2016 Likely Candidates for POTUS?

[paladin1991]

My meat cutter says that I should run for president.

[albrecht]

China is not a party to the TPP deal.  They know better.  Chinese trade policy can be summed up thus: "If you want to sell it here, you make it here...and we get a piece of the action and your technology too."

i think one of the "theories" for the TPP is to 'fight' against China by having a more streamlined agreement between other Pacific countries but I don't like the secrecy and idea of international arbiters that override out laws or courts. And I don't like "fast track" up and down votes for any President. The Executive Branch has too much power already.

[SciFiAuthor]

Problem with TPP is that I keep seeing China mentioned as a potential member which is why I mentioned China. The media keeps saying that: it's about a group of Asian countries . . . and potentially China. That's how they're phrasing it. Add that with the bizarre secrecy and I have to get suspicious as hell. I do not trust US politicians of either party to do anything but cut deals that fuck us over one way or another. Nothing in US politics is about us, not even formerly Democrat bribes to the unions and the "lower class" that starstruck the progressives for years. It was all bullshit. Now that shit doesn't even exist anymore on the left, the rainbow empty promises of change. Change, what a fucking joke of a word that is now. Hope and Change, remember that? Well, here we are with a free trade agreement that the even the Republicans of the 80's wouldn't have bought. But it's coming from Obama.

It's now about the politicians and their relationships with corporate interests. That's all. That's all that Obama's done in his presidency. We are as, if not more, corrupt as Mexico. All we need now are subsidies to the Mexican drug cartels, which I have no doubt will happen 30 or 40 years from now as the marijuana legalization movement goes corrupt. Remember, it's a lobby.

Our "parties" will sell us out while we fight our bullshit ideological liberal vs. conservative fight; a farce created by talk radio, religion and the mainstream Hollywood pop-culture with us never culturally realizing that we're bi-partisanly, multi-racially, politically correctly  ass-raping our children by leaving them with a concocted politics little better than that of Venezuela. We never bothered to stop and realize that we inherited greatness and fucked it up.

Republican field: Ain't no Dwight Eisenhowers or Barry Goldwaters in that bunch. You will end up with Jeb Bush because your party is controlled by people like Boehner. It is not controlled by Rand Paul.

Democrat Field: Hoping to Jesus everyone forgets Hillary's scandals by election time and I'm sure they will. Especially if she promises free shit. She has a very excellent chance of being declared president first and then winning the election because that's what people will think they're supposed to vote for and that should disturb the shit out of any free-thinking person on earth.

Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. If you call yourself any one of those you are obsolete, brainwashed and stupid. Let's come up with a new politics that actually reflects where our culture is heading.

Just my two cents.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Whoever is the next president will have so many problems to deal with, both domestically and internationally.  Maybe the biggest is Russia.  I don't see Putin being the slightest bit intimidated by Hillary and with all the activity going on near Sweden and other parts there are so many possibilities for something to go wrong and cascade into a nightmare scenario.  Doesn't anyone believe in MAD anymore?

Germany's humiliation in WWI laid a lot of the groundwork for WWII, with Germans getting behind a leader who they thought could restore them to their former glory.  In a similar way, the Cold War may have been forgotten by many younger Americans, but I guarantee that defeat has left a bad taste in the mouths of many Russians, especially with their economy tanking in subsequent years.  As evidenced by his approval rating, Putin may be precisely the strong man that Russians see as being able to settle the score.  I hope this all turns out to be a mountain out of a molehill, but recent news out of that region has me wondering about it all.

China has also been making waves, but with them being such a huge trade partner I don't see them being as big of a threat for now.

Nope, I don't envy the next president (whoever it is), not one bit.

