[arista]

Yes this time Jeb Bush
Vs Hilary Clinton




I would prefer new people
not those who were around in the real corrupt times

http://news.sky.com/story/1392929/je...hite-house-bid

[Josy]

All cut from the same cloth anyway

[user104658]

Yep. So we will have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, (Obama), Clinton/Bush, spanning 30 years. Democracy is an absolute joke, it's practically hereditary rule at this point.

In my opinion, Obama was an anomaly that wasn't supposed to happen. Hilldawg Clinton was supposed to win over Obama and then go on to take the presidency and then probably Lil' Bush this time around - so the running order "should" have been:

'89 Bush, '93 Clinton, '01 Bush, '09 Clinton, '14 Bush.

In the land of the free, and the home of the Bushes and Clintons.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yep. So we will have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, (Obama), Clinton/Bush, spanning 30 years. Democracy is an absolute joke, it's practically hereditary rule at this point.

In my opinion, Obama was an anomaly that wasn't supposed to happen. Hilldawg Clinton was supposed to win over Obama and then go on to take the presidency and then probably Lil' Bush this time around - so the running order "should" have been:

'89 Bush, '93 Clinton, '01 Bush, '09 Clinton, '14 Bush.

In the land of the free, and the home of the Bushes and Clintons.

Yes, the land of the American Dream, where any billionaire oil baron's son can become president.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, the land of the American Dream, where any billionaire oil baron's son can become president.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, the land of the American Dream, where any billionaire oil baron's son can become president.

And where police officers can shoot and choke black people to death with absolutely no punishment. What a beautiful country.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niall

And where police officers can shoot and choke black people to death with absolutely no punishment. What a beautiful country.

says someone that had riots in their own country because the police killed a black person...

yea, America is so much worse...hypocrite.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by lostalex

says someone that had riots in their own country because the police killed a black person...

yea, America is so much worse...hypocrite.

I'm sorry, but how many people have been shot by police since then? Zero. Z e r o. And in that particular instance not only was Mark Duggan a proven criminal, but it was a carefully orchestrated thing.

On your side of the water however? There's no officially released figure for how many people are shot by the police year on year, but it's known that it's far higher than any other nation in the world. Year on year scores of individuals - vast swathes of them black men and women - are shot to death rather needlessly by heavy handed police officers. Or, as in the case of Darren Wilson, racist police officers (as shown by his connections to the KKK)!

The British police are by no means perfect, but the kinds of institutionally racist oppression that the American cops push down on people of colour isn't something that's ****ing mirrored here so no, I am not a hypocrite.

For example, I don't recall British cops strangling a man to death and then pretending he's not dead like this, and then refusing to indict the officer. Nor have I ever seen footage of this calibre over and over of police brutalising innocent citizens here in Britain.

So yes, America is far far worse.

[MTVN]

I imagine his surname will hinder him as much as it will help him, don't see why his election should be seen as a foregone conclusion when it's anything but, not even likely that he will be the Republican nomination

[joeysteele]

Well for me, if that is the choice I certainly would hope and want Hilary Clinton to become President over Jeb Bush any day.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well for me, if that is the choice I certainly would hope and want Hilary Clinton to become President over Jeb Bush any day.

I hope another Democrat takes her place
she is not up to this job.,

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

I hope another Democrat takes her place
she is not up to this job.,

I have to disagree,I think she would make a really good President as she did Secretary of State too.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I have to disagree,I think she would make a really good President as she did Secretary of State too.

She is Corrupt.

[the truth]

shes a scary person, didnt she imply the reason she wouldnt withdraw from the democratic leadership race in 2008 was that obama may get shot? as for her role as foreign secretary, how on earth cna that be branded a success? benghazi etc

[the truth]

obama was a complete one off, an unknown from nowhere who rode the internet tidal wave of support to usurp the horrible hilary clinton
the fatc hes been massively critiized by the powers that be and the most racist and radical and the likes of fox news 24 hrs a day, tells you hes done a lot of good
economically unemployment is down from 10.5% to record low 5.8% , way ahead of europe...growth has been steady for 4 years at 3% way ahead of europe
his foreign policy decisions have been vastly better than bush, hes done more to tax and tariff the chinese imports, hes taken the US car manufacturing back to number 1....he DID succeed in getting the many millions he targeted for obamacare....hes started up stem cell research again, hes fined the banks trillions unlike the useless british politicians, americans economy, safety and repuation is light years better than it was 6 years ago

[the truth]

mega mega mega corrupt

[user104658]

Also is breaking the rules as she has been president before. Bill was a fairly blatant puppet, with hilldawg pulling the strings. She just gets to do it herself this time.

