Random Politics & Religion #00

hahhahahahahhahaha communist^^

Except it's not a free market approach. Monopolies are not free market.

I think you're forgetting that politics, especially career and dynasty politics, is nothing but an inevitable shitstorm.

Ftfy

I would also say oligopoly but I'm not sure 11 firms counts as "a few". Not to me, usually.

Well, the "monopoly" concept is similar, probably not the right word for it.

Oligarchy is a better (but still not correct) term, my mind went blank for that word for a while there. Thanks again Kara btw.

I was also surprised to see Flavin agree with you as well, King, although he asked a question, and you provided an answer to his satisfaction, which explained nothing illegal happened (as most of the right wing nutbaggers are trying to claim), but it's pretty evident rules were broken.

Also, Ever since Obama was elected, and then re-elected, it's been pretty clear that front runner for the next Democratic Party's presidential candidate would have been Hillary - GOP should have also realized this (probably did, and hoped to have a shining successor to Mittens) but didn't say a word.

Now, without a decent presidential candidate that even the majority of their own Constituents would elect, they have to run one hell of a smear campaign to bring someone who's already low in popularity, even lower just to match them on the podium.

But I mentioned this before, and that fact was already glossed over, and no one seems to give enough of a ***to find or recommend a GOP candidate that can even match Hillary on an electoral basis. Given the "scandal of the century", it shouldn't be too hard, right?

I would think Bush would be their best bet right now if they ever want him to run. Going against Clinton would be one of the best ways to nullify a major turn-off, being another Bush. Having a Bush and Clinton on the ballot will stop having to defend against the argument about not wanting the same family in the White House again. But at the same time, they lose it as a rallying point not to vote for the other guy.

Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton?

Who knew the running gag on The Daily Show would come true.

I will give up on any hope for humanity if this happens.

And now I have the proper response to "Well, Canada gave us Justin Beiber"

Which is "Well, the US gave itself The Bush Legacy and Clinton Dynasties"

If there was a law broken, it was the Federal Records Act of 1950. Which is what AP should be going after, not Freedom of Information Act first.

It could go as far back as the 1787 law, if one can make the argument that the amendment to the 1950 law was to intend to also amend the 1787 law. But both laws are basically the same thing.

It's more of a political play to not disclose a "front runner" in the GOP side. Personally, I rather they just have one person everyone likes (like Scott Walker) and place all of their bets on him/her.

Just like its a political play to run Hillary out there for the GOP to spin themselves up on while completely ignoring the other potential candidates.

We all know that Clinton will be running.

What better way of getting elected by running somebody in hopes that the public will elect them based on their gender and/or race? I mean, who doesn't want to say that they voted in the first <insert race/woman> president of the US?

It worked for Obama.

Democrats got nothing to run on, so they got to appease to the feels.

Yes, but other Dems will be running too, and you can't even name them unless you actually look into it. All of the focus is on sabotaging Hillary while just letting those people fly under the radar.

The only decent GOP contender that could also appease the feels, has stated she's not running.

First Hispanic woman for president, who wouldn't want that?

So, we got Vic finally admitting that Obama won based on the color of his skin and Clinton to probably win because of her gender. What else can we get him to admit?

Also, the other people "thinking" about running will probably not (except Warren) if Clinton were to run. You cannot be that obtuse that their aspirations depend on "The Decision."

And this is what I hate about politics, regardless of political spectrum. Hardly a handful of politicians cares about doing something good, everyone else just goes on forever discreting the opposition cause winning is all that matters.

I really wish the carreer of politician would give a much smaller salary, then maybe we'd have more people focused on fixing problems and less on holding onto their chairs.

Sorry for this childish post.

Uh, I never admitted that, and none of that is accurate.

One thing, winning is everything when it comes to politics. Losers cannot direct policies, ever.

Another thing, for all that it's worth, President of the United States gets paid peanuts compared to other comparable jobs.

Presidents make all of their money after they leave office. Clinton and both Bushes have made millions since leaving.

I thought the Clinton's went bankrupt after leaving office?

All I know is here politicians have stupid high salaries and even more insane pensions.
12k € net per month, no other job comes even close to that salary in my country. Hell, a surgeon doesn't even make half of that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/

Rated as mostly false, but those were her claims.

sounds like you should be a politician then

I'd die in two weeks.

of stress, or assassinated by mafia

or bananas.

or by