Sen. Bernie Sanders most likely won't be running for president. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;47319451]That's too bad, at least I know he'll still be fighting in the Senate. So it's down to: - Hillary Clinton - Martin O'Malley - Jim Webb - Joe Biden[/QUOTE] There's no way Biden is going to run. Most people don't realize how old he actually is- in 2016, he'll be older than McCain was in 2008.

[quote]He doesn’t have the money he needs for a campaign and isn’t sure he can raise it.[/quote] It always struck me as odd that you need to get rich before you can become president in the USA. Sounds like it's prime ground for backroom deals and bribery.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47319013]I'd beg to differ. [url]http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/[/url][/QUOTE] Sad thing is I haven't heard almost any of these (I am in Finland, though, so maybe that's it) but I keep constantly hearing about the shit he hasn't done. Mediaaaaa

[QUOTE=deltasquid;47320323]It always struck me as odd that you need to get rich before you can become president in the USA. Sounds like it's prime ground for backroom deals and bribery.[/QUOTE] It is. It's always the person with the most anonymous "donations" who win the campaigns (with a few exceptions). Most Americans will sit at the TV, and be bombarded with "VOTE FOR THIS GUY, (S)HE'LL [Insert empty promises here]" Or "DONT VOTE FOR THIS PERSON, HE'LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!" So instead of actually doing research, they'll just vote for the person who has the most campaigns supporting her/him and the most campaigns that are against other people. I don't like that when the founding fathers made the country, they believed that Butcher Joe or Farmer Fred or anyone would be able to become president, but now its the average rich white lawyer who can attract the most PAC's who only has a chance to become president.

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47319102]Yes, making people get health insurance under penalty of law makes health insurance less expensive. Cheap insurance rates depend on a bunch of healthy people putting money into the system that they won't ever take out, because they're healthy. Without artificially manipulating rates, ensuring that healthy people buy health insurance is the easiest way to ensure lower rates. A penalty against people who do not purchase health insurance is an effective way for the government to encourage healthy people to purchase health insurance, and therefore lower costs. Do your research, please.[/QUOTE] If you need a penalty because people dont want it then its a pretty fucking stupid idea

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47319977]There's no way Biden is going to run. Most people don't realize how old he actually is- in 2016, he'll be older than McCain was in 2008.[/QUOTE] Yeah but he doesn't act it or seem it. John McCain [I]looked[/I] old.

Time to vote third party! I hope Gary Johnson considers running again. In 2012 the libertarian party got the most votes they've ever had in the history of american politics, iirc.

[QUOTE=Toro;47320969]I don't like that when the founding fathers made the country, they believed that Butcher Joe or Farmer Fred or anyone would be able to become president, but now its the average rich white lawyer who can attract the most PAC's who only has a chance to become president.[/QUOTE] The founding fathers were rich businessmen and landowners. So I'm going to say not much has changed.

[QUOTE=Megadave;47320987]If you need a penalty because people dont want it then its a pretty fucking stupid idea[/QUOTE] well it sure isn't as stupid as not having universal public health care in the first place, so maybe having a 'stupid' law to compensate for an even more stupid state of affairs is not so bad...

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47319102]Yes, making people get health insurance under penalty of law makes health insurance less expensive. Cheap insurance rates depend on a bunch of healthy people putting money into the system that they won't ever take out, because they're healthy. Without artificially manipulating rates, ensuring that healthy people buy health insurance is the easiest way to ensure lower rates. A penalty against people who do not purchase health insurance is an effective way for the government to encourage healthy people to purchase health insurance, and therefore lower costs. Do your research, please.[/QUOTE] That doesn't help my mom, who's suffering from severe Chrohn's Disease, celiacs, and several other symptoms that even the Mayo clinic has not yet been able to pin down, and she has BOTH mutations for MTHFR. Her treatments have about tripled in price, and she can't find insurance for herself that's less than $700 a month. She can't work in her present state, and my step-dad makes too much money for her to get access to Medicare/Medicaid, but not enough to adequately cover her medical expenses or buy her insurance. The ACA is a step in the right direction, sure, but it's sure as hell stumbling on the way there.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;47319756] idk I'm becoming a bigger fan of Walker every time I hear about him. I think it's great that the public sector unions are being put in their place. It's far from being a "war on the working class" when the "working class" are entitled pricks.[/QUOTE] You should see the tell of two states. Minnesota and Wisconsin. Minnesota is democratic and Wisconsin Republican (governors). Both are heading in two opposite directions of each other; Wisconsin for the worse. Walker is killing this state. Sucking education and the budget dry

Damn, there goes one of the only candidates who are actually interesting (not saying I'd vote for him tho). Everyone else is just... boring? They all agree on the same basic ideas, it's just small things they differ on.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;47321066]Time to vote third party! I hope Gary Johnson considers running again. In 2012 the libertarian party got the most votes they've ever had in the history of american politics, iirc.[/QUOTE] So your idea of a good third party vote is a party that's worse than either the Democrats or Republicans?

