles to battle regalia. This program has emboldened SWAT teams and other local police — paramilitary wings of law enforcement armed to the teeth — to increasingly raid the homes of private citizens. 

It may not seem obvious to many, but our rights as man are being attacked from all angles of government. I have been reading many books on the Enlightenment period by authors such as Thomas Paine. One of my favourite ones by him is "Common Sense" and "Rights Of Man" both of which were written on revolutions in countries. "Common sense" in relation to the American Revolution and "Rights Of Man" to the French Revolution. In both books the message is familiar. Government has gone too far. The analogy of a frog in boiling water is appropriate here. We don't actively see our liberties being stripped immediately, oh no, we must get comfortable first! Little by little and bill by bill are these things accomplished. As the great Thomas Jefferson once said  "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." In many cases this has proven to be true. An example that irks me a bit is how we are lectured about our firearm rights and usage, when on the flip side we see militant police going on shooting sprees of their own, and killing people left and right enforcing the state laws. We see agents, people who are originally intended to defend our rights and freedoms, not taking the job of restricting and squashing them. 

Speaking of economic liberty, well, that's been going down hill since the creation of the criminal entity that is the Federal Reserve Bank. Our devalued, fiat paper money, is now on the brink of tipping over. Unsound monetary policy is the #1 killer of strong nations.

In regards to the question of "What are liberty values?" or "Why does Ron Paul have special preference over liberties than other candidates? It's simple. He follows the constitution to the word. Verbatim. Ensuring that any policy he supports or creates does not interfere with the natural right of citizens, economic rights, and world rights as he is anti interventionist. All I see now are bought by corporation political talking heads, except that of Donald Trump. I understand, to the world and many people it may seem weird. Some may ask "How can you say your freedoms are going away, look at all you are allowed to do" I simply nod and try to explain it the best I can, in my perspective of it all. It's been a journey for me to research and educate myself on these issues, as well as keeping up to date with these things. I remind others that in no way am I saying my country, The United States Of America, is a bad land. Nor am I stating that we are completely enslaved or destitute. What I am saying is that I am concerned about our future. I am worried that one day, continuing on this rocky and unstable path we are on, that we will soon fall.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ben Franklin said something like "Those who up any iota of freedom for some temporary idea of safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."

There really is a difference between having freedom, which must be earned, and taking licence because one feels entitled.  Freedom or Liberty is not free.  It must be jealously guarded at all times, especially from people who would trade a bit of it for a little safety.  Keep trading bits, and soon they'll all be gone.

Freedom or Liberty must come from within a people.  It can not be given nor can it be conferred.  You only have to look at American efforts in the Middle East.  Most of those people do not want freedom, they want to be ordered around.  If they wanted freedom they could have had it anytime in the last couple of centuries.

Most people only want food, a safe place to sleep, and a significant other.

[krbe 193]

5 hours ago, Munchiez said:

Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry

Prisons? Nuclear weapons? Search and seizure? There's an array of things that is illegal for you but legal for the government. Do prisons or nuclear weapons by themselves make the US a tyranny?

5 hours ago, Munchiez said:

natural right of citizens, economic rights, and world rights as he is anti interventionist.

'Rights' are something the common man enjoy merely because the guys with the most guns (and the best organisation) permit them to. In the absence of such folks, rights are something the common man enjoy because most other people, including those who could plausibly contest them, thought that that was a good idea.

I assume by 'world rights' you mean that he thinks the US should venture too far from her own coasts; an admirable view, which the world agreed upon in 1928 and 1945, and then quickly went back to their own ways.

8 hours ago, Munchiez said:

According to people close to Trump, he is genuinely not a racist man. I think the issue with his whole "Keep muslims out" is too simplified and appeals to common voters who,

As Martin Niemöller found out, the common voter is not Muslim, but you might of course be correct in that it is merely to appeal to the idiots. One man one vote.

However, Mr Trump's suggestion has an overlooked feature; until such time ... Is the current system any better, where the problem is not looked into and random Muslims are harassed with no chance of even contesting such harassment?

[CapTon 592]

I'm an avid supporter of Trump, but him bailing on this upcoming debate is stupid. If you get the nomination, what are you gonna do when someone you don't like moderates your debates with Clinton or Sanders? If you bail out of those, you're asking for the other guy to win.

[Larks2242 251]

On 1/22/2016 at 11:10 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

Senator Sanders seems to be the voice of reason crying in the wilderness.  He is certainly no spring chicken, and looks like a real American.  I am worried that being elected POTUS may kill him.

How does he look like a real American? Traditional historic platforms are the polar opposite of his.

On 1/23/2016 at 4:14 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

A fox in the hen house?

Mr. Bloomberg as an independent might give disgusted voters on both sides a place to hang their votes.  Would this be a serious blow to the "front runners"?

Bloomberg would be a good way to split the democrat vote, Those that dislike Hillary or too moderate for Sanders would vote him out of protest ensuring a Republican victory. No Republican is going to vote for Bloomberg and his nanny state manage the people views.

On 1/26/2016 at 11:41 AM, OcramsRzr said:

Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate while D'ump is the most popular.

 

Hilary Clinton is the most experienced Democratic candidate while Bernie is the most likable.

I assume you mean Rand Paul since Ron is no longer running, In either case the Paul's would be excellent choices for leadership however, Rand Paul getting the nomination would be catastrophic due to the reluctance to vote for a libertarian.

Chart here.

On 1/22/2016 at 10:36 AM, Meg said:

I suspect that Hillary is not electable nationally, even if we are just talking about the primary.    If that is true, it looks like Sanders will be the Democrat nominee.

Trump may be entertaining to listen to but he has the diplomatic skills of a hurricane.  A Trump Presidency would be a disaster globally.   I suspect that most people will see that, although I can't be certain.     If that is true, it looks like Cruz might be the Republican nominee.

Since Romney was too right wing to be nationally elected, (sorry, Larks, but that's what happened),  I don't see how Cruz will be.  

Therefore, a Sanders Presidency is a distinct possibility.  and I'm not sure he even really wants the job.  I think he might have started out doing this just to get people thinking.

 

Romney was never too  right wing to be elected, He was discouraging due to how moderate he was, John McCain was the same way and if we nominate John Kasach or Marco Rubio both of which could still win NH, it will yield the same result.

I'll use the same polling data that says Cruz is the most electable among the republicans.