Post: #51

I'd be curious to see what happens if Bernie wins and has a republican house to deal with

Post: #52

(01-30-2016 03:10 PM)bacan Wrote:  I'd be curious to see what happens if Bernie wins and has a republican house to deal with

Executive Orders

Post: #53

Sanders. In a perverse way, if Trump isn't elected I want to see this extreme socialism bs really tank hard. That's the only hope for having lefties just shut the fuck up once and for all. Either way, we don't really know when or how serious this forthcoming economic market correction will be. Though a couple years of Trump could help brace for that.

Post: #54

Bernie Sanders is the Lord of all cucks, it would be hilarious to see him as president, but the last thing I'm going to do is vote for him. Im voting Trump, if not him I'll vote for whoever the Republican is.

Post: #55

(01-29-2016 03:16 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  I can't vote in US elections, but if I could it would be Bloomberg if he decides to run. I don't care for the rest.

Jesus. Im glad you can't vote in US elections.....

Post: #56

If nothing else, Sanders appears to genuinely believe in what he's promising. Clinton always sounds like she's trying to sell what she's promising. For that reason, and that reason alone, I can respect Sanders.

But my second choice would be Cruz. The GOP establishment is just as afraid of him as Trump. He just lacks Trump's epic bombast and flair for self-promotion.

Post: #57

Voting for me this year is about taking away whatever power possible from the lawless oligarchy that has taken our country captive. Based on the money they spend, that oligarchy seems to fear, in order,

1) Trump
2) Sanders
3) Maybe Cruz or Carson?

So those are my voting preferences, even though I do not like any of them.

Post: #58

(01-29-2016 03:16 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  I can't vote in US elections, but if I could it would be Bloomberg if he decides to run. I don't care for the rest.

Ah yes, the man who as mayor of NY made it against the law and a fine-able offense to:

-Take your feet off the pedals of your bicycle while riding
-Feed pigeons
-Sit on a milk crate on the sidewalk (it's an "unauthorized use")
-Smoke under an awning
-Put your bag next to you on the subway, even if empty
-Smoke in a town car
-Stop momentarily or sit on a subway step
-Sell a soda larger than 16 ounces (overturned by lawsuit)
...and many, many more obviously terrible dangerous things.

And the small bit about desiring to disarm law abiding citizens completely, but I digress.

I see some people saying we aren't a "hive mind" here etc, and while that's absolutely true, I don't see how a man who has any interest in the masculine virtues, self reliance, self improvement etc that this site and community is based on could possibly desire to be led by a male who wants to treat you like you're a child and control every aspect of your life down to the size of the fucking soda you drink, with the threat of government action, fines, or jail.

Some things aren't about nuance in political ideology, it's about having self respect as a man, as a human being.

He's the worst of a matriarchy and dictatorship combined.

Bloomberg is piece of garbage.

Post: #59

If you pull Trump out of the equation, there isn't a clear winner for me. No doubt the field is talented, but nobody else offers the complete package.

I often agree with Cruz in principle, but I can't stand the man. He has the intelligence for the Oval Office, but little else. Everything that comes from his mouth seems rehearsed and insincere. I believe he's a borderline autistic psychopath. And his politics are far too often "me against the world." Although though he's only been in Washington for 3 years, he's managed to burn bridges with virtually everyone in Congress. If elected, he has the potential to be a lame duck within his first 100 days of taking office.

In terms of personality and charisma, I think that Christie is underrated. Notwithstanding the fact that he is a Northeast Republican with moderate cuck policies and a major weight problem, I do like the attitude he carries himself with. If Trump wasn't in this thing, he would get a significant bump from blue collar workers. Just listen to him when he goes after Obama or Hillary. He has a certain bluster that entertains and energizes rather than putting off. Every time I hear him at one of the debates, I feel like he's hitting home runs and wonder why he's not polling higher.

And then you have Rubio. Huge cuck problems, but a success story nonetheless. He got himself out of law school 20 years ago and went straight into politics. And he rose rapidly through the ranks of local, state, and national government. If he wins the election, he will be third youngest president (behind Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt). Again, ignoring his politics, he seems like a winner in his personal life.