[136 or 142]

Republican Candidate announcement dates
1.Rick Santorum, May 27
2.George Pataki, May 28
3.Lindsey Graham, June 1
4.Rick Perry, June 4
5.John Kasich, Late June or July
6.Scott Walker, June after passing the state budget

[Quick Karl]

Our "parties" will sell us out while we fight our bullshit ideological liberal vs. conservative fight; a farce created by talk radio, religion and the mainstream Hollywood pop-culture with us never culturally realizing that we're bi-partisanly, multi-racially, politically correctly  ass-raping our children by leaving them with a concocted politics little better than that of Venezuela. We never bothered to stop and realize that we inherited greatness and fucked it up.

Pure genius.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

China has also been making waves, but with them being such a huge trade partner I don't see them being as big of a threat for now.

Nope, I don't envy the next president (whoever it is), not one bit.

Oh great, more sabre-rattling, now both Russia and China are pissed at us...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

[albrecht]

Oh great, more sabre rattling, now both Russia and China are pissed at us...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

Although I'm sick of all our wars, especially when we don't seem to wish to win any of them. But our opportunity might have been back in the day. MacArthur/Patton could be judged by history to be correct after Korea and WWII respectively. Or even LeMay. Our chances, without full nuclear conflagration that would kill or at least hurt everyone, are less now to defeat them without really, really serious damage.
Hopefully it won't come to a war and I think all sides might end up with 'spheres of influence' that hopefully stabilize.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Our chances, without full nuclear conflagration that would kill or at least hurt everyone, are less now to defeat them without really, really serious damage.
Hopefully it won't come to a war and I think all sides might end up with 'spheres of influence' that hopefully stabilize.

Agreed.  If the crap hits the fan though, is there any way the war could end without going nuclear?  I mean it's no big deal antagonizing Russia and China, you know, just the two biggest nuclear powers outside the US, no biggie.

Not trying to derail the thread but foreign policy will be a huge issue for the next potus.

[albrecht]

Agreed.  If the crap hits the fan though, is there any way the war could end without going nuclear?  I mean it's no big deal antagonizing Russia and China, you know, just the two biggest nuclear powers outside the US, no biggie.

Not trying to derail the thread but foreign policy will be a huge issue for the next potus.

I see even darker possibilities: more bio/chem use, EMPs (even tactical), hacking infrastructure/sabotage, and/or genetically targeted bio-weapons (or targeting another nation's crops and livestock even.)  Even a basic asymmetric warfare of flooding other countries with refugees, immigrants, exploiting/inflaming ethnic/racial/class tensions inside a country, and so on.
Particularly by people whose elite leadership has already prepared vast underground bunkers, cities, and infrastructure. And or don't really care about morality of same or even their own citizens. And by countries who have a, relative to enemy, homogeneous population. The cost/benefit analysis makes these things much better than ICBMs and less deaths for home country- if they strike first or have already developed cure or inoculation, and then let the disease, chaos, civil war/unrest, and health crisis deplete the other country.
I hope I'm wrong.

[FightTheFuture]

Putin is a paper tiger and China is a tiger with an Achilles heel the size of New Mexico.

We can drive Vlad to his knees any time of our choosing, and he knows it. Just manipulate the world oil market and the Russian bear immediately goes into hibernation.

China desperately needs a healthy American economy in which to dump their crap and trinkets. We cut them off, they revert back to a hodgepodge of rioting, back-water, rice paddy dwellers.

Will the USA suffer if either scenario becomes a reality? Of course, but nothing close to the magnitude of the Russians and Chicoms.

[albrecht]

Putin is a paper tiger and China is a tiger with an Achilles heel the size of New Mexico.

We can drive Vlad to his knees any time of our choosing, and he knows it. Just manipulate the world oil market and the Russian bear immediately goes into hibernation.

China desperately needs a healthy American economy in which to dump their crap and trinkets. We cut them off, they revert back to a hodgepodge of rioting, back-water, rice paddy dwellers.

Will the USA suffer if either scenario becomes a reality? Of course, but nothing close to the magnitude of the Russians and Chicoms.

