The Official World Politics Thread - All Breaking News here.
Options
Comments
-
To me this is still Clintons to loose. Sanders talks a good game I'll give him that (I'd vote for him). However all that clout & the machine behind Hillary won't just take this lying down. I just can't see her taking another L after loosing the nomination to Obama in '08. Add that along the fact that most the young Dem's that were voting for her husband back in the 90's (especially blacks) are now in their 40's-50's are still riding for that family. To me the woman issue is irrelevant, it's gonna happen.
-
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
*dead -
Bernie Sanders absolutely must not be president this ? wants to turn america into Scandinavia, not only is that impossible it's ? stupid.
Our economic and international situations are totally different, you can put the entire population of some scandinavian nations into one American state. They also don't have our huge military and international obligations.
America is america not ? Scandinavia. -
Bernie Sanders absolutely must not be president this ? wants to turn america into Scandinavia, not only is that impossible it's ? stupid.
Our economic and international situations are totally different, you can put the entire population of some scandinavian nations into one American state. They also don't have our huge military and international obligations.
America is america not ? Scandinavia.
? , nobody knows what goes on in Scandinavia. -
Bernie Sanders absolutely must not be president this ? wants to turn america into Scandinavia, not only is that impossible it's ? stupid.
Our economic and international situations are totally different, you can put the entire population of some scandinavian nations into one American state. They also don't have our huge military and international obligations.
America is america not ? Scandinavia.
? , nobody knows what goes on in Scandinavia.
That's why it's stupid to vote for Bernie who wants to copy their system. America can never be like Scandinavia. -
EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now..
And you know this because you were....10 when he was elected right?
Hillary didnt run ? , Bill clinton was a politicians politician. Saying Hillary ran it just bc she was there is childish and a kin to me saying I visited Harvard therefore I 'went to Harvard' -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying. -
I just wanna know when i said this a month ago, just out of my own independent thought...
Please. In THIS climate, you need a political rock star to defeat Trump. Hilary is one, Sanders is not
There's a sizeable portion of the voting base that literally does not know who Bernie is
Before you preach to the choir about what that says about them, it doesn't matter. Trump being even shows we have reached the abyss and this is largely a glorified popularity contest
...where are those people that vehemently disagreed? They seem to be quiet now that they see the same idea in print -
if sanders wins im convinced hes gonna get murked.
if trump gets it, man oh man ? is gonna go down
but yea hilary prolly gonna take this and the wheel will keep on spinnin´
-
? was just the same when bill was in office. but the people didnt have the intel we do today.
-
Anybody but Sanders we could elect a ? apple and it would make better decisions
-
I just wanna know when i said this a month ago, just out of my own independent thought...
Please. In THIS climate, you need a political rock star to defeat Trump. Hilary is one, Sanders is not
There's a sizeable portion of the voting base that literally does not know who Bernie is
Before you preach to the choir about what that says about them, it doesn't matter. Trump being even shows we have reached the abyss and this is largely a glorified popularity contest
...where are those people that vehemently disagreed? They seem to be quiet now that they see the same idea in print
You were actually wrong if we're going by the facts. As it states in the article according to the polls Sanders performs better than Clinton against the republicans and is thus more electable as of today. The rest of the ? is just basically a flawed opinion piece that is discredited by the actual numbers thus far. As I posted earlier in the thread...The answer, if this thesis turns out to be true, is actually simple. Presidents are elected in general elections, not in primaries and caucuses that choose the nominees. General elections are not decided by the pool of voters in the Democratic and Republican nominating campaigns, but by the broader poll of voters in the general election campaign where the winner is usually the candidate who can win the most votes from political independents and members of the other party in the decisive vote on Election Day on the first Tuesday in November.
It is very possible Mrs. Clinton could have a strong lead among registered Democrats but because her negative ratings are high and her trust ratings are low she could have difficulty winning the votes of many political independents and Republicans, compared to Mr. Sanders. It is equally possible that for the very reasons Mr. Trump holds a strong lead among Republicans he antagonizes large numbers of independents and Democrats, compared to Mr. Sanders. -
This is just as true as 'Republicans would be insane to nominate Trump' which has also been said.
Hilary damn near wins by default -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
-
Bernie been taking ? to white folks for years.
He really hate how the US is ? over the poor. -
EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now..
And you know this because you were....10 when he was elected right?
Hillary didnt run ? , Bill clinton was a politicians politician. Saying Hillary ran it just bc she was there is childish and a kin to me saying I visited Harvard therefore I 'went to Harvard'
You wrong.. Those folks are married.. I'm sure every important decision Bill had to make during his Presidency Hilary was abreast of and offered her 2 cents.. -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal. -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal.
Like I said, if trump gets the nomination, and he likely will(crazy world), he's a good matchup for bernie sanders. Obama played that change card 8 years ago, and did it much better, with more winning attributes. If bernie sanders gets the nomination, he's not winning the general election. Flat. -
I don't get the appeal of Bernie Sanders. He says anything for applause even if it is blatantly impossible. He always looks poorly dressed and wrinkled like he sleeps in his clothes, which is probably true since he always looks like he needs a nap. You want to head a corporation at least look the part.