This is a photo of his wife (a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins back in the day):



This is a photo of his family, the kind of family most men on this forum should aspire to have one day:



So to wrap up my analysis, I would take attributes from Cruz, Christie, and Rubio and meld them into a super candidate. The ideal candidate would have the intelligence of Cruz (with similar policy positions, minus the personality and style that make him so hatable), the personality and charisma of Christie (minus the weight and cuck), and the looks, family, and success story of Rubio (minus the cuck). That would be a damn tough combination for the Democrats to beat in the general election.

Post: #60

(01-31-2016 03:36 PM)Habano Wrote:  If you pull Trump out of the equation, there isn't a clear winner for me. No doubt the field is talented, but nobody else offers the complete package.

I often agree with Cruz in principle, but I can't stand the man despite the fact I grew up in Texas and am becoming a lawyer. He has the intelligence for the Oval Office, but little else. Everything that comes from his mouth seems rehearsed and insincere. I believe he's a borderline autistic psychopath. And his politics are far too often "me against the world." Although though he's only been in Washington for 3 years, he's managed to burn bridges with virtually everyone in Congress. If elected, he has the potential to be a lame duck within his first 100 days of taking office.

In terms of personality and charisma, I think that Christie is underrated. Notwithstanding the fact that he is a Northeast Republican with moderate cuck policies and a major weight problem, I do like the attitude he carries himself with. If Trump wasn't in this thing, he would get a significant bump from blue collar workers. Just listen to him when he goes after Obama or Hillary. He has a certain bluster that entertains and energizes rather than putting off. Every time I hear him at one of the debates, I feel like he's hitting home runs and wonder why he's not polling higher.

And then you have Rubio. Huge cuck problems, but a success story nonetheless. He got himself out of law school 20 years ago and went straight into politics. And he rose rapidly through the ranks of local, state, and national government. If he wins the election, he will be third youngest president (behind Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt). Again, ignoring his politics, he seems like a winner in his personal life.

This is a photo of his wife (a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins back in the day):



This is a photo of his family, the kind of family most men on this forum should aspire to have one day:



So to wrap up my analysis, I would take attributes from Cruz, Christie, and Rubio and meld them into a super candidate. The ideal candidate would have the intelligence of Cruz (with similar policy positions, minus the personality and style that make him so hatable), the personality and charisma of Christie (minus the weight and cuck), and the looks, family, and success story of Rubio (minus the cuck). That would be a damn tough combination for the Democrats to beat in the general election.

You just described Donald Trump.

I think that makes it pretty clear as to the situation. It is Trump or bust 2016.

Post: #61

(01-31-2016 04:26 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 03:36 PM)Habano Wrote:  If you pull Trump out of the equation, there isn't a clear winner for me. No doubt the field is talented, but nobody else offers the complete package.

I often agree with Cruz in principle, but I can't stand the man despite the fact I grew up in Texas and am becoming a lawyer. He has the intelligence for the Oval Office, but little else. Everything that comes from his mouth seems rehearsed and insincere. I believe he's a borderline autistic psychopath. And his politics are far too often "me against the world." Although though he's only been in Washington for 3 years, he's managed to burn bridges with virtually everyone in Congress. If elected, he has the potential to be a lame duck within his first 100 days of taking office.

In terms of personality and charisma, I think that Christie is underrated. Notwithstanding the fact that he is a Northeast Republican with moderate cuck policies and a major weight problem, I do like the attitude he carries himself with. If Trump wasn't in this thing, he would get a significant bump from blue collar workers. Just listen to him when he goes after Obama or Hillary. He has a certain bluster that entertains and energizes rather than putting off. Every time I hear him at one of the debates, I feel like he's hitting home runs and wonder why he's not polling higher.

And then you have Rubio. Huge cuck problems, but a success story nonetheless. He got himself out of law school 20 years ago and went straight into politics. And he rose rapidly through the ranks of local, state, and national government. If he wins the election, he will be third youngest president (behind Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt). Again, ignoring his politics, he seems like a winner in his personal life.

