Who is your candidate for the U.S 2016 Presidential Election?

[Jack Cruise NUB]

Donald Trump

[silencedotmid]

Like pretty much everyone else in this thread, Bernie Sanders is my ideological fave, but I'm worried he's just not gonna gain enough momentum in the primaries. That's why I'm glad that at least he's running in the Democratic party; if he loses he won't split the liberal vote like Ralph Nader did. At least he's making the democratic party shift to the left as opposed to being moderate.

 

Rand Paul, like Ron Paul, is a meme, and I don't think I can bring myself to vote for a meme as president.

[Professional Map Painter]

Equating Labour to Stalin-style Soviet Communism - rofl

 

Stating the idea that the ability to gain power is the most important thing for a democratic party rather than having ideals and guiding principles that the don't drop at the first whiff of power a la Lib Dems - rofl

 

The first point could have come from Richard Littlejohn himself, and the second point is a deeply cynical view of how to operate in a democracy. Give me a party that speaks for my principles and stands for my principles any day rather than one which has none as long as power is on the table.

Well, that just shows how little you know about Corbyn's views, doesn't it. I'd hardly call Ed Balls (why wasn't he fired as chancellor?), Andy Burnham (Mid Staffs scandal), Ed Miliband (spent taxpayer money on near-useless green subsidies) and Gordon Brown (completely devalued pricate sector pensions for millions of people) men of principle - incompetent fools would be a better term. Oh, and I see you've taken to stereotyping now.

 

It's also amusing to note that the Tory Secretary of State for business is the son of a working class immigrant whereas Chuka Ummuna was privately educated.

[fmca]

Well, that just shows how little you know about Corbyn's views, doesn't it. I'd hardly call Ed Balls (why wasn't he fired as chancellor?), Andy Burnham (Mid Staffs scandal), Ed Miliband (spent taxpayer money on near-useless green subsidies) and Gordon Brown (completely devalued pricate sector pensions for millions of people) men of principle - incompetent fools would be a better term. Oh, and I see you've taken to stereotyping now.

 

It's also amusing to note that the Tory Secretary of State for business is the son of a working class immigrant whereas Chuka Ummuna was privately educated.

 

Whataboutery. I dislike intensely a lot of what New Labour chose to do, incidentally I never voted for them, and they certainly got a lot wrong. Of course your lot wanted to spend more before the crash of '08, but that's all conveniently forgotten now that they've reinvented themselves as the "sensible" party of austerity.

 

But thanks for the (admittedly anecdotal and highly focused) history lesson. And no, it just shows how much propaganda you've bought into regarding Corbyn's views. Of course, New Labour did do some things right, like lifting an incredible number of children out of poverty during the early 2000s (not quite back to the level pre-Thatcher, of course). But I suppose to you that's just another example of big government losing its principles and interfering where it has no right to interfere - just as well the beloved Tories are going to be sending thousands of children back below the breadline eh? Of course, they're busy redefining poverty so that it's no longer classed as "poverty".

 

But no, Gordon Brown's an incompetent fool, and IDS is a hero of the small state, right? And you're right, it is amusing to note that one Tory rose up from the working class and a Labour MP was privately educated, especially given that particular Secretary of State for business's ideological crusade against unions that is perhaps one of the most disgraceful overreaches of the right-wing in this country. As many have pointed out, his father may have arrived in the UK with £1.50 in his pocket, but boy his son is keen to kick the ladder down behind him. That's all really amusing to note, especially given that days lost to union strike action nowhere near come close to the 12 million days lost during the 1970s heyday of union militancy. Draconian laws are always really amusing, right?

 

All so very amusing, but perhaps not as amusing as your arguments, copy pasted from the Barclay brothers themselves.

[Professional Map Painter]

But thanks for the (admittedly anecdotal and highly focused) history lesson. And no, it just shows how much propaganda you've bought into regarding Corbyn's views.

 

Sure, this is a man who wants more nationalisation (British Rail failed horribly), chats with former IRA members, supports the militant "People's Assembly" (which is pretty much an anarchist hate militia), has links to both the International Marxist Group and Squatters Association (seriously?). However, I don't mind a few of his policies (e.g ending the conflict in Gaza - but not his support for Hamas - and no, this doesn't mean I support Israel) but they're simply drowned out by all the other crap.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11762773/Ive-lived-under-Jeremy-Corbyns-rule-it-turned-me-into-a-Tory.html sums him up well.

 

Whataboutery. I dislike intensely a lot of what New Labour chose to do, incidentally I never voted for them, and they certainly got a lot wrong. Of course your lot wanted to spend more before the crash of '08, but that's all conveniently forgotten now that they've reinvented themselves as the "sensible" party of austerity.

If you say so, but they're still not responsible for the state of the NHS and it's management (i.e atrocious) which is due to overspending and an inability to reform the system. Councils also continued to overspend during that period. I would've voted for New Labour until they got involved in Iraq, it all went downhill from there. Austerity is by no means ideal, but until we've actually balanced the books the country can't afford to spend as much as it used to.

 

But thanks for the (admittedly anecdotal and highly focused) history lesson. And no, it just shows how much propaganda you've bought into regarding Corbyn's views. Of course, New Labour did do some things right, like lifting an incredible number of children out of poverty during the early 2000s (not quite back to the level pre-Thatcher, of course).

 

But of course, under Callaghan we were the sick man of Europe. A far cry from the days of Aneurin Bevan and Attlee.

 

New Labour did do some things right, like lifting an incredible number of children out of poverty during the early 2000s (not quite back to the level pre-Thatcher, of course). But I suppose to you that's just another example of big government losing its principles and interfering where it has no right to interfere - just as well the beloved Tories are going to be sending thousands of children back below the breadline eh? Of course, they're busy redefining poverty so that it's no longer classed as "poverty".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32683869- promises are subject to change but I don't see a major attack on the poor here. Overspending only hurts the poor in the long run as it leads to another recession.