Ignoring nukes (land, rail-based, and sub based) and bio/chemical weapon stores (and delivery systems) they have China, and Russia, have a lot of important rare earth minerals (as well as relatively more common minerals) that we need for our modern infrastructure and computers and lifestyle. Russia monetarily would be hurt by sunk oil prices, but so would our domestic jobs, US based oil companies (especially the smaller ones), Canada, Mexico (who would flood our border even more), and our so-called allies in the Middle East. And Russia would retaliate against Europe (NATO allies) by cutting off the gas. And history has shown that Russia, China can deal with hunger and deprivation much better than the USA, also since both have a history with "dealing with" populations, even their own. Heck, China might actually "not mind" some population decline. Would the USA intervene if China went back hard into Vietnam, N/S Korea, or launched against Japan? Domestically Europe and the USA would, I hope, be more hesitant in enacting confiscation, price freezes, martial law, culling, etc (even though in an extreme circumstance those might be the only viable option for the country to prevail.)

I hope you are correct but the theory that countries won't fight because of strong economic ties and trade has been proven wrong before, infamously in WWI in books and op-ed pieces. To awful results.
*http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Ignoring nukes (land, rail-based, and sub based) and bio/chemical weapon stores (and delivery systems) they have China, and Russia, have a lot of important rare earth minerals (as well as relatively more common minerals) that we need for our modern infrastructure and computers and lifestyle. Russia monetarily would be hurt by sunk oil prices, but so would our domestic jobs, US based oil companies (especially the smaller ones), Canada, Mexico (who would flood our border even more), and our so-called allies in the Middle East. And Russia would retaliate against Europe (NATO allies) by cutting off the gas. And history has shown that Russia, China can deal with hunger and deprivation much better than the USA, also since both have a history with "dealing with" populations, even their own. Heck, China might actually "not mind" some population decline. Would the USA intervene if China went back hard into Vietnam, N/S Korea, or launched against Japan? Domestically Europe and the USA would, I hope, be more hesitant in enacting confiscation, price freezes, martial law, culling, etc (even though in an extreme circumstance those might be the only viable option for the country to prevail.)

I hope you are correct but the theory that countries won't fight because of strong economic ties and trade has been proven wrong before, infamously in WWI in books and op-ed pieces. To awful results.
*http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

There you go again bunging up good ol' fashioned simplistic pro-American bravado with real world complexity.

[21st Century Man]

Problem with TPP is that I keep seeing China mentioned as a potential member which is why I mentioned China. The media keeps saying that: it's about a group of Asian countries . . . and potentially China. That's how they're phrasing it. Add that with the bizarre secrecy and I have to get suspicious as hell. I do not trust US politicians of either party to do anything but cut deals that fuck us over one way or another. Nothing in US politics is about us, not even formerly Democrat bribes to the unions and the "lower class" that starstruck the progressives for years. It was all bullshit. Now that shit doesn't even exist anymore on the left, the rainbow empty promises of change. Change, what a fucking joke of a word that is now. Hope and Change, remember that? Well, here we are with a free trade agreement that the even the Republicans of the 80's wouldn't have bought. But it's coming from Obama.

It's now about the politicians and their relationships with corporate interests. That's all. That's all that Obama's done in his presidency. We are as, if not more, corrupt as Mexico. All we need now are subsidies to the Mexican drug cartels, which I have no doubt will happen 30 or 40 years from now as the marijuana legalization movement goes corrupt. Remember, it's a lobby.

Our "parties" will sell us out while we fight our bullshit ideological liberal vs. conservative fight; a farce created by talk radio, religion and the mainstream Hollywood pop-culture with us never culturally realizing that we're bi-partisanly, multi-racially, politically correctly  ass-raping our children by leaving them with a concocted politics little better than that of Venezuela. We never bothered to stop and realize that we inherited greatness and fucked it up.

Republican field: Ain't no Dwight Eisenhowers or Barry Goldwaters in that bunch. You will end up with Jeb Bush because your party is controlled by people like Boehner. It is not controlled by Rand Paul.