This is a photo of his wife (a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins back in the day):



This is a photo of his family, the kind of family most men on this forum should aspire to have one day:



So to wrap up my analysis, I would take attributes from Cruz, Christie, and Rubio and meld them into a super candidate. The ideal candidate would have the intelligence of Cruz (with similar policy positions, minus the personality and style that make him so hatable), the personality and charisma of Christie (minus the weight and cuck), and the looks, family, and success story of Rubio (minus the cuck). That would be a damn tough combination for the Democrats to beat in the general election.

You just described Donald Trump.

I think that makes it pretty clear as to the situation. It is Trump or bust 2016.

That was actually a pretty solid analysis by Habano. Trump's policies are not genuine conservative/tea party ideas a la Cruz/Paul, and Trump has gone through a few wives, so I don't see the comparison between him and Rubio.

Post: #62

(02-01-2016 10:36 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 04:26 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 03:36 PM)Habano Wrote:  If you pull Trump out of the equation, there isn't a clear winner for me. No doubt the field is talented, but nobody else offers the complete package....

...So to wrap up my analysis, I would take attributes from Cruz, Christie, and Rubio and meld them into a super candidate. The ideal candidate would have the intelligence of Cruz (with similar policy positions, minus the personality and style that make him so hatable), the personality and charisma of Christie (minus the weight and cuck), and the looks, family, and success story of Rubio (minus the cuck). That would be a damn tough combination for the Democrats to beat in the general election.

You just described Donald Trump.

I think that makes it pretty clear as to the situation. It is Trump or bust 2016.

That was actually a pretty solid analysis by Habano. Trump's policies are not genuine conservative/tea party ideas a la Cruz/Paul, and Trump has gone through a few wives, so I don't see the comparison between him and Rubio.

Cruz is a Goldman Sachs Neo-Cohen, bought and paid for by those "New Yorkers" whose values he denigrates. The only thing the man is conservative on is the 2nd Amendment, purely because he understands how unelectable he'd be if he wasn't.

Rand is an autistic manlet that would rather sabotage the only man capable of implementing any of his policies because he can't be the center of attention anymore which means he can't get those donations to pay his family for make work positions in his campaign .

Rubio is a closet fag that wants to make the US the world's ghetto and lost his powers of speech in the presence of the ultimate nice guy, Jimmy Fallon. Rubio couldn't run a McDonalds.

Post: #63

This thread has now become one giant moot point:

Now a Solid Bet: Donald Trump’s Nomination Chances Are Better Than 50 Percent
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot....html?_r=0

Post: #64

(01-31-2016 03:36 PM)Habano Wrote:  And then you have Rubio. Huge cuck problems, but a success story nonetheless. He got himself out of law school 20 years ago and went straight into politics. And he rose rapidly through the ranks of local, state, and national government. If he wins the election, he will be third youngest president (behind Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt). Again, ignoring his politics, he seems like a winner in his personal life.

This is a photo of his wife (a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins back in the day):

This is a photo of his family, the kind of family most men on this forum should aspire to have one day:

You know who else is very successful, even more so, much more, than Rubio? Mark Fuckerberg and George Soros. Yet presumably for all their success you'd not want them to rule over you with all the powers of President of the United States. Well, putting Rubio in the oval office is the same as putting Fuckerberg and Soros in there. The aesthetic qualities of Rubio's family would not make me rest one bit easier were that to happen.

Post: #65

While I'd still take Rand as the second-best choice, far better than any of candidates except Tump, he has proven himself to be a tremendous disappointment during this election cycle.

Things Rand Paul and Donald Trump agree on:

- opposition to USA's retarded wars
- opposition to taking in "Syrian" "refugees"
- opposition to illegal immigration
- opposition to corporate free trade bills and other lobbying
- opposition to war on drugs
- defunding Planned Parenthood
- scepticism about the Federal Reserve

Thinks they don't agree on:

- ?

