what about the future i really hope that hillary will win since she seem to be most competent, not to biased but jeb bush from past history of both his father and brother i don't think he should be trusted to be president
On a related note, apparently Tsipras has chosen to ignore the referendum that recently passed with over 60% of the populace voting "no". Democracy in action! As opposed to Bill Clinton and Obama's oh so trustworthy presidencies? And isn't that the definition of bias? Don't get me wrong, Jeb Bush would also be bad. And there is the trick to the two-party system. It tries to make people choose between two pre-selected choices, both of which would advance more or less the same overall policies (with some differences here and there, but still not different enough). As far as Hillary herself, she screwed up with Benghazi, declassified Intelligence documents: (shown in part here, as well as explained) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html Show that the rebellion in Syria has always been based on ISIS/Al-Qaeda, yet she had joined with Obama in putting pressure on Assad for him to step down in the face of these "protestors". She also had set up a private off-the-books email to conduct business within the office of the Secretary of State (something she should have been prosecuted for, though part of me doesn't blame her wanting to avoid NSA and CIA eaves-dropping). "Trustworthy" is not what I would call her. She might be more competent than Jeb, I don't know nearly as much about him, in all honesty. I don't want either of them as President, but in all likelihood those will be the only "viable" options presented to us. Someone asked about Trump in another thread (it feels like it was another thread anyway). I don't think he's seriously running. I think he's intended to draw votes away from other more serious candidates in order to set up Jeb as the primary Republican candidate, who, as Chickenpox2 so aptly demonstrated, makes Clinton look much better to many, especially those that don't bother to fact-check some of her lies that she's already putting out like "we were flat broke [after Bill left office]" and so on.
the only other candidate the left really seems to be putting out there is bernie sanders, but it seems like every time he makes noises about running his first hurdle is convincing people that not only is he serious about it, he's also a serious contender. which doesn't really bode well i would think, but who knows
The rule to winning the American presidency is to win the most electoral votes. You need to win the most in a state to get its electoral votes. You may or not be familiar with American football so I'll use an example from what we call soccer or what you would call football. Do you win the game by having the most time of possession? Do you win the American Presidency by winning the popular vote? The answer is no in both cases. You win by getting the highest score. Which is the smartest way to get the highest score? Winning the most electoral vote ensures the winner has depth and breadth of national support. If you only have to win the popular vote to be president theoretically the winner could win one populous state (say California), but lose the popular vote in every other state. Yet he'd be the winner even though he wasn't the winner in the vast majority of the country. Now granted with the electoral system all you have to do is win the largest 10 or 12 states and do poorly everywhere else, but at least you have to win in those states. The electoral process is also superior in that it gives people who live in small states a say in who wins the election. Remember the US is a union of 50 sovereign states not one amalgamated nation that happens to have 50 sub-divisions of governance. I know that's a difficult concept for many people to wrap their mind around. The federal government was intended to do only the things that by their nature have to be done and can only be done by a national level government. The states were to take care of things that was of interest within each state.
By Dan Merica, CNN Updated 2:18 PM ET, Thu July 2, 2015 (CNN)Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has raised about $15 million since it launched in late April, aides to the campaign told CNN on Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising/ Edit: A bit of perspective, in case you think 15 million is a lot. By BYRON TAU | 1/19/13 5:42 PM EST Updated: 1/19/13 9:59 PM EST The Obama campaign released its final fundraising figures in front of an audience of top campaign donors and bundlers Saturday, announcing that the total combined fundraising efforts brought in $1.1 billion during the 2012 cycle. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-final-fundraising-total-1-billion-86445.html
Watch the whole vid, and then tell me you still honestly believe The Donald is NOT a serious candidate.
When he said "nobody knows what power the Tea Party has", I just stopped giggled. That kind of speech is clearly meant as pure propaganda for the people who have no clue about politics. Anyone who's followed american politics for a little bit the last couple of years knows that the Tea Party has an enormous influence.
