@Tozz0zzoT

Lol, I was a progressive yesterday, today I'm a marxist. Damm, I must change a lot my political convictions.

About the US elections, the republicans should really think about finding a substitute for trump. They won't win the elections with him.

He has a very high likelihood of beating Clinton

I wish Romney would run, Marco Rubio works but he would be amazing :*

@GeneralPE

He's 4 points behind of her in match ups. And with a probable Bernie endorsement if she gets nominated, that difference will increase, a lot.

The only way the republicans will win this is with a strong moderate candidate. Rubio isn't up for the job, Clinton will wreck him in every single debate. You'd need a candidate like McCain, Romney or someone close enough to their personality.

Hillary will get smashed by the Donald. There's no way Trump will lose to Clinton.

He is an extremely strong moderate candidate who is not afraid of addressing taboo subjects either. He doesn't need to shut up about radical Islamic terrorism or GWB being a disaster to appease any establishments, media, donors, or special interests.

Also he has more minority support than the rest of the GOP field combined.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/03/shock-poll-donald-trump-earns-more-muslim-support-than-rest-of-gop-field-combined/

Edited 3/4/2016 18:28:02

I am a European, but i do not get how all US candidates run for only two parties. Sanders is a social democrat, Clinton a centrist, Rubio a conservative, Cruz is a christian capitalist (wtf?) and Trump is a right-populist. You should have 5 parties for that.

+1

A strong moderate like McCain or Romney? You cannot be serious. We saw how that worked in '08 and '12 - horribly. Why do you guys think the same thing would work this time around? You really are insane

Responding to Kret's comment that Jai just quoted.

Obviously you are right. Their political views vary so much despite the fact that they are in only 2 parties. This is a simple product of the fucked up US voting system. We have it in the UK too. It the reason the LibDems became irrelevant, and the same reason why SNP got so many seats. I mean, I'm all for SNP getting all the seats, but they admittedly got quite lucky. They were very strategic and aimed to get majorities in each constituency, instead of trying to appeal to as many people as possible.

Strategic? Yes.

Exploiting the UK's fucked up voting system? Also yes.

If it wasn't for SNP's stunt we'd see a 2 party system here too. Labour and Conservatives are incredibly both divided right now, with 2 major questions they're asking themselves:

Labour: "Should we support Jeremy Corbyn? He is nothing like our past few leaders, and is a self-proclaimed Socialist." Not all of Labour still support their socialistic past, especially with the new vibe of Blair-Brown-Miliband's policies, basically right-of-centre, compared to their new leader's hyper-left policies.

Conservative: "Should we become more like UKIP? Should we oppose the EU? Is becoming like UKIP good because we will steal their votes, or is it bad because they will steal our votes? Do we want to be more different, or support their policies of anti-immigration and anti-EU?" The Tory party is incredibly divided on the EU, with David Cameron now coming to his senses and supporting the EU,

<sidenote> he only does this because a UK independent from the EU means a Scotland independent from the UK, and he does not want this </sidenote>

and Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, and almost definitely the new Tory candidate in 2020 and most likely the man to lead the party after Cameron's time runs out, is against the EU.

---

BASICALLY, the reason why there are 2-party systems in the UK and USA, and why they all hate each other so much and are so different, is because of the fucked-up system in both countries, and people of somewhat similar ideologies decide to band together for strength and a higher chance of winning; not because they like each other's policies.

@GeneralPE

Clinton is a weaker candidate then Obama. Obama was a strong candidate, he had good ideas, a good record and a huge support ammoung minorities (much higher then clinton's).

Clinton don't have good ideas, has a poor record and her support with minorities is really stupid, because the Clinton couple really did nothing for minorities...

Clinton is a punch bag. With a good candidate the GOP could beat her. As an example, Rubio is ahead of her in match ups. I don't think he's strong enough to beat her though, but you get the idea. With a stronger moderate, the GOP could win this election.


@OxTheArtist

Yea, first past the post system is such a fucked up one...

Edited 3/4/2016 19:22:10

I agree with Ox emphatically. The main issue with the 2 party system is that candidates who run have to appeal to all factions within the party. This is the double edged sword of having big tent parties. I mean let's consider the GOP simple because their internal factions and polarization is much clearer. The following is a list of all the ideological groups that vote with or for GOP candidates in any election cycle:

1) Libertarians
2) Evangelicals and Social Conservatives
3) Centrists (who switch party lines frequently)
4) Reagan Republicans/Democrats
5) Laissez-Faire Capitalists
7) Center-Right Moderates
8) Tea Party Paleoconservatives
9) Right-Wing Authoritarians

These ideological factions have many things in common, but the policies that they do differ on are often hugely polarizing questions such as the role of the US military in policing the world, the status of illegal immigrants, and what the social values of the United States should be. This division forces any candidate who runs for the GOP to basically be a FrankenCandidate because he has to appeal to every single group to receive enthusiastic support in the general election, but he also has to be appeal strongly to his base whatever it may be (Evangelicals for Cruz, Libertarians for Rand Paul, and Moderates for Marco Rubio) to receive enough support in the primaries. So how does this affect the platform that the GOP tries to push every election cycle? Its so confusing!! It lacks a vision and a single unified message that voters can understand and rally behind. If your platform gives too much to the centrists and social moderates, than Evangelicals stay home on election day because they can't vote against their conscience. If your platform gives too much to the Tea Party Paleoconservatives you risk alienating centrists and moderates who may vote for the Democrats. At some point this ideological balancing act of trying to appeal to everyone fails. Voters want someone with consistent and coherent principles, not someone who is amorphous and changes their ideology every 4 years. Romney has no right to criticize Trump for being a con-man and liar, because in 2012 that's exactly what he was because he tried to move to the right during the primaries and then moved back to the center in the general election. I think the Republicans have to split for good or bad, because this party is not sustainable and its endanger of dragging the whole country into armed conflict.

Wow, someone actually thought this was a serious post...Tozz0zzoT looks really stupid.

Trump-senpai will save Americans from cultural Marxism and the destruction of our institutions at the hands of mass illegal immigration.

Juq, ToZzzOt is Karl you've got the explanation.

I liked the first post. However the rest of this is cancer.

the only important thing about Bernie is him being a socialist.

Also, responding to the second post, we in fact have not had a Jewish president(shocker, I know)

Edited 3/5/2016 04:35:53

^that's because the Jews have controlled US presidents indirecty with their big banks.

/joke

“Every Republican candidate for President since 1936 has been nominated by the Chase National Bank” – Sen. Robert A. Taft

Never have more truer words been said.

Not the Donald!