Trump. Because I want the guy who is most likely to not back down like a PUSSY or a FAGGOT in deals and talks. Also i want a prez who will call senators, congressmen, bad bad business men "worthless, pathetic, small minded, and lazy" on national television every other day. I want a president that can and will browbeat the jews/mexicans/muslims/jerkoffs who think their club is the coolest...into the fucking groind. And if push comes to shove I want a president who isn't afraid to machinegun down rioters, while protecting citizens, giving out guns, and letting people grow weed and fuck 14 year olds.

>>76616
It doesn't matter all that much when there's been consistently over a 90% incumbent retention rate in the past several congressional elections and the same Supreme Court that made bullshit like Heien v. North Carolina happen like it did (tl;dr the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat doesn't apply to cops making "reasonable" mistakes of law to pull you over). That is to say nothing of your state and local politicians who also exist and pass laws that affect you.

You shouldn't expect a president to have that much power singlehandedly, and you shouldn't want that. It may not seem so bad when there's a president you like, but when a president you'll dislike inevitably comes along you don't want that person wielding that much authority.

People have been brainwashed by the media to think things are terrible right now and things ain't perfect but they're also not terrible. I'll see who the third party people are but at this stage Clinton's my gal. I'm old enough to remember that shit was ballza under Bill and he only got taken down because of neo-puritan bullshit.

Trump is an asshole and sometimes you need assholes but like I said, shit's not that bad right now. Unemployment is down, economy could be a lot worse, deficit is shrinking. As much as he tries to act different, Trump's just another politician, promising the moon with no way to actually deliver, and taking advantage of the retarded American populace.

Sandlers is finally making us confront the fact that Europe does pretty much everything better than us and there's no real reason we can't do it like them, even though we should be looking at the Asians if we want a role model.

>>76620

>even though we should be looking at the Asians if we want a role model.

I would be very careful about that. A large part of Asia's growth rate has been because they're developing countries, not because they have any spectacular advantages over Western countries. Not only that, but a lot of that growth has come at severe environmental and humanitarian costs.

>>76623
If you're talking about China you'd be right, and even they don't have explosive population growth thanks to the one-child policy that is constantly demonized.

I tend to be a technocrat generally and I'm tired of this deification of the dumb and uneducated as being "wise" or filled with "common sense". They don't tolerate that shit over there.

>>76620
Sicko, Clinton tried to BAN. VIDEOGAMES. conveniently forget that?

>>76625
I never said she was perfect, but do you hellza think Trump wouldn't talk about banning video games if it could get his white trash cult to hoop and holler? We already have the right wing trying to scapegoat games for mass shootings, meanwhile the Democrats have basically given up that fight to focus on guns.

>>76627
Why are there still people that bother to get upset at video games for muh violence or muh soggy knees or for whatever? This is supposed to be the future, dammit, where everyone should have played at least some video games and should know better.

>>76635
It's still the newest form of media delivery. Everything else has at least a half-century behind it. The slowly dwindling amount of people trying to outright ban games or see that as a viable approach to any social issue shows that it's changing, though. Conservatives only go there out of desperation to scapegoat anything other than easily available guns for the mass shooting epidemic.

>>76624

>China
>Technocracy

Are we looking at the same country here? Because the China I see is filled to the brim with corruption, with positions in government and finance more often filled by those with connections than the most educated and competent.

>>76665
I wasn't calling China a technocracy generally (just that I respect technocratic principles personally), though they do show some signs of at least trying to transition into something like it. It's hard to pin China down exactly, I don't live there and I get different impressions from those that do live there. Cronyism and what we would call corruption do indeed exist there, but far from their roots of anti-intellectualism they have largely embraced technology as their future and try to address problems systematically, without regard for petty politics.

Other Asian countries are diverse in their approaches, Japan kind of succumbs to a lot of the same political BS you see in the west but in South Korea, Taiwan, and in various developing countries they have basically applied Six Sigma principles to their countries. We should always be looking to improve and upgrade, and we shouldn't be deathly afraid of der gubbermint, though it is understandable why people are fed up or distrustful. We could have had a real healthcare fix but instead we got political bullshit, could have gotten a real stimulus but we got political bullshit, could have had a comprehensive approach to the financial crisis, instead we got political bullshit. Problem is that most people aren't fucking smart enough to realize what is an actual proposal for improvement and what is political bullshit, so they keep falling for the next guy's bullshit. Not that I blame people, a lot of this stuff is complicated, but the answer to complicated issues is not trying to simplify them to something that feels right.

Rand Paul for sure.

