Who will you vote for in 2016?

Cannuckistan!!!!

I'm really starting to believe that you are a closet Republican. You should just come out, you can then watch Fox News with pride instead of disdain.

Sarah Palin...too fucking stupid
Michelle Bachman...stupid but not as stupid as Palin
Rand Paul maybe
Mitt Romney...he comes across like someone who would be nicknamed "Slick"
Jeb Bush...GW killed any shot he may ever have had
Chris Christie...when pigs can fly
TED CRUZ not a prayer
Jim DemInt see above
Lindsey Graham see above
Jon Huntsman see above
Bobby Jindal ya right...smarter than Palin but not by much
Bob McDonnel...yer reachin
T-Paw Tim Pawlenty see above
Rick Perry see above
Marco Rubio fuck that
Paul Ryan not in this lifetime
Scott Walker who

The real question here is which one of these morons can beat Hillary...the answer none of em...

I just got wood.

i am not sure who is going to run for the democrats in 2016, i suppose biden is the logical choice. this senator rob portman is looking promising, unfortunately. because he is the kind of guy you would see riding a girls bicycle in a business outfit clutching a bible, a mormon. thus, he is also the kind of guy when he gets office he will probably push the button to see the return of jesus christ.

its hard to believe that these people, clinton, bush, cheney, obama, are human and sane, i think they are completely deluded.

Homey The Clown.

No kidding.

The Republican hopefuls:



The Democrat reaction:





ADG

americans need an independent, a politician who won't submit to special interest but rather cater to common interest and keep the state and church separate including any religious associated fraternities such as the freemason lodge.

why? because they have got what they have wanted and their system has failed, big time. what is their system? i think for starters the pentagon has a lot to do with the way things are going. i can smell the american dollars from here.

I'm voting for Hillary, but for the rest...

Sarah Palin... Not experienced or sharp enough. Doesn't know world leaders or geography. Thinks "What books or newspapers do you read" is a trick question setup by the 'Liberal media'. Her family is weird, she'd never get far. And she makes too much money at speaking engagements to give that up.

Michelle Bachman... To weird, extremely creepy husband. America and Republicans would never warm up to him.
Rand Paul... I dunno
Mitt Romney... He got creampied heavily by Obama. He wouldn't win against Hillary.
Jeb Bush... He has the best shot at winning, but all dems have to do is replay the Iraq war over and over, created by the Bush's, and that will be a big problem for them.
Plus America is tired of Bush presidents.
Chris Christie... Morbidly obese and rude. No one wants to look at an obese president, and NJ has terrible taxes and hurricane Sandy cleanup was a disaster.
Jim DeMint: Who?
Lindsey Graham... Not good looking enough and doesn't give an inspiring speech. And put "is Lindsey Graham" into Google and see the rest :D
Jon Huntsman... Who?
Bobby Jindal... lol
Bob McDonnel... who?
T-Paw Tim Pawlenty... who?
Rick Perry (Really!)... LOL
Marco Rubio... meh. Doesn't look presidential, but I guess it could happen since there are so many Mexicans here now, they could push him over. But doubt it.
Paul Ryan: lol

I think a Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio ticket would have a serious chance of winning.


btw I would LOVE a President Bloomberg
I Love no bullshit business men as leaders

ADG

the media is pushing for Hillary Clinton, in fact they are making a 'flattering' biopic to be released during the campaigns..

I would've voted for Hillary in 2008. It was very disappointing that she lost. However, she is going to have a few issues in 2016. Her age. She will be 70/71..and she has added a few skeletons to her closet lately that will certainly be a target during the primaries.

Even with those issues, if the economy is doing well I think she'd be a good president. She has shown the skills needed to mediate professionally.