[QUOTE=Explosions;47322550]So your idea of a good third party vote is a party that's worse than either the Democrats or Republicans?[/QUOTE] That's like... your opinion man.

[QUOTE=darunner;47318967]It was for Obama's first term and all we got out of it was that abortion of a health care law.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url] Obama has at least partially kept 69% of his promises. Only 22% have been broken.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47322550]So your idea of a good third party vote is a party that's worse than either the Democrats or Republicans?[/QUOTE] How the hell are libertarians worse than both They support sage economic policies while at the same time endorsing civil liberties I'd vote for them if they had any influence in my area

[QUOTE=BFG9000;47323492]How the hell are libertarians worse than both They support sage economic policies while at the same time endorsing civil liberties I'd vote for them if they had any influence in my area[/QUOTE] "Sage" economics including deregulating key safety institutions like the FDA and water purification, abolishing income tax (LOL), and removing all government control over workplace contracts. The 19th Century sure sounds fun.

I hate anarchocapitalists for destroying the term "libertarian" It used to mean someone who cares about protecting individual rights (including freedom from corporate tyranny) as well as corporate rights.

I've always wondered what would happen if someone faked being Republican for a very long time, made rich friends, got elected president with a very expensive conservative campaign, and then started doing super progressive liberal stuff

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;47325609]I've always wondered what would happen if someone faked being Republican for a very long time, made rich friends, got elected president with a very expensive conservative campaign, and then started doing super progressive liberal stuff[/QUOTE] You can actually get recalled for that.....

[QUOTE=BFG9000;47319756]He's a senator though that's a high seat and a great achievement if you ask me But this isn't just about socialists; the far-left isn't the only "victim" of this reality. If you were to run for president as a Libertarian you'd probably be screwed too. [editline]13th March 2015[/editline] idk I'm becoming a bigger fan of Walker every time I hear about him. I think it's great that the public sector unions are being put in their place. It's far from being a "war on the working class" when the "working class" are entitled pricks.[/QUOTE] Walker is going to walk his state to the door of bankruptcy and poverty whilst handing the keys over to the corporations in the area that are already pulling enough strings. I honestly don't get how you could support walker except for ignorance of his actions.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47325723]I honestly don't get how you could support walker except for ignorance of his actions. [/QUOTE] A lot of people who say stuff like that don't realize how corrupt the teacher's union in Wisconsin was/is.

[QUOTE=Toro;47320969]I don't like that when the founding fathers made the country, they believed that Butcher Joe or Farmer Fred or anyone would be able to become president, but now its the average rich white lawyer who can attract the most PAC's who only has a chance to become president.[/QUOTE] No they didn't. The electoral college was basically made to stop any random schmuck from becoming president, and the country has almost exclusively been led by rich white land owners since.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;47323492]How the hell are libertarians worse than both They support sage economic policies while at the same time endorsing civil liberties I'd vote for them if they had any influence in my area[/QUOTE] You should really look up how shit the US was after the civil war under a very hands-off government.

Well...shit. [img]http://8bitnerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/that-boy-is-our-last-hope.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=deltasquid;47320323]It always struck me as odd that you need to get rich before you can become president in the USA. Sounds like it's prime ground for backroom deals and bribery.[/QUOTE] Well of course. You have executive government led by a single publicly elected person. It's a system that will be inherently biased towards the influential, coincidentally the wealthy. Yet another reason why the US should adopt a parliamentary or directorial system. They substantially lowers those barriers although I guess they don't eliminate them.

Yay!!! Then again, it'll end up being Bush vs Warren in 2016, and I can't stand either of those morons either. Third party, time to vote for you again.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;47319756] idk I'm becoming a bigger fan of Walker every time I hear about him. I think it's great that the public sector unions are being put in their place. [B]It's far from being a "war on the working class" when the "working class" are entitled pricks.[/B][/QUOTE] holy fuck you're such a self-entitled brat, public unions are the most victimized and have the least barganing power. if UAW walks out, not a big problem, if the teachers or firemen walk out, they can be forced back to work by the federal and even state governments and those working in public services don't do it to milk the system walker is trying to take wisconsin the way of kansas, straight into the ground and he's got a golden parachute out.