Democrat Field: Hoping to Jesus everyone forgets Hillary's scandals by election time and I'm sure they will. Especially if she promises free shit. She has a very excellent chance of being declared president first and then winning the election because that's what people will think they're supposed to vote for and that should disturb the shit out of any free-thinking person on earth.

Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. If you call yourself any one of those you are obsolete, brainwashed and stupid. Let's come up with a new politics that actually reflects where our culture is heading.

Just my two cents.

Much wisdom here and I couldn't agree more. I have called myself a conservative Republican for most of my life and voted that way.  I bought into all the crap George W. Bush said about being a compassionate conservative.  That's what I would have called myself as I'm really not an extremist.   I'm probably a lot more liberal in some respects than most liberals.  Unfortunately, W's idea of compassion was increasing government programs and spending. The people in charge of the Republican Party are the same.  Well, fuk 'em. I will not vote for Jeb much less Shillary.  If that means I'm marginalized, so be it.

What I am, and I hope this label has SciFi's approval, is a strict constructionist/Constitutionalist and that is all I am going to call myself from now on.

[albrecht]

There you go again bunging up good ol' fashioned simplistic pro-American bravado with real world complexity.

Lest you don't mislabel me, I've always wanted, many decades ago, a mutual security and trade bloc between the UK, North American countries, Europe, certain southern African countries, and ANZAC, allowing even Russia in (we had a chance post cold-war, unfortunately we sided with Muslims and still tried the old cold-war policies and just threw money, not support, at them.) The enemy isn't anti-USA, etc but anti-Western Civilization. We had our chances, several times, unfortunately for us we tend to ignore our common enemies, as judged over the long-haul at least and population wise; with our badly mistaken immigration policies, war policies, and ideas that 'everyone else' simply cares about money or about 'democracy.'
So there!

[SciFiAuthor]

Much wisdom here and I couldn't agree more. I have called myself a conservative Republican for most of my life and voted that way.  I bought into all the crap George W. Bush said about being a compassionate conservative.  That's what I would have called myself as I'm really not an extremist.   I'm probably a lot more liberal in some respects than most liberals.  Unfortunately, W's idea of compassion was increasing government programs and spending. The people in charge of the Republican Party are the same.  Well, fuk 'em. I will not vote for Jeb much less Shillary.  If that means I'm marginalized, so be it.

What I am, and I hope this label has SciFi's approval, is a strict constructionist/Constitutionalist and that is all I am going to call myself from now on.

Many thanks. I started basically as a libertarian who voted Republican, so I very much sympathize and concur. You can hold whatever ideology you want, whether it's conservative Christian, liberal, libertarian, whatever you wish. Those things no longer matter. The fact remains that the politicians of both parties--and this is where people really get had--are none of the above today. They're corporatists (not capitalists!) in disguise as left and right ideologues. Modern politics isn't about political thought, it's about the manipulation of people and has been since at least the 90's. Politics is a business one goes into for personal gain, it is not an honest occupation, and we should assume from the outset that a politician is out for themselves from the start. That would go a long way in restoring true political debate in the country. The second thing we should do is stop voting for lawyers. Lawyers are the least-suited people on Earth for writing laws. An uncontacted native tribesman from the rain forest would be more suitable than they are. We need less laws, not more and a lawyer (and I admittedly speak in general terms) is not likely to agree.

As far as the constitution, again, I agree on the document itself. But the lawyers just find ways to subvert it.

But I also end up being a progressive in another sense. I have come to believe that the end result of capitalism in a human society is corporatism. We used to try to stop that with anti-trust litigation and the like, but really don't do it much anymore. The problem is that the end result of corporatism is something akin to communism. Think about it, over the next 50 years as technology develops the corporations will seek to automate as many jobs as they possibly can. Add artificial intelligence into the mix and you can automate almost all jobs eventually (Keynes predicted this, in fact, in 1931). Well, if humans go unemployed then the economy goes into the toilet because they can no longer buy the goods that the corporations sell. That sinks the corporations. All that's left is for government to nationalize the failing corporations (the GM bailout was a foreshock of this. We bailed them out so they could automate more jobs), thus the means of production then becomes a purview of government. The prospect of society going through that scares the shit out of me because in the past those kinds of paradigm changes took the form of guillotines and revolutions.