[lostalex]

What a load of crap.

First of all, the last 2 elections didn't have a clinton or a bush involved AT ALL, so that blows your little theory out of the water,.

Second, Hillary and Bill aren't from the same family, they aren't genetically related AT ALL.

Third , It's like saying you won't go to a bakery if they have too many generations working there. Guess what, families have careers and they teach their children and pass their skills down. just like a Baker, or a Carpenter or any other profession does. It's not shocking that family members of politicians also get involved in politics. Just like children of actors might become an actor, or children of a Pawn shop owner might get into the Pawn shop business. You are making it sound sinister when it's not at all. It's totally natural.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by lostalex

What a load of crap.

First of all, the last 2 elections didn't have a clinton or a bush involved AT ALL, so that blows your little theory out of the water,.

Second, Hillary and Bill aren't from the same family, they aren't genetically related AT ALL.

Third , It's like saying you won't go to a bakery if they have too many generations working there. Guess what, families have careers and they teach their children and pass their skills down. just like a Baker, or a Carpenter or any other profession does. It's not shocking that family members of politicians also get involved in politics. Just like children of actors might become an actor, or children of a Pawn shop owner might get into the Pawn shop business. You are making it sound sinister when it's not at all. It's totally natural.

Genetic relations has nothing to do with this. Based on your logic adopted children aren't members of a family because they're not genetically related. Family isn't just genetics and every culture has its own definitions for it, and in American culture spouses = family, especially women since patriarchy reigns supreme and she is viewed as a Clinton while Bill isn't viewed as a Rodham.

And also the presidency of the US is a bit different from a family bakery. I was going to expand on that, but there's no need. If you are seriously equating the two then you'd probably be best off just staying out of political discussions altogether.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

Genetic relations has nothing to do with this. Based on your logic adopted children aren't members of a family because they're not genetically related. Family isn't just genetics and every culture has its own definitions for it, and in American culture spouses = family, especially women since patriarchy reigns supreme and she is viewed as a Clinton while Bill isn't viewed as a Rodham.

And also the presidency of the US is a bit different from a family bakery. I was going to expand on that, but there's no need. If you are seriously equating the two then you'd probably be best off just staying out of political discussions altogether.

Hillary was interested in politics BEFORE she met Bill, and she married Bill long before he was successful in politics. , so do you think she should be disqualified just because she married a man who was also interested in politics? Why is it strange that a woman would marry a man with similar interests and a similar world view?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Hillary was interested in politics BEFORE she met Bill, and she married Bill long before he was successful in politics. , so do you think she should be disqualified just because she married a man who was also interested in politics? Why is it strange that a woman would marry a man with similar interests and a similar world view?

If you don't think it's odd that in a country of 300+ million people, where supposedly anyone who dreams big enough has a shot at becoming president, we have instead had father / son combos, potential husband / wife combos, other little Bushes in the running... Then I have to wonder how influenced by patriotism and the US propaganda machine you are Alex. To anyone looking from the outside it looks obviously dodgy.

[James]

It's not surprising when you see how much it costs to get elected in the US.

I found this.

In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections.[2] The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion,[3] and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million.[4] The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.[5]

In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on his or her campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig..._United_States

The size of the country is always going to make it expensive, and also the fact they spend a lot on political TV advertising.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by James

It's not surprising when you see how much it costs to get elected in the US.

I found this.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig..._United_States

The size of the country is always going to make it expensive, and also the fact they spend a lot on political TV advertising.

Bill Clinton didn't come from a rich family, neither did Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.

Was Bush privileged? yes. but he is the exception not the rule.

[Creggle]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Bill Clinton didn't come from a rich family, neither did Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.

Was Bush privileged? yes. but he is the exception not the rule.

Tbf though, the Whitehouse has turned into a pseudo monarchy in the way it is ran, that's hard to deny.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Creggle

Tbf though, the Whitehouse has turned into a pseudo monarchy in the way it is ran, that's hard to deny.

it's actually very easy to deny.

A monarchy means power is passed through bloodlines. other than the Bushes i can't think of any other presidential power being transferred via bloodlines through the white house... so what are you talking about?