On the republican side, I obviously like Scott Walker. He doesn't come from money. Him and his wife live in a very average home and they are common people. Nothing elitist about him. He has good fiscal management qualities. He stood up to the unions here in Wi. and was able to turn a deficit into a surplus. I am not seeing anywhere that it cost any union people their jobs. He has as much experience with foreign affairs as Obama. I know him. We are not best friends or anything ,but he is a decent fellow. If he can keep his bible in the desk drawer and stay away from issues that have little real meaning in the world today I like his chances.

[/QUOTE]

Cute girl, but stupid. Voter suppression almost won the election for republicans last time around.

The big thing will be the race to the right of everyone else. Or will they finally start primary-ing with an eye towards the actual race against the other party(s)?

Having visited Wisconsin after he was elected, no way would I vote for him and risk having him do that to the entire country.

We all know that there was .004% voter fraud due to fake ID's when republicans around the country were having fits about it being a huge rampant problem requiring new ID laws. Horse is dead.

I'm not sure who I will be voting for. Chris Christie did get the shore rebuilt fast only to have it burn gota give him credit for that.

The great thing for Democrats about Hillary winning next election is that anyone that disagrees with anything she does or says can be labeled a "sexist" that " hates having a woman as president", and then their message can be suppressed easily.


It's gonna be great for ramming through more government growth and intrusion.... (not that the republicans would be any better....)




.

Lambo-Owners-for-Walker.com

Unions are baaaad... evil I tell you! DESTROY THEM!

P.p.s. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.








.

You're for Gary Johnson AND you are pro voter suppression (voter ID)???

A Libertarian who is for the massive big government intrusion of requiring gov issued photo ID to vote...that's just...precious. Hey its all about PERSONAL FREEDOM RIGHT? Except when it comes to the freedom to vote.

Another example that Libertarians are virtually indistinguishible from far right Republicans - and why your movement is 99.99 percent all white and will stay that way.

What a fucking clown shitshow that list is....

Of any Republicans, I like John Huntsman, but he's practically liberal compared to the freaks in the party now. He'll never get through a primary.

Scary thing is Jeb Bush might actually have a shot. He has done some interesting things and has some people that will back him including the Hispanic vote on both sides of the immigration card.

He had to make hard choices. And he did. Keep in mind Wis is always a democratic state and when the recall election was held, enough voters recognized that Walker was less interested in playing politics and more interested in solving problems that he won with a solid majority.

Today, the state is doing well. No deficit, no higher taxes and jobs have been coming back here steadily. Near the top of the country from some of the newsbits I read.

No. I"m NOT for voter suppression. I'm against the hypocrisy of claiming that asking for ID is racist when it comes to voting, but not when it comes to buying a gun, or any of the other myriad things that the government requires ID for. You missed my point entirely, but to be fair, that meme didn't do a good job of explaining it, so my bad.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/09/...n-gun-control/

"The Panthers Were Right and Reagan Was Wrong on Gun Control

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anthony Gregory ? Wednesday September 18, 2013 9:55 AM PDT ? 18 Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3014 20 180



I suppose it takes a true radical these days to question the progressive?s sacred cow: Ronald Reagan. You read that right. This paradigm of modern conservatism was one of the most important American champions of gun control in recent decades, and so he has become a convenient talking point for liberals who want to argue that even Ronald Reagan favored strict gun laws.

And indeed, he did?all throughout his political career. As president he used executive order to ban the importation of certain shotguns, and later he threw his weight behind the Brady Bill and 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law in 1967. Written by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford, the legislation was the most sweeping state edict in all the country, prohibiting the more or less free carrying of firearms in public. It went along with the rest of his heavy-handed entire law-and-order agenda and inspired an avalanche of new gun laws nationwide.

The purpose of the law was to disarm the Black Panthers, a radical leftist group that openly carried firearms, kept an eye out on the police, and even took their rifles to the state Capitol to protest what they decried as racist legislation.

In the late 1960s, the racism of gun control was fresh on many Civil Rights thinkers? minds. Upholding gun rights for freed slaves was a primary motive behind the Fourteenth Amendment. State-level gun control became instrumental in suppressing blacks.