Or, put another way, we'll get the world of Star Trek because of our advancing technology. The problem is that there may be little room for humans in that world and that's going to be a problem. There will only be an elite and everyone else at that stage. There will be no capitalism.   





 
   

[21st Century Man]

Many thanks. I started basically as a libertarian who voted Republican, so I very much sympathize and concur. You can hold whatever ideology you want, whether it's conservative Christian, liberal, libertarian, whatever you wish. Those things no longer matter. The fact remains that the politicians of both parties--and this is where people really get had--are none of the above today. They're corporatists (not capitalists!) in disguise as left and right ideologues. Modern politics isn't about political thought, it's about the manipulation of people and has been since at least the 90's. Politics is a business one goes into for personal gain, it is not an honest occupation, and we should assume from the outset that a politician is out for themselves from the start. That would go a long way in restoring true political debate in the country. The second thing we should do is stop voting for lawyers. Lawyers are the least-suited people on Earth for writing laws. An uncontacted native tribesman from the rain forest would be more suitable than they are. We need less laws, not more and a lawyer (and I admittedly speak in general terms) is not likely to agree.

As far as the constitution, again, I agree on the document itself. But the lawyers just find ways to subvert it.

But I also end up being a progressive in another sense. I have come to believe that the end result of capitalism in a human society is corporatism. We used to try to stop that with anti-trust litigation and the like, but really don't do it much anymore. The problem is that the end result of corporatism is something akin to communism. Think about it, over the next 50 years as technology develops the corporations will seek to automate as many jobs as they possibly can. Add artificial intelligence into the mix and you can automate almost all jobs eventually (Keynes predicted this, in fact, in 1931). Well, if humans go unemployed then the economy goes into the toilet because they can no longer buy the goods that the corporations sell. That sinks the corporations. All that's left is for government to nationalize the failing corporations (the GM bailout was a foreshock of this. We bailed them out so they could automate more jobs), thus the means of production then becomes a purview of government. The prospect of society going through that scares the shit out of me because in the past those kinds of paradigm changes took the form of guillotines and revolutions.

Or, put another way, we'll get the world of Star Trek because of our advancing technology. The problem is that there may be little room for humans in that world and that's going to be a problem. There will only be an elite and everyone else at that stage. There will be no capitalism.   





 
   

You are right on target.  Sound thinking throughout.  Corporatism and lawyers are killing this country.  Though In a true capitalist society, corporatism need not be the end result.  In a true level playing field where the best product at the lowest cost is manufactured and sold, everybody would win but we don't live in a true capitalist society. Tax breaks and other goodies for corporations that play ball and give perks and money to the politicians are the rule here.  Corruption rules the nest of our government and we need to excise these parasite politicians from our system.  They are like a cancer and we are in Stage 4. If we don't do something very soon, this country is finished.  You are a hell of a futurist, SciFi, and infinitely better than the idiots that get booked on C2C claiming to be futurists.

[albrecht]

Rick Santorum announcing right now. Why, I don't know.

[136 or 142]

Rick Santorum announcing right now. Why, I don't know.

Obviously Rickmania!

[Designx]

I consider myself a fiscal conservative but social moderate/liberal. If the republicans want to lose the presidential election, pick a far right Christian candidate. I have my doubts the U.S. will ever elect a flaming Christian candidate ever again. You might have better luck trying as a Muslim.

[albrecht]

I consider myself a fiscal conservative but social moderate/liberal. If the republicans want to lose the presidential election, pick a far right Christian candidate. I have my doubts the U.S. will ever elect a flaming Christian candidate ever again. You might have better luck trying as a Muslim.