 

As for New Labour, their efforts to lift children out of poverty were appreciated, I'm sure, but the "nanny state" culture wasn't. Their support for business was definitely a good idea, however. 

 

And you're right, it is amusing to note that one Tory rose up from the working class and a Labour MP was privately educated, especially given that particular Secretary of State for business's ideological crusade against unions that is perhaps one of the most disgraceful overreaches of the right-wing in this country. As many have pointed out, his father may have arrived in the UK with £1.50 in his pocket, but boy his son is keen to kick the ladder down behind him. That's all really amusing to note, especially given that days lost to union strike action nowhere near come close to the 12 million days lost during the 1970s heyday of union militancy. Draconian laws are always really amusing, right?

 

It's not Draconian, it's logical. Currently a Union is able to strike even if less than half the members actually support action, and Javid's only raising it to 40% - this is still not a majority. Yet people complained that Cameron didn't get over 50% of the vote, calling it undemocratic, and whilst I don't agree with his plans to revoke the hunting ban, at least he's giving MP's a vote on it. Public support for strikes, especially ones that disrupt travel will only decrease if they continue to call one every other week.

[Pix Hecate]

My preferred candidate is John Kasich. He has a history of balancing budgets, being the head of the house budget committee that created the surplus of the 1990s and he has done wonders for Ohio.

[Carlos Spicyweiner]

Well ... I did an on-line test:

• Bernie Sanders (94%)
• Hillery (93%)
• Martin O'Mally (74%)

   

• Huckebee (43%)
• Rand Paul (30%)
• Jeb Bush (27%)

   

• Trump (12%)
• Scott Walker (7%)
• Ted Cruz (3%)
• Ben Carson (1%)

 

Edit: conclusion

(1) from stances on issues, I thing I'd prever Bernie, but I think that Hillery would be the better candidate (it would be a  good sign that a in the 21st century, a woman is able to be ellected)

(2) I had no idea who Ben Carson was, so I looked him up ... and ... I didn't hink it was possible, but yes, I would rather vote for Trump then Carson ...

 

I'm kind of hoping, it will be Jeb Bush vs Hillery Clinton (with, obviously Clinton winning in the end)

I wouldn't base my vote on who it is(Gender, race, etc.), but what they stand for and what they have done already. I am conservative but leaning towards libertarian and I would prefer Bernie simply because he obviously is a nice person I have seen that, he is honest, he is less tied to corporations that Hillary obviously is with. Hillary is too secretive, you never know what her true agenda is and the Clinton's are down right annoying. I would prefer Donald Trump before Clinton. 

 

Sidenote: I would probably go with Rand Paul, but I need to look into John Kasich more I heard he was/is a good governor. I really can't wait until all the current Republicans are too old to function and run for president so that younger, more socially liberal republicans but still fiscally conservative can 'take the throne' of the GOP or just the republican party. It will take another generation though.

[Hyperqube]

Hillary is too secretive, you never know what her true agenda is and the Clinton's are down right annoying. I would prefer Donald Trump before Clinton.

I tend to disagree: with Bill already having had 8 years as president, there's an almost absolute certainty Hillery wouldn't destroy the country. With Trump ... I'm not so sure.

 

It's a country not a company you play like monopoly

-- Epic Rap Battle, advice to Mitt Romney; should hold double for Trump

[Jamesheaton]

Seeing as we have a topic just about Trump, Im curious who everyone is favoring so far for the election next year. My preferred candidate is John Kasich. He has a history of balancing budgets, being the head of the house budget committee that created the surplus of the 1990s and he has done wonders for Ohio. What about you guys?

I also like John Kasich, I fear that the Republican party may be too lost on the social issues though. I also fear that Trump will lose the republican nomination and run as a third party. He may split the votes

[Vince]

I'd love to see Bernie in the White House

[TheMCBros99]

Chris Christie, we need donuts

[Tats]

Ron Paul, but he isn't running.

 

So, no president at all.

[Carlos Spicyweiner]

Ron Paul, but he isn't running.

 

So, no president at all.

From 2017-2021 there shall be no president.

[Fenrir]

Bernie Sanders.... Fear the Bern

[There]

CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP

[Jack Cruise NUB]

Fear the Bern

lol

 

[jelly jiggler]

lol

 

i cri errytime

 

black people making it hard to root for them. At least when a hispanic gets killed by the cops the hispanic community doesnt riot 

( Í¡; ͜ʖ Í¡; ) 

[Jams]

 

Wakka Flocka Flame all day.

 

 

Serious note: I don't really care who gets into office, they all lie anyway. It's not like any of them are more full of hot air than another one

 

[Fenrir]

i cri errytime

 

black people making it hard to root for them. At least when a hispanic gets killed by the cops the hispanic community doesnt riot 

( Í¡; ͜ʖ Í¡; ) 

 

Except, hispanics aren't targeted by police and killed for no reason.

[Jack Cruise NUB]

Except, hispanics aren't targeted by police and killed for no reason.

He dindu nuffin!

[jelly jiggler]

Except, hispanics aren't targeted by police and killed for no reason.

They actually are though rofl

[Professional Map Painter]

They actually are though rofl

Can we not turn this into a "who gets oppressed more" contest and instead just hope that whoever gets elected actually reforms the outdated/stupid police system in the US whilst not turning it into some SJW's wet dream, i.e actual equality rather than a radical mess.

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

Except, hispanics aren't targeted by police and killed for no reason.

 

killed for no reason

 

NO REASON.

I hope you realize these stories on the media are hella exaggerated. 

 

[.Dusk]