-
First it was...EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
But 10 min later now its...EmM HoLLa. wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now..
And you know this because you were....10 when he was elected right?
Hillary didnt run ? , Bill clinton was a politicians politician. Saying Hillary ran it just bc she was there is childish and a kin to me saying I visited Harvard therefore I 'went to Harvard'
You wrong.. Those folks are married.. I'm sure every important decision Bill had to make during his Presidency Hilary was abreast of and offered her 2 cents..
Perhaps you shoulda kept it at....EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now..
-
First it was...EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
But 10 min later now its...EmM HoLLa. wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now..
And you know this because you were....10 when he was elected right?
Hillary didnt run ? , Bill clinton was a politicians politician. Saying Hillary ran it just bc she was there is childish and a kin to me saying I visited Harvard therefore I 'went to Harvard'
You wrong.. Those folks are married.. I'm sure every important decision Bill had to make during his Presidency Hilary was abreast of and offered her 2 cents..
Perhaps you shoulda kept it at....EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now..
Nothing wrong with the three posts.. You know exactly what I am trying to say... -
The Presidency is a token seat. Speaker of the house runs the show. Congress and the House can override anything the president vetos. The repubs put young conservative in the Supreme Court to overturns decades of liberal decisions. Now all they need is a conservative president to make the whole process easier.
A democrat wins and it will be the same logjam that we have had for the last 8 years. Things only happen when at least two branches match. But one has to be the executive branch.
Jeb Bush gets my vote but he wont be there so I default to Hilary. -
Reading alot of your post. People dont really know Bernie Sanders story. You would think very different of him if you did some research.
-
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us?
I was just curious as to the logic behind saying you prefer the person that is looking to maintain the status quo as opposed to the person that wishes to change it while having a track record spanning multiple decades that proves his desire to do so.
For example I'll use the point that you yourself raised.
Gun lobbyists/NRA are probably the largest reason why no federal gun laws have been passed as of yet. The power of those lobbyists was achieved thanks to the corrupting influence of money in politics, which happens to be an issue that Sanders has addressed and is steadfast about changing. Hillary Clinton has also professed a willingness to bring about a change to campaign finance and getting the Citizen's United ruling overturned.
- Sanders on one hand has proven the sincerity of his position by running a grass-roots campaign relying primarily on small individual donations and refusing to take money from Super PACS.
- Clinton's campaign on the other hand is being financed by Super PACS & Wall Street lobbyists whom undoubtedly are expecting a return on their investment.
Which of the two do you believe is being sincere about campaign finance reform?
Stop falling for the politricks. I'd rather be disappointed by someone falling short of their established goals as opposed to be disappointed by someone's lack of trying.
I play chess dog... When I know i'm about to lose a piece, I gotta choose which piece is more important and will benefit in the overall game and sacrifice the other. I'll bide my time with Hillary before I do sanders. Bernie sanders ain't gon get half of this done. He's not just pandering to us like Hillary obviously is at times, but he's too far out there, they see him comin, and will put that fire out before he can even start it. At least hilary is straight with the foreign policy, that's what sets her apart for me. These other guys are in over their head with that.
You're playing chess against yourself, IMO. No president gets the opportunity to accomplish all of their campaign goals.
Bernie may not be able to accomplish ALL of what he wants done but even some is better than what Hillary is proposing.
If Bernie is aiming for the moon and falls short at the sky...
That's still better than...
Hillary aiming for the top of a skyscraper and getting stuck half way up the building.
People are talking about the republican narrative in regards to the Sanders/Marxist rhetoric? Are y'all really that naïve to believe the GOP isn't chomping at the bit waiting to rev this Benghazi and e-mail stuff up to the next level. It's far easier for Sanders to explain his ideology than it is for Clinton to explain away a perceived scandal.
Like I said, if trump gets the nomination, and he likely will(crazy world), he's a good matchup for bernie sanders. Obama played that change card 8 years ago, and did it much better, with more winning attributes. If bernie sanders gets the nomination, he's not winning the general election. Flat.
Obama preached change while having Wall Street as his largest contributors. As a result he went into office beholden to those donors and other lobbyists.
Sanders doesn't have that conflict with the way he's running his campaign.
The change that each proposed is far from being the same so it's lost on me how anyone could conflict the two.
And you're saying he's not winning the general election, for the umpteenth time, the polls DISAGREE with you. If you're saying that' because you feel it in your bones or something then more power to you but that's not what the facts say as we stand today. -
The Presidency is a token seat. Speaker of the house runs the show. Congress and the House can override anything the president vetos. The repubs put young conservative in the Supreme Court to overturns decades of liberal decisions. Now all they need is a conservative president to make the whole process easier.
A democrat wins and it will be the same logjam that we have had for the last 8 years. Things only happen when at least two branches match. But one has to be the executive branch.
Jeb Bush gets my vote but he wont be there so I default to Hilary.
Jeb Bush ??? Why not Rubio??? What do you think of him
