Heretic;1781161 wrote:Yeah, one seems to now be relying on bringing out fossils whose idea of feminism is telling women they're fucking morons if they don't vote for the woman (AND IGNORE ALL ALLEGATIONS OF WRONG-DOING!!!!!) and the other two have popularity because of their "outsider" status where they're essentially running on the platform of "uh, I'm not like these other people, so go me!". Trump's an ignorant asshole who's main trait is being the loudest guy in a room delivering all the good sound bites. Bernie just has so many annoying groupie fans that spend a ton of time (roughly as much as Quaker does spouting his talking points) on social media promoting him (look! it's an old guy who's cool! voat! voat! voat!) to the extent I just want to move to a distant island and shut myself off from humanity to keep away from them all.

But I didn't win that Powerball, so fuck...

jmog;1781163 wrote:I can't agree more. Those top 3 contenders are the worst we have ever had, it is sickening to be honest.

Heretic;1781174 wrote:Yeah, and at least I would go top 4, as there's something about Cruz that makes me want to obsessively cleanse myself every single time I see him or hear him speak. Slimeball zealot senses tingling, I guess.

It probably says a lot about the state of things when, on this site, most people either would support or at least tolerate a Rubio/Kasich sort of deal...while nationally, those two seem to be 3rd and (maybe) 4th on the R side because they either don't cater enough to the far right or aren't bombastic enough to get all the attention.

If anything, starting with roughly 4000 candidates was not the best idea. With that many people fighting for the spotlight, the quality got shunted to the side with the quantity, while the loudest and most intrusive got the attention.

sleeper;1781177 wrote:Agreed with the Cruz analysis. That guy is horrible as well.

jmog;1781163 wrote:I can't agree more. Those top 3 contenders are the worst we have ever had, it is sickening to be honest.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1781172 wrote:Here is my distress with this whole Hillary issue:

Let's say the email stuff takes her down. Then we're left with Bernie Sanders. Principled as he may be, is he really a person we want in the west wing? And let's say he's not electable. Then it looks like we're left to chose an egomaniac who cannot propose a practical solution to any of the problems he identifies, and a right wing zealot who equates his campaign to a "mission from God" (ala Blues Brothers). God I hope Kasich can make a go of it these next few weeks.

ptown_trojans_1;1781194 wrote:Agreed on all parts.
While Hillary has a ton of faults, it s better the devil you know versus the devil you don't.

gut;1781197 wrote:Going to disagree when it comes to the Bernie Madoff of politics.

ptown_trojans_1;1781201 wrote:I would rather have her than Bernie, Trump, or Cruz.
At least I know what I am getting with her. The others are either crazy ideologues or have no clue what they are talking about.

ptown_trojans_1;1781201 wrote:I would rather have her than Bernie, Trump, or Cruz.
At least I know what I am getting with her. The others are either crazy ideologues or have no clue what they are talking about.

superman;1781202 wrote:I've heard a lot of bullshit spin from you but this takes the cake. I know you're a shill for the Democratic party but wow.

bases_loaded;1781205 wrote:Of the 4 people you named...outside of maybe Cruz you know the least of what you are getting from that two faced felon.

ptown_trojans_1;1781207 wrote:No, not at all. I actually like Rubio, Bush, and most of Kasich. I would probably take them over Clinton.



Cruz is nuts and nothing he says will ever get implemented because he has no concept of working with Congress. He has no friends, no allies. Same goes for Bernie on the otherwise. Trump is so freaking general that I have no way to know if he is serious about anything he says. It is all about trust and faith.

Given all that, again., give me what I already know, and if it is Clinton, oh well. Least bad option.

QuakerOats;1781212 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/11/dem-debate-avoids-questions-about-clinton-foundation/

QuakerOats;1781230 wrote:Another tranche of emails coming this weekend.

ptown_trojans_1;1781201 wrote:I would rather have her than Bernie, Trump, or Cruz.
At least I know what I am getting with her. The others are either crazy ideologues or have no clue what they are talking about.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1781233 wrote:You know damn well she's not going down for this.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1781233 wrote:You know damn well she's not going down for this. So what do you do with a presidential election pool of Trump, Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders?

QuakerOats;1781234 wrote:Hope that Christie, Fiorina, Carson supporters all go for Kasich and maybe he can make it a race (although I have no significant issues with Cruz and it would be fun to see him crush Clinton in the debates). Still hoping that we somehow arrive at Kasich/Rubio ticket ............... our best chance to win because its our best chance to win OH and FL, and we gotta have those states.

Belly35;1781209 wrote:Lying Traitor is that what you want to run the country.

Spock;1781235 wrote:you think your so smart about politics.....remember when you voted for Obama for his foreign policy experience (ended up being the worst presidents in a long time).....now HC is a better option that everyone else????

superman;1781317 wrote:[video][/video]
This brought the lulz.