The history of American gun control is a history of racism and prejudice. In the early 20th century, the Sullivan Act in New York, banning the carrying of small arms, was likely aimed at Italian Immigrants. But for most of modern history, the major target was blacks.

David T. Beito and Linda Royster Beito explained the general dynamic in their book Black Maverick: T.R.M. Howard?s Fight for Civil Rights and Economic Power (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 103?4:


As black assertiveness [in Mississippi] increased, whites came forward with proposals for tougher gun control. The sponsors did not hide the centrality of race in their concerns. White concerns about gun control for blacks was not new. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, several southern states had enacted gun control laws that restricted access of cheap handguns to blacks. The term ?Saturday night special? may have originated during that period as a racial slur. In early 1954 an editorial in the Clarion-Ledger had stressed the dangers posed by .22 caliber pistols and rifles. Focusing on the example of an ?allegedly ?crazed? Negro? who killed three white men, it lamented that these ?weapons are easily obtained and ammunition for them can be bought anywhere.? If this problem persisted, the editorial continued, laws should be enacted [for] ?control of the sale of weapons and ammunition or the keeping of records on all such sales.?

In September 1954, a more ambitious proposal ?to require registration of all firearms and records on all sales of ammunition? came close to becoming law. The backers explicitly promoted the bill as part of a package of ?segregation-supporting? legislation and linked it to the crackdown on civil rights.

After racists bombed his home, Martin Luther King, Jr., generally an advocate for non-violence, procured weapons and attempted to get a concealed carry permit, but was rejected. The first major gun confiscations targeted blacks, who couldn?t rely on the police to protect them because the police were their enemies. Groups like the Deacons for Justice and Defense fought off the Klan and protected innocent blacks in the Jim Crow South.

Elaine Brown, head of the Black Panther Party in the 1970s, recently explained:


The position of the Black Panther Party was that black people live in communities occupied by police forces that are armed and dangerous and represent the frontline of forces keeping us oppressed. We did not promote guns, but rather, the right to defend ourselves against a state that was oppressing us ? with guns. There were innumerable incidents in which police agents kicked in our doors or shot our brothers and sisters in what we called red-light trials, where the policeman was the judge, the jury and the executioner. We called for an immediate end to this brutality, and advocated for our right to self-defense. Today, the brutal police murders of Sean Bell in New York and Oscar Grant in Oakland are just two examples of how little has changed. The gun-control discussion could result in policies that further criminalize and target black people.

Conservatives, at their most radical, have made this connection: Condoleezza Rice and Ann Coulter have also argued that blacks should arm themselves if they want to protect themselves against racial violence. But not only rightwingers hone in on this: Ice-T argues that the right to keep and bear arms is to resist tyranny and ?to protect yourself from the police.?

When Reagan and Nixon and the other Republicans in the 1960s advanced gun control, they were at least in part pandering to law-and-order conservatives who wanted police to have yet more power to protect them from minorities and the poor. If racism was not in the intent, it was definitely part of the effect.

Even today, gun laws are much like drug laws in that they are disproportionately used against minorities. Gun control is the chief impetus behind New York City?s Stop-and-Frisk program, which in 2011 ensnared young black men more times than there are young black men in the city, and targets minorities by a ratio of nine to one. Conservatives who defend this program are defending gun control at its most invasive?the wholesale profiling and searching of people in the attempt to procure guns, which conservatives claim people have a natural and constitutional right to carry in the first place. Liberals opposed to this program should recognize that to violate gun rights, government must violate other rights.

In the federal prison system, almost half of those convicted for gun control violations are black and a quarter are Hispanic. Because of mandatory minimums for gun violation, the average convicted gun offender?usually someone who never hurt anyone with the weapon?rots in prison for longer than the average convicted rapist.