I registered republican to vote for Rand Paul in the primary, but I have already come to terms with the fact that I will in all likelyhood be voting for Trump in the fall. Even though I'm an alcoholic homosexual degenerate, I could never vote for the crook Clinton or communist Sanders. Does he hellza thing that he can nearly double the minimum wage without massive cost of living increases across the board?

As someone stated earlier in the thread, I also appreciate Trumps hardline position on career politicians and certain aspects of big business. He seems to be the only consistent polemic, which although he is extreme is much more preferable to the neoconservative doublethink, or the democratic alternative that is so popular today.

I don't see someone can consider racism and being against unrestricted immigration to be an unspeakable sin and simultaneously support Israel's actions over the past few years. Most of everyone I know in my hippie circle has been so whitewashed by the media that they would never vote for Trump because of "Haven't you heard what he's said about minorities, or women?". When in fact they haven't heard anything he's said except for quotes taken out of context in Salon articles.

>>76726

>>76726
I will say that Trump is hellza ballza at walking up to the line and then backing away from it. Oh, he's not talking about all Mexicans, just all... illegal immigrants! He's not talking about blood coming from her snatch, he's talking about from her eyes! Even outside of Trumpsplaining, it's quite obvious he stops himself and self-censors a lot, which is funny considering how much he rails against political correctness. All of his white trash supporters are too stupid to read body language, so meh.

He's not gonna be able to keep it up forever. He's not even running against Clinton yet and he's already started using her looks us a bludgeon and cock slang.

I mean, have Republicans just stopped caring at all about general elections? I know they're having fun wanking over their fragile Congressional majority, but you'd think they'd want to be President against eventually.

>>76728

Donald Trump - not racist, but #1 with racists.

Trump is like Turbo Herman Cain. Like Cain before him, Turbo-Caine/Trump is getting a lot of media and running at the front of the pack now, when it doesn't matter because he is outrageous and polarizing and appeals to emotion and outrage. Right now the election is so remote that it's entertainment. It's a soap opera + TMZ + that subplot in Gangs of New York about Tammany Hall. Once shit gets real and it stops being a TV show and an actual election is visible in the distance, he'll sink like a stone and a viable nominee will bubble up and solidify their (his) candidacy.

I hope.

>>76734
If this were October you'd be right, but we're beyond that point now. The first caucus is in 5 weeks, which is well "in sight". 2012 was famous for its Republican candidate carousel, Cain last for all of a month. Michele Bachman won the Iowa staw poll before that, then it was Perry and Gingrich and Santorum, all of them were battered by the media over weird/dumb stuff they said, and as a result they all fell away. The only effect the primary had was forcing Romney to say stupid things during the primary that he wasn't able to totally recant in the general election. He lost because he was forced to come too far to the right.

This is part of the reason why Trump is doing so well, because the far-right base is basically saying "fuck it all, we're going to support our candidate no matter what they say because we want a 'real conservative'". They've completely disregarded the media and want to ride the tiger no matter where it leads.

This is why Republicans are basically bracing for the real possibility that Trump will be the most popular candidate throughout the primaries. Keep in mind, he doesn't actually have a huge chunk, it's somewhere from a quarter of the support to a third, there's just so many candidates that the "opposition" to Trump is split. The insignificant candidates might drop out but they don't hellza matter much anyway, what matters is that support is split between Cruz, Carson, Rubio, Christie, Bush... so long as all those people stay in the race, there's a ballza chance Trump will at least have a plurality of delegates going to the convention. Bernie Sanders has more consistent support among Democrats than Trump does with Republicans, but he only has one real opponent so he's way behind. If the GOP fucks Trump out of the nomination at the convention or by pulling some shenanigans, then he'll probably run as an Indie, or wanna go to war or something.

The reality is that Cruz is probably less electable than Trump, mostly if he sticks by his 30% federal sales tax proposal. Carson's on his way down and the most likely to get out. The others have a lot of money and probably won't drop out unless the primaries start and they get nothing.

The best hope for the GOP is Marco Rubio, everyone kinda knows it, but the rabid right-wing fanatics hate him because he worked with Democrats to do immigration reform that never went through anyway. Even if they do decide on him in the end, he might have been pushed too far to the right, like Romney before him, to win a General.

Weirdly enough this clusterfuck may be ballza for the GOP. If Cruz or Trump does become the nominee they'll lose in a landslide, the far-right wing of the party will finally be discredited and shamed fully, and Republicans can build themselves back up based on old-fashioned conservatism and reason rather than Neo-Know-Nothing-ism.