With the electoral college as it is I would suspect you are correct though it would also depend on the opposing candidate and campaign. I could see, maybe, the illegals' and immigrants' vote (and the Hispanic bloc) could backfire on the Democratic candidate if it was a Hispanic religious guy and their candidate was someone off-putting. But that is not likely to happen and would probably take a decade for the open-border folks to become a major key voting force. It could also happen if the balkanization of the country start effecting the white vote and they voted as a bloc (as blacks do) and there was a race in which the white candidate was the religious guy and the other was a bad option. But, so far, the balkanization and race-based voting idea only (in recent decades) been used on the minority (currently, which will change, during a minority/majority flip in some areas) side of the equation. This could change but will be some decades, as currently the "white vote" is split fairly evenly and the race/gender/class voting system certainly benefits the Democrats except in one demographic of older white males.
ps: I think one of the big problems in both Parties is being seen here, again. "Entitled" candidates or "radical" candidates, the Parties and big donors pick not based on electability but on seniority or pet-causes. Problem is, slightly, different between Parties but essentially the same. Tie-breaker and advantage though, at least recently, goes to the Democratic Party because they will all (mostly) vote for that candidate. Whereas the Republicans (or those of that type) will stay home if values, ideas, honesty isn't strictly adhered too. Idealism etc. The Left on the Democrat side will protest and wear Pink and show up and protest but, when comes too it, will vote for whomever the Party decides.

[Designx]

With the electoral college as it is I would suspect you are correct though it would also depend on the opposing candidate and campaign. I could see, maybe, the illegals' and immigrants' vote (and the Hispanic bloc) could backfire on the Democratic candidate if it was a Hispanic religious guy and their candidate was someone off-putting. But that is not likely to happen and would probably take a decade for the open-border folks to become a major key voting force. It could also happen if the balkanization of the country start effecting the white vote and they voted as a bloc (as blacks do) and there was a race in which the white candidate was the religious guy and the other was a bad option. But, so far, the balkanization and race-based voting idea only (in recent decades) been used on the minority (currently, which will change, during a minority/majority flip in some areas) side of the equation. This could change but will be some decades, as currently the "white vote" is split fairly evenly and the race/gender/class voting system certainly benefits the Democrats except in one demographic of older white males.
ps: I think one of the big problems in both Parties is being seen here, again. "Entitled" candidates or "radical" candidates, the Parties and big donors pick not based on electability but on seniority or pet-causes. Problem is, slightly, different between Parties but essentially the same. Tie-breaker and advantage though, at least recently, goes to the Democratic Party because they will all (mostly) vote for that candidate. Whereas the Republicans (or those of that type) will stay home if values, ideas, honesty isn't strictly adhered too. Idealism etc. The Left on the Democrat side will protest and wear Pink and show up and protest but, when comes too it, will vote for whomever the Party decides.

This is why I see Hillary running as a moderate from Obama. I think her challenge is to try and draw in people like me while easily gaining the entire democratic side. She will be seen as a more "sensible" candidate if the republicans push a polar opposite of Obama candidate out. Republicans thus far have shown no interest to try and pull from the moderate end - pinning hopes entirely on the "pissed off" conservative white male. I guess we'll see how things change over time.

[nooryisawesome]

Rubio seems like the logical choice for republicans.

[SciFiAuthor]

You are right on target.  Sound thinking throughout.  Corporatism and lawyers are killing this country.  Though In a true capitalist society, corporatism need not be the end result.  In a true level playing field where the best product at the lowest cost is manufactured and sold, everybody would win but we don't live in a true capitalist society. Tax breaks and other goodies for corporations that play ball and give perks and money to the politicians are the rule here.  Corruption rules the nest of our government and we need to excise these parasite politicians from our system.  They are like a cancer and we are in Stage 4. If we don't do something very soon, this country is finished.  You are a hell of a futurist, SciFi, and infinitely better than the idiots that get booked on C2C claiming to be futurists.

