You know, he might have a point, if it wasn't illegal to do that, or insultingly racist

Cacao? I'd rather vote for Supreme Leader.

Why don't we just figure out how to go to the future and to parallel dimensions so we can see the outcomes of all our decisions!

Lindsey Grahm- "You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell!"

Vote Cacao 2016

A vote for Cacao is a vote for economical prosperity

A vote for Cacao is a vote for America

A vote for Cacao is a vote for values

A vote for Cacao is a vote for everyone

Nice propaganda there! :-)

or insultingly racist

Islam is a religion, not a race (you can't convert to, or deconvert from a 'race'). It would still be illegal and insultingly discriminatory, but of religion, not of race.

I'm rooting for Rubio now, too.

Same here. The Republicans would be smart to pick Rubio. He's moderate enough to pull in independents and pro-immigrant enough to sway some of the Hispanic vote.

Can someone explain why Rubio is a better choice than Rand?

Both are good options in my opinion, I think Rubio has better odds of winning though.

Trust me a Bernie Sanders win would be as equally bad for America.

Sanders is currently the only Democrat I'm considering voting for. I'd be interested in hearing why I shouldn't.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

^^Here's one reason. We can't afford more big government when we're already mountains in debt.

Now some may argue: Just tax the 1%. They can pay for it!!

While that's true, I don't think the constitution or the framers intended our country to be subverted by redistributive wealth policies. And this is coming from someone in the lower middle class. Socialism isn't for America and it never was.

My vote is the person who will A) protect our civil liberties and decrease Big Brother's spying powers B) Will fix the debt crisis even if it means austerity and C) will keep us out of unnecessary wars in Syria, Ukraine, and the South China Sea.

Rand Paul has a good rating on all 3 of those.

Trump. Literally funnier than me.

@JaiBharat, Disagreeing on his economic policies is a valid argument. It should be needless to say, but there is a big split among economics on what is the best action in terms of gov etc. Anyway, my point is that A,B, and C are all good promises that most- if not all- politicians support. The difference is how they will go about acting on those points.

There is no guaranteed way of knowing how "good" or "bad" someone will be for a country, before you have had them in charge. {But still, no trump for president if you want other countries to stop laughing at you.}

USA should enter Isolationism

Trump... if only he was thrown out of a window.
"Build a wall around Mexico!"
Then what about the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean?
"Ban all Muslims from entering the country!"
That won't stop terrorism. Also, is it based on religion or heritage?

@TBest - That is why looking at someone's record in office is SO important. But it requires independent research. The media won't tell you all those answers so you have to find them yourself. But the supermajority of Americans are too lazy or too "busy" to do this. So we get stuck with bad candidates every election year.

Just based on the voting records and public comments of Sanders, Clinton, Bush, Rubio, Trump, and Graham I know they won't do anything close to fulfilling those three goals I mentioned.

Benjamin is semi-right - we need isolationism again. The again in italics is because people seem to forget that the foreign policy of the USA for most of its nation was isolationist unless it concerned our sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. It worked for Washington and Jefferson...it should work for us today.

i can't read that WSJ article without a subscription (and who in their right mind would subscribe to toilet paper?) but i did find a rebuttal that doesn't refute WSJ's "facts" (facts in quotations cause you have to be a real rube to believe anything they say).

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/carlmahler/blog/2015/09/what-wsj-article-price-bernies-programs-really-means

and more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/15/1421477/-Hey-WSJ-Your-Hit-Piece-on-Bernie-Sanders-Got-a-Fact-Check-and-It-Failed

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-wall-street-journal-gets-totally-wrong-about-bernie-sanders-agenda/

i could go on, but i won't. google is a thing.

^^I love how you responded to my supposedly biased WSJ article with 2 ultra-liberal slanted websites (DailyKos and The Nation). Nice job boy. Just proved my earlier point on independent research.


http://www.allsides.com/blog/bias-ratings-change-wall-street-journal-and-others


By the way: WSJ editorial reports are right-leaning but the paper as a whole is centrist. You can't say the same for DailyKos and The Nation. Although Stephen F. Cohen who writes for the Nation is a great historian and man. I write to him often. People should check out his podcasts and lectures.

Benjamin is semi-right - we need isolationism again. The again in italics is because people seem to forget that the foreign policy of the USA for most of its nation was isolationist unless it concerned our sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. It worked for Washington and Jefferson...it should work for us today.

I'm tempted to embrace isolationism, but I'm always reminded of the nagging fact that stubborn isolationism is what kept the U.S out of WW2 for so long. Nazi Germany conquered most of Europe and we didn't do anything aside from loaning out supplies and providing a few naval escorts. We're lucky that the U.K and USSR were able to pull their weight until the U.S received it's wake up call at Pearl Harbor.

If the Isolationists of the time had their way the U.S would of watched all of Europe and Asia burn without lifting a finger to help.

i provided four examples to your one. they are left leaning because a right leaning news source wouldn't try to correct misconceptions about a left leaning politician. you provided one side (although not really, cause it is behind a paywall), i provided the other (times four). and the others had specific facts and sources to refute the WSJ claims. facts don't lean any which way.

Everything is biased, INCLUDING facts. {This is a fact}

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to write what Eklipse just wrote :)

Edited 12/9/2015 02:58:48

Everything is biased, INCLUDING facts.

if that's the case, then what's the point of knowing anything? you have just demolished the quest for knowledge. scientists should immediately commit suicide. all books should be burned and all computers smashed. if i can say any silly thing that comes in my head and it has just as much validity as the truth, then why are any of us even debating this?

bernie sanders will be the next president because his penis is infinitely longer than any other candidates' (except hillary's), and trump, rubio, and rand have bestiality orgies every thursday. bush is actually a blow up doll in a suit being puppeted by satan. and mike huckabee and chris christie will actually influence the rotation of the planet by stumping in the same cities.

"if i can say any silly thing that comes in my head and it has just as much validity as the truth, then why are any of us even debating this? "
You just found the secret of all politicians. Let's start your campaign right now! ~shyb for President 2016~

Seriously though, there may be no point. For example you will never be able to prove the existence of a God - or yourself. Personally I think of biases some sort of additional margin of error. What makes something more credible, is however yet another layer of bias. Essential bias is an unknow margin of error.

For example you will never be able to prove the existence of a God - or yourself.

"I think, therefore I am."