And yet he spends half of his campaign attacking Trump, often using the emptiest and laziest arguments possible.

I don't think Rand is necessarily corrupted or a shill, I just think he lacks the vision with which to focus on the most important stuff and the self-confidence and humility to cooperate with others while acting on that stuff. He has no personal foundation. It's such a pity.

Post: #66

Indeed Eel you are right, Paul would be an interesting VP choice but frankly I don't think something like that is going to happen. If it comes down to it I think Trump might pull a rabbit out of hat and nominate someone unexpected but bombastic.

Post: #67

I considered what some of you said, that if Trump doesn't get the nomination you'd vote for Sanders to "burn the place down". The problem with socialists and liberals in general is if they fail, somehow it's because they didn't get enough chance, or enough money, or enough power. I can't enable that.

If Trump doesn't get it, I'll either sit this one out, or I'll write my own name in for whatever that's worth. I know I could do a better job than Sanders. But then, just about anybody else could, including Hillary.

As the great philosopher George Carlin said, "When you vote, I do the same thing you do. The only difference is, when I get done masturbating, I have something to show for it".

Post: #68

Mike Bloomberg would be the most qualified candidate we've had in a long long time if he decides to run.

More capable than Trump, a no-bullshit guy, and no beholden to any particular political party system.

My understanding is if Sanders gets the democratic nomination, Bloomberg is running as an independent.

Post: #69

(02-01-2016 09:42 PM)monster Wrote:  Mike Bloomberg would be the most qualified candidate we've had in a long long time if he decides to run.

More capable than Trump, a no-bullshit guy, and no beholden to any particular political party system.

My understanding is if Sanders gets the democratic nomination, Bloomberg is running as an independent.

Post: #70

(02-01-2016 09:42 PM)monster Wrote:  Mike Bloomberg would be the most qualified candidate we've had in a long long time if he decides to run.

More capable than Trump, a no-bullshit guy, and no beholden to any particular political party system.

My understanding is if Sanders gets the democratic nomination, Bloomberg is running as an independent.

More Americans would line up to vote against Bloomberg than anyone in the country. That man is a scourge on the republic and the constitution it's based on.

Post: #71

I've spent about 3 months in Bulgaria over the last 3-4 years.

Trump losing and either Hillary or Sanders winning skyrockets the chances of me moving to Bulgaria.

10% tax rate and double tax treaty helps in that, as do the beautiful women.

Post: #72

If not Trump then Carson or Paul. If none of the above I will be staying at home.

Post: #73

Paul in the 0.0000001% chance of him being the nominee.

I joke about voting Sanders out of spite before I leave but I probably wouldn't bother. If Trump doesn't get the nomination or run 3rd party then I won't be voting.

And if Shillary, or Marcobot, or Bernie wins I'll see you guys in Asia or Slavland.

Post: #74

(02-02-2016 12:37 PM)iop890 Wrote:  Paul in the 0.0000001% chance of him being the nominee.

I joke about voting Sanders out of spite before I leave but I probably wouldn't bother. If Trump doesn't get the nomination or run 3rd party then I won't be voting.

And if Shillary, or Marcobot, or Bernie wins I'll see you guys in Asia or Slavland.

Let's be real: if Hillary wins, there will be NOWHERE to run.

Rubio wins, worst case scenario the country is overrun with immigrants. There are worse ways for a country to die.

Sanders wins, the economy collapses. It will be BAD, but then it will be possible to rebuild from the ashes, since it won't be possible to go further down the drain.

Hillary wins, feminism will enter a new "golden age," and WILL spread across the globe. There will be no traditional feminine enclaves ANYWHERE after Hillary takes office. What's more, we WILL see nuclear war of some kind. You know that she has to prove herself, and she'll do that by waging war, most likely against Russia.

If I have to choose between demographic/economic collapse and Nuclear Winter, I'm going with the former. You can't build or rebuild something when half the world has been turned to ash, and that's what will happen with Hillary.

Post: #75

Rand just dropped out.