Thanks, and yes, 99% of all futurists are astonishingly outdated. I scratch my head when I hear those guys in interviews, if they're not predicting a rosy happy utopia they're predicting an apocalypse.  The real future lies somewhere in between.

You're absolutely correct in your assessment, I agree entirely. The problem I have is that I don't think we can accomplish a true house cleaning because of the herd instinct. For some time now the media and the parties have played on the herd instinct using marketing science to pre-ordain a candidate before the primaries. Like selling a big mac with a commercial showing a juicy big mac dripping with special sauce, our candidates are now presented to us the same way, just in a more subtle manner. We end up  "knowing" who we're supposed to vote for before the primary happens. You can see this in action with John McCain on the right, it was his turn, his shot, within the establishment. On left we are seeing that with Hillary, even amidst scandal as she is she remains popular because the media pre-ordained her.

There is a potential wildcard I must mention though. We're not too far off from facial recognition apps on our phones that use facial cues for real-time lie detection. We basically already have it, it just needs to mature a bit more as a tech. Once people can turn those towards the television and bust politicians when they lie, then the entire political structure may radically change.

[FightTheFuture]

Walker vs Webb.

Hillary doesn`t have a chance of getting the nomination.  Rubio is too young. Too many social conservatives in the line-up for any of them to break through. Ben Carson is running for Surgeon General.

Webb is a straight-talking, no-nonsense, war hero who appeals to many Republican voters (myself included).

Scott Walker is a proven slayer of Democrats and all that they hold sacred -- chiefly, unions. He ain`t fancy; he ain`t purdy; he just does exactly what he says he will do. Folks like that. Even liberal folks, apparently.


And there you have your election. It`s a coin flip as to whom emerges victorious.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Lest you don't mislabel me, I've always wanted, many decades ago, a mutual security and trade bloc between the UK, North American countries, Europe, certain southern African countries, and ANZAC, allowing even Russia in (we had a chance post cold-war, unfortunately we sided with Muslims and still tried the old cold-war policies and just threw money, not support, at them.) The enemy isn't anti-USA, etc but anti-Western Civilization. We had our chances, several times, unfortunately for us we tend to ignore our common enemies, as judged over the long-haul at least and population wise; with our badly mistaken immigration policies, war policies, and ideas that 'everyone else' simply cares about money or about 'democracy.'
So there!

Sorry, it was one of my rare backhanded compliments because you had added substance in response to what I thought had initially been a somewhat naive cut-and-paste take on the issue.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Walker vs Webb.

Hillary doesn`t have a chance of getting the nomination....

Woah... just hold on there.  What?  I haven't been following this thread much but I found that the part of your post that required the most explanation.

[albrecht]

Sorry, it was one of my rare backhanded compliments because you had added substance to what I thought had initially been a somewhat naive cut-and-paste take on the issue.

I don't do compliments well. 
So Pataki is officially in also. Why, I do not know? Are most of these guys angling for future appointment? Future news/pundit position? Can you personally make money directly from campaign fundraising, besides paying your expenses (I'm not talking Foundations etc like the Clinton's likely launder money but directly from unused campaign donations after you lose or bow out?)

[FightTheFuture]

Woah... just hold on there.  What?  I haven't been following this thread much but I found that the part of your post that required the most explanation.

Ms. Clinton is in real peril of being indicted for a litney of crimes. Even DEMOCRATS will be able to come to terms with her demise.

[136 or 142]

Ms. Clinton is in real peril of being indicted for a litney of crimes. Even DEMOCRATS will be able to come to terms with her demise.

I don't believe you can be indicted for imaginary crimes.  Maybe in your delusional world a person can.

Donald Trump to announce on June 16.

Politics1.com @Politics1com
P2016: After 3 fake runs (88, 00, 12), billionaire Donald Trump (R) is really going to formally run for President. Announcement on June 16.

Speaking of real (alleged) crimes though:
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Indicted On Federal Charges
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted-on-federal-char?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.qhYvdzy12

As usual, most of the responses in the comment section are moronic.