Some on the left have begun rediscovering the racist roots of gun control. Adam Winkler?s Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America?reviewed here by Thaddeus Russell?tells the story of gun confiscations committed by racist police working with the KKK. Adam Winkler?s Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America also gives a perspective unusual among modern liberals. Craig Whitney discovers the intractable culture war in the debate in Living with Guns: A Liberal?s Case for the Second Amendment. Don Kates?s Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out is a compilation from years ago. Yet the anti-gun control scholarship on the left remains thin.

There are left-friendly arguments for gun rights, but unfortunately we rarely hear them. Gun control is like the drug war, in that it empowers the police with a possession crime, which necessarily means violations of privacy rights, using snitches and dubious informants, and disproportionately high prison sentences for the non-violent act of illegal gun ownership. According to the Department of Justice, the average federal conviction for weapons violations resulted in 87 months in prison compared to 82 months for drug offenses and 28 months for property crimes.

It is impossible to keep criminals, of all people, from getting firearms?and if this wasn?t true ten years go, it will be in the age of 3-D printing. But in the quest to disarm the rabble, the police state can flex its power over the most vulnerable and marginalized people in society.
"


.

Nice way to sort your funding out.

Libertarians are Republicans too embarrassed to say they're Republican.

correct- and they are nearly all uppermiddle to upper class...

It's the "I OWN PROPERTY BITCH!" party

Except that Libertarians are:

ACTUALLY against big government, (whereas republicans always grow government when they have power),
anti war,
anti any minimum wage,
anti government handouts to corporations,
anti farming subsidies,
anti graduated income tax,
pro drug legalization,
pro legal gambling,
pro legal prostitution,
pro No government intervention in marriage, or sex, between consenting adults
pro open imigration.
pro the right to decide to die


....among a myriad other differences that I don't have time to go into....





.

IF you are pro voter ID laws - then YES you are for the voter suppression of Minorities, Elderly, Poor, and Students (80 plus percent of those are Democrats)

YES a policy that disproportionately (by a WIDE margin) affects minorities adversely IS RACIST to it's core. Especially when the people pushing it and implementing it are the ALL WHITE (nearly) TEA PARTY.

Really Sperbonz? you are such an otherwise well reasoned and smart guy.

I didn't say that I was pro voter ID laws..... and I notice you didn't address the article I posted about the racism of gun control....





Like I said, pure hypocrisy.






.



.

I actually like some of Rand Paul's ideas. Especially the war on drugs thing.

There are two types of libertarians. There's the libertarian political movement (Gary Johnson, Rand Paul'ish, Ron Paul, etc..), and then there's the libertarian philosophy.

The libertarian philosophy is backed by the axiom of the Non-Aggression Principle. The NAP states that it's immoral to initiate or threaten force against a person or their property.

This is why the libertarian political movement is contradictory. They're attempting to grab ahold of the statist gun in a political environment; which breaks the NAP.

Those who adhere to the libertarian philosophy (I call them pure libertarians), most also refrain from attempting to use political action.

So yes, I'd agree, politicians who call themselves libertarians are just republicans living under a delusion.

Ad hominem. Along with your "THEY'RE ALL WHITE!" comments you espouse in almost every god damn response.

Let me attempt to educate you a little here.. This is the libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist philosophy and how it's backed:

First we have to establish an axiom. The NAP is an axiom. It's wrong to initiate or threaten force against a person or their property.

Secondly, what is property? What are property rights and are property rights legitimate?
Well, let's see. Do you own your body? Yes. If you say no, you've just created a performative contradiction. The mere act of utilizing your body and arguing with me, assumes ownership of your body. Self-ownership is a proof of property rights.

Now that we know you, and you alone own 100% of your body, then a logical conclusion from this is that we solely own the fruits of our labor as well.. Whether that be a painting we made, a website, or the income generated for providing labor in a mutually agreed upon employer/employee relationship.

So we have two things. The NAP and property rights which are derived from self-ownership.