OK BP, tell us what you think Trump meant by that. Which law(s) has the Tea Party made reality the last few years? Don't be shy sir.
They don't have voting power because they aren't an actual majority and differ from too much of the rest of the electorate to get much in the way of coalition votes, but if you want to see their influence, check the race to the right in the clown car called the Republican primary. The Tea Party makes up the far-right of the GOP base, and anyone looking to galvanize that base needs their support. Unfortunately for the Republics, this means that the candidates best positioned to win the primary have the worst shot at a general election; Trump's head-to-head polls with Clinton are the worst out of any of the Republican primary candidates, and with well over a dozen already in the race, that's saying something. I think BP chose that word careful. The party does an enormous amount of work to shape the political scene, but they don't actually control it.
I have no clue. None to not many, I'd wager. Regardless, the Tea Party has an increasing number of voters and put's a fair bit of pressure on the Republican Party. You don't have to be in office or make laws to have influence on the senate/congress. But I feel as if you don't want to hear my reply and rather wish to attack me because I didn't happily jump on the 'I love donald trump' train. Either way, I don't know enough about him to know if I would like all of his policies or not, especially since I'm not too familiar with the kind of speech he's giving here, so I can't compare it to anything of it's kind. I was just giving my opinion on the fact that it seemed like sweettalk. Then again, from what little experience I do have, the American politicians definitely seem to sweettalk/get more familiar with their tone and attitude than the European ones (in elections, at least). I guess that's that for me. Don't bother replying if your post will be another passive aggressive disapproval of me not agreeing with your political views. I'll jump on the 'i hate obama but donald trump is a serious candidate' train another time, thanks. edit what kalasle said sounded better than my gibberish
@BurnPyro The Tea Party does not have "enormous influence", as you correctly stated in your 2nd attempt. But the movement does have great potential, as Trump declared. So you were correct on that point too. He also mentioned Libertarians and Conservatives. Independents just might go for a firebrand that is pi$$ing off folks on the Left and Right. It appears he is attempting to create a coalition strong enough to win the whole enchilada. Seems serious enough to me. I have no idea if he will accomplish this goal. I still don't know who I am supporting. But it will NOT be anyone that stands for the status quo. That eliminates every single Democrat currently in the race, and most of the Republicans too. I do want to hear your reply. Attacking you is pointless. We, as humans, are stuck in the matrix together. It is the intraspecies predators that need to be defeated. They have risen up over and over throughout history, and the current era of electronic gulag is just the most recent incarnation. The ultimate "sweet talk" politicians employ is universal. Here, there, and beyond. "Free" stuff now so that all will be safe forever. Tyranny for peace. SMH. You keep mentioning my hatred of Obama. I hate ALL intraspecies predators. Most Dem leaders. Most Repub leaders. All the willfully ignorant. Savvy? @kalasle The clown car is the status quo. Anyone and everyone defending/ignoring the status quo is part of the problem. Maybe it is too late. Maybe we can still chart a course towards real progress. I don't know. But I hope. That is something. The Tea Party "extremists" want more sanity in the world. More truth. Less lies. And eventually an end to the matrix. I stand with anyone and everyone that sees and opposes even part of the matrix. Si se puede! Viva la revolucion!
There are also several articles pointing that Trump has given a lot to the Democrats and the Clinton Foundation in recent years. (Too lazy atm to do my usual linking to them.) Even if some things he says make sense from time to time, I wouldn't trust him to follow up on it. His political record regardless (such as it is) is extremely wishy-washy, among other things.
Hmm, I wonder where the Pauls fell on that plot. Still, even with recent "controversy" being drummed up regarding Trumps statements about illegals (which, again, mirrored what Obama said on the issue earlier with no flap), I find it rather unlikely that he'd be worse off than Sharpton and Robertson... Christie maybe, but then I think the name recognition is overly high for Christie as well, but I guess considering his idiotic statements of late trying to blame other politicians for any new terrorist attacks... Perhaps I'm under-estimating the general public's political awareness.
