They're living in a dreamworld. Trumps wants to go all Hitler on Muslims and bomb half the planet back to the stone age to make America great again :lol:

Obviously I'd prefer Sanders as a peace candidate but even Hillary Clinton will be more restrained than those crazy republicans.

Obama has done a great job with universal health care and gun control, and I see no reason why a Democrat wont be elected again in 2016. The US public wont want to see all that work rolled back to the 1950's.

Why not?

It doesn't take a Nostradamus to know that California will be democrat and texas will be republican.

If you honestly reckon Trump will win then it doesn't make much sense to be relying on conventional wisdom to predict other aspects of the election.

I didn't say that?



I'm simply stating that winning Iowa doesn't mean that the candidate will win the nomination. Not all rules are thrown out the window - California will still be blue and Texas will still be red regardless of this "extraordinary" cycle.

The right wingers are confused as per usual.

:lol: What? 2016 is either:

A) an extraordinary election cycle where conventional wisdom doesn't apply and a candidate like Donald Trump winning the nomination is a realistic possibility.

B) another ordinary year where what happened in "the last few elections" is a reliable predictor of what will happen in this one.

Which is it?

He probably will, considering Cruz has put all his eggs in that retarded evangelical Jebus basket. However, the last few elections have shown that Iowa doesn't pick the republican nominee - Santorum and Huckabee won it the last few times yet we had McCain and Romney nominations.

Trump got trolled LOL

[youtube]SBtETT95EEA[/youtube]

Well this thread will be entertaining when Trump loses Iowa.

"The goddamn 1%........."

Trump will be president.

Trump will win the republican nomination, he's neither an evangelical Jebus type (Carson, Cruz) nor an establishment neo-con (Jeb, Rubio). Regardless, Trump will destroy Hillary when he brings her skeletons out of the closet.

Sanders hasn't provided anything except "muh one puhcent" and "muh billyunuh class". All rhetoric and no actual solid policy.



People have literally been saying this for half a year, yet his numbers have only climbed.

Bernie Sanders would be the President the world needs, Hillary will the President the World gets....the Republicans aren't getting elected until they put the Tea Party and other extreme right nut jobs back in the cellar.

THIS!

Also be a shame that Hilary would make it. She tries her best to be neutral and appealing.
Bernie Sanders would be a great choice.

Correct.
Trump is unelectable. Funny people still taking him seriously. :)

Cruz vs Rubio is a good tip I reckon.

Cruz is insane, but Rubio is a far scarier prospect - he could very well win the general election.

The real problem is the way the American system is set up (e.g. separation of powers = multiple parties having an effective "veto" on legislation, gerrymandering of congressional districts).

Any sizeable minority that is loud, organised and passionate (eg NRA) will be able to veto the will of a disorganized, and somewhat disengaged majority (general populace).

Only 32% of American households even own a gun.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-05-21-1432225070-1642674-vpcnorcgraphicone-thumb.jpg

Edited by AzzaMarch: 8/1/2016 04:07:09 PM

The scary thing is, it isnt ignorance, it is the sheer selfishness to not sacrifice the voting power of the NRA and the American gun toting populace.

They know USA needs reform but no-one wants to sacrifice themselves of the votes.

Watching people who intend to lead the USA ripping apart Obama's gun control laws shows the rest of the world just how ridiculous American's are.

I mean they are (on the whole) wilfully ignorant about the affects of guns. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

The only way I can see the possibility of Trump winning the Republican primary is if the Republican field stays so large right until the end.

I think the republican establishment will at some point make sure enough candidates drop out so that the vote doesn't get split.

I actually think it will come down to Cruz v Rubio now. Cruz has had a strategy of not really criticizing Trump - the thinking is that his strategy is to be the natural recipient of Trump supporters votes when Trump eventually crashes and burns.

He is trying to be the less insane version of Trump.

I thought for a long time it would be Jeb, but he has been really dismal. So I think Rubio will become the establishment candidate.

I think it will be Rubio v Cruz in the end.

Regarding the Dems - Sanders has some good ideas, and some bad ones. In American terms he is far too left wing to ever attract enough votes. But then again, Americans think universal health care is a sign of a socialist apocalypse!

I don't like Hillary - the Clintons are both really ruthless types with a lust for power that will do anything to get what they want. But as President I think she would be quite centrist and status quo.

Sanders is like Howard Dean a few elections back - passionately supported, especially by the young, and a strong grass roots following. But that doesn't win you a general election. The people you need to win over in the primaries (passionate, and generally the most engaged and 'fundamentalist' in viewpoint) are not the ones you need to win over in a general election (the casual person who pays attention once every 4 years).

Given that Sanders seems to have hit a limit poll-wise, Hillary hasn't had to do that much to placate the left.

Whereas, because of Trump, the Republicans are all lurching to the "insane right" to win back Trump voters. This will hurt whoever makes it through to the general election.

Not that Mitt Romney was ever going to beat Obama, but that was his issue. Republicans viewed him as too moderate, so he had to push to the right a lot more during the primaries. When the general election rolled round, he couldn't recapture the centre.

Are you tipping Cruz for the GOP nomination?

I may be biased as I've always had a strong left-wing tendency but Sanders seems to be the Democratic candidate who has raised the most (and best IMO) points for the upcoming election but Clinton then turns those points into a far more moderate paradigm therefore maintaining a strong base of moderate liberals who I don't think would do much for the current political system other than appeasing it

Trump won't get the republican nomination, let alone beat Hillary.

He has a sizeable core support. But he can't grow it - he is hated by those that don't like him. He is far too polarizing.

Clinton has been able to stay relatively centrist.

She will walk it in.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-lead-over-sanders-heading-primaries-n490131

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-primary

It seems unfortunately that the wannabee reptilian, conveniently left wing Clinton will pip Sanders for the nomination - a fucking travesty IMO. She is the epitome of establishment politics and very expedient in her policies. If she wins the nomination she will lose against Trump - the vitriol against her and I think her inevitable weakness in a 'debate' with Trump will lead to a GOP victory

Except that guns are rarely an election defining issue in the usa

POTUS =d>

Perhaps gone a bit unnoticed on this forum, but Obama implemented a new executive action on gun control a few days ago.

The two big changes are requiring everyone in the business of selling firearms to get a licence and require they conduct background checks and huge penalties for those not doing so. This is an effort to close the gun show loophole where private sellers previously didn't have to. Since this is going to mean more background checks, more people are going to be hired to help process these background checks faster and more thoroughly.

Boost gun safety technology. As I understand it, these are guns that require a specific bracelet or a fingerprint scanner to be used. Unfortunately this isn't mandatory. Imagine all this kids who find their parents guns who would no longer be able to use them. It would also cut down on the illegal stolen firearm market.

When it comes to mass shootings in 2015 in which a mass shooting are 4 or more people shot there were 374

Number of deaths 13,346

Up from 335 and 12,576 respectively in 2014.

As for how this relates to the U.S. election this year. It's no surprise that he chose the start of the year to stamp his foot down and finally do something. These stats can be easily repeated by whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee. "374 mass shootings last year have been cut by 20% since we introduced background checks" and the Republican nominee is going to have to somehow attack it.

umm. you know he's right don't you?
the US have been funding, arming and training isis.

Its crazy time :)

[youtube]OQOSnqtcb8w[/youtube]

Trump wanted to ban all muslims.
Pretty sure thats hate speech. :)

Just moronic musings that will only appeal to a portion of Republican voters but will ultimately lead him to being savaged by his Democrat opponent in an election.