These are the only two things that an advocate of the libertarian philosophy, anarcho-capitalism, & voluntaryism are concerned about.

To make these ad hominen attacks about us being "all white", or being racist, or not caring about the poor, is to be completely ignorant of the philosophy itself and entirely naive with the assumption that our current system cares about racial inequality or the poor.

Your arguments against libertarianism sound exactly like slave owners or advocates of slavery said in the past, "But without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" - Except you're saying, "Without the state, who will feed the poor?" - Well, in the case of slavery, we saw technology handle the problem with massive machinery. In the case of stateless societies and the poor, the solution is much more simple. The abolition of the state itself will greatly enhance the wealth of the impoverished, as the state is the single biggest contributing factor to poverty. But this is all consequentialism, we ended slavery because it's simply fucking wrong. Libertarians/anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists seek to end statism simply because it's fucking wrong to use force to solve complex social problems.

Who needs unions when you can just outsource jobs to India..

unions suck; I'd venture to say you were never a member of one.

We Progressives agree with Libertarians on many issues. It would bee nice to see a third party gain some traction in an obviously broken 2 party system.

But Libertarians seem to never want to moderate their radical far right philosophy to attract anyone but white property owners:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Schools: awesome. Close them. They're government indoctrination centers that aren't focused on education, but rather creating a culture of obedient workers. Obedient workers who produce as much as possible, so they can be taxed as much as possible, so that the ruling classes can profit as much as possible.

Welfare: awesome. Stop it. Rely on your family, your community, and charity until you can get your feet wet. Solving tough times by stealing from others is a poor, immoral solution.

Food stamps: See above point.

Healthcare assistance: See above point.

Libertarianism doesn't mean to be racist...it just is...it's racist to it's core because the policies would radically hurt minorities in so many ways. Just like voter ID laws that seem to be fair until you look closely at the EFFECTS these policies would have - if you see how fucked up it would be for black people, and you are STILL for the policy..then you can only consider it racism by proxy.

How about syncing election day with tax day. If you can't prove you filed your tax return you can't vote.

(I didn't say pay, I said filed)

I don't think schools should be closed, but they definitely should not be run/funded by governments.

And as for all of the government assistance, there are many economists and sociologists who would say that minorities have actually been severely held back and hurt by government programs, perhaps even deliberately. They certainly have not helped the situation since Johnson's "war on poverty" began in the 1960s.....


.......and you STILL did not address the article about the inherent racism of gun control laws...

Why is that?









.

I believe Hillary will win.

But I'm voting Libertarian. Their platform is exactly the way I feel about things. Fuck the lying Dems and Repubs.

I will wait to see who shows up to run first. Most likely... I will not vote again.

When you get to the point where you are voting for the "better of two evils" there isn't much choice in voting.

Mitt was clearly a disaster - he was not the solution, he was part of the problem. His entire business experienace was to buy businesses, strip them down, and then sell them off. He might have made billions, but that doesn't qualify him to do anything.

Not that Obama was qualified either.

oh jesus christ, no. i hate that, because it makes the united states look like a merry-go-round of family power. with the exception of the kennedy's, because that family has been through so much and had to cop the political flak associated with their many untimely personal tragedies. i think only over the last five years alone another three kennedy's died.

if clinton were to denounce the money-mongers who would keep her in power. that would be great. but good luck because if she were to do that they would just bump her off the 2016 wagon and try nancy pelosi, probably.

You are repeating a very well used and well known racist rant here...I'm not out right saying youre a racist but this is the essence of Libertarianism...de facto racism.

I was in a union. As a matter of fact I started my career in manufacturing in this building I now own. I was a member of the aerospace & machinist union for just shy of 2 years. It was the main reason I quit the job I had here and went into business.

The company that owned this building had 2 unions to deal with..aerospace and the steelworkers. When I worked here there were 1100 employees. The unions are what eventually made the company close down operations here and move the product lines all around the world.

Rick Ross for President