Bush vs Clinton 2016?

Lol...even your politics is like a soap opera and everyone gets sucked in. Even hardened conspiracy theorists... It's complete nonsense..

a reply to: neo96

but, .... what is Your answer to it all, neo.


just for #s and gigles sake.

what do you propose.

I've no absolute answer myself [either].


just that the wayt hings are now simply cannot continue...


and the even more worrisome part of that is, i can actually see the end of it all in my own lifetime, let alone my kids and theirs.


it simply cannot continue, per the status quo.


what do you suggest?

not sayin... i'm all ears or anything, but i'm certainly open to more than what my mind resolves it all to, eventually - it aint pretty.


????

Neither they both suck.

And you basically approving a aristocracy of a ruling family class.......which is part of why you broke away with us in the UK!

One is lemon flavored, the other is cherry flavored. But they are both steaming and swarmed by flies. So what difference does it make?

IMO Chelsea is being groomed to run. As soon as she is of age... Who knows, maybe our current prez will decide to lower the age requirement on a whim!

to be from afar, a coin can be tossed to pick next president.

This is because nothing ever change in US foreign policy, no matter who is in the office. PNAC here to stay. Internally nothing changes either. What Bush started with homeland security is here to stay.

Said that, democracy in the US of A is just a smoke screen, shadow government is the driving force with agenda in mind. President, hmmm...some one who takes a blame for unpopular moments that need to be pushed forward by said shadow government.

You might well just unveil those faces for simplicity of the matter. Oh, eahh, forgot, election is so much fun..and those little scandals are so entertaining.

So, the question, why domestically or abroad US policy never changes despite different presidents at the helm?

On the other side, countries that are considered un democratic it is big deal as of who takes an office, because given country's entire course can change 180. In that situation there is no political consistency that assures successful long term development. Hence, we see same people at the office, who US of A calls dictators. But at least we know their faces, they are not hiding under pretentious slogans about democracy.

your thoughts.

thanks you.

a reply to: 12m8keall2c

but, .... what is Your answer to it all, neo.

If people want to change this countries leadership.

The first step is 'The people' changing themselves first.

Washington DC is a reflection of 'the people'.

They elect what they 'want'.

Doesn't matter who goes there garbage in garbage out.

just to ad to my previous post.

...and that shadow government is installing other 'democratic' mechanisms in foreign countries to ensure staged elections are 'people's choice' when in reality the dictator is simply replicating 'democracy' installed in the US of A.

In fact, in a number of years, if their agenda succeeds, there will be no need to hide faces of big dictator anymore. We all will be chipped and zombified that if won't matter))) LOL. Think about it. It is not a far fetched scenario.

thanks for reading)

ok, I will ad to my previous comments last time, promise)))

...what is the worst in this situation, is that 'big dictator' has a mentality of a murderer.
You know what I mean.

)

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I agree with your comments, but Bill Clinton didn't even come close to being as bad as Bush. Clinton's legacy is sex with an intern.

and selling and giving secrets to china, drug running out of menna ak.
contract killings. changing the meaning of two words, if and sex.

hill did all these and billary knew all about it.

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

The monarchy of the old world has never ended.
Bush and Clinton are actually both related to the royal family in England.
This is still the Middle Ages.
Link

I liked Jed as a Governor but, is he to far towards the center for what the GOP has become. He has tried to pretend to swing far right but, he will just get clobbered like Kerry for flip flopping. The far right will not turn out for him and for the center it may be to soon to get over the mess his brother made. The big problem for the GOP is that is so far right of center that the candidates the resinate among the tea party are seen as complete nut bags by most of the country. So you either have a candidate that the far right love and will be crushed by anybody in a general election or you have a candidate that is to close to center for the base and they do not turn out so you depend on DNC and Indie voters to get him/her in. And that is not very likely unless the DNC puts up a complete dog. If its Hillary then it is a done deal. She polls very well and is going to have much better resume of experience then anyone from the DNC in primary or the GOP in the general election. Oddly enough she even polls pretty will for a Democrat in the South. No idea why.

I suppose it depends on who can pay off the delegates to get nominated. If Clinton runs against Bush, Bush will undoubtedly win since the Bush family is exceedingly more wealthy than the Clintons. Votes don't elect, money does.

With 12 years of Bushes in the WH, if another Bush gets elected might as well make it Monarchy.

Just my two cents,

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

Please not Hillary...

God please not her! >.<

-SAP-

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: 12m8keall2c

but, .... what is Your answer to it all, neo.

If people want to change this countries leadership.

The first step is 'The people' changing themselves first.

Washington DC is a reflection of 'the people'.

They elect what they 'want'.

Doesn't matter who goes there garbage in garbage out.

I agree with that entirely!!

We, all too often, find ourselves bitching about those same things we brought upon ourselves, as a society with our wants, needs and desires to 'have it all'.

simply can't be.

there'll always be those who have and those who have not.

so. which side gets the greater voice, so to speak !?

in today's day and age it would most certainly seem the few that have tend to dictate to the many who have not.... what will be.

whether it be via campaign contributions, super-pacs, etc. they do.
they buy votes, politicians, people. left and right like there's no tomorrow.

despite the have nots being in the tenfolds of numbers, with regarsds the citizenry, they're voice isn't truly heard nor given a voice in things, for the most part.

my biggest fear is when They Do .... because it's not going to be a pretty picture by the time it gets to that point.

lower hanging rats/fruit will have long-since jumped ship and taken up hospice within the ranks of the have nots.... they'll have been looted along the way as well.

but after that, you have nothing left but the ultra/uber rich/policy makers...



and by that time they too will be looking for ways out of and/or away from the encroaching mobs of pleebs [or what they always thought of as such]....


not something i look forward to in any sense, but it would seem the inevitable, given the current pace, course and actuality of things.

'may you live in interesting times' ... would seem something that's gonna take on a whole new meaning for A Lot of folks in the near and/or coming future, imho.

The problem is that all of the guys on the right that are really pro constitution, small government and anti establishment have wacky religious ideas, hate speech or some other kind of baggage. I don't think they're electable. The peeps on the left almost seem just as wacko but people don't take them as serious. example is Ralph nader. not a bad guy but nobody takes him seriously enough to elect him pres.

a reply to: amazing

What makes religious ideas "whacky"? Because you don't believe in them?

-SAP-

originally posted by: SloAnPainful
a reply to: amazing

What makes religious ideas "whacky"? Because you don't believe in them?

-SAP-

Well sort of. Let's say I'm not a Christian. Do I really want someone passing Christian laws, like putting up the ten commandments in a court house or mandating that Genesis be taught in public schools, or a president that doesn't believe in evolution or thinks the earth is only 10,000 years old. Those are the wacky religious ideas I'm talking about.

If someone can tell me, just for educational purposes, what is the difference next president can make as you see it?

An example, please. What must happen to get your approval? What decree or act? Am I the only one on the planet who sees no difference that is up to the president? No one else sees where the whole thing is going and its destination?

I am no prophet. But let me predict. 90% who support one or another candidate in few month will regret their vote. Ask yourself why. You will bitch to no end how him or her has betrayed your trust just like it happens now with Nobel Peace winner. How many of you voted for a change?
Voters in the US of A even managed to defy Pavlov dogs law. Amazing.


Thank you.

a reply to: amazing

I get that. It was vague, so I was curious. I for one am egnostic. I was just curious is all.

-SAP-