US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

being active in American Politics, I am very content to see this thread here on TSR. yet, please lets research policy before listening to everything CNN or th s you (they are know for not being reliable sources in politics). Read up a little on US history and a bit on the candidates and then make a wise decision. you will notice that most issues in US politics are seen as not very contentious for any college educated european, but that how it works over here due to heavy religious influence in the country.


also vote Bernie Sander 2016

Has Bernie formally announced that he's running for POTUS???? I remember him on Meet the Press a while back explaining that he's thinking about running, but was unsure which party affiliation he'd choose. Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, has been acting like he's going to run on the Dems side, with his Elizabeth Warren-esque rhetoric.

Ronald Reagan was 69 when he became POTUS. Hillary is currently 67. Why is it okay for Ronald to be old, but not Hillary?

Obama was in the Senate when he announced his candidacy. George Bush was the Governor of Texas. Bill was the Governor of Texas. Almost all of America's recent Presidents have served political office. Given how polarized Congress is, would someone with NO political experience be capable to maneuver the legislative branch's antics?

FYI, Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State was during the first half of Obama's Presidency. Hillary has already been blamed for a vast majority of foreign policy mishaps. People that will blame a Democratic successor (Fox and friends) to Obama will blame that person, regardless of if it's Hillary or not.

So once again, do you have actual criticism of Hillary? Because your erroneously broad statement doesn't have substance.

Reagan was older. People would never use the 'too old' argument against a man. Let's not bring the archaic hillbilly sexism to this thread, please.

LOL. I'm very chill, thanks. Maybe you should try to criticize leaders based on their policy mistakes and not their age. Besides, if you truly believe what you say, then you should be able to back it up with substance-that's the point of differing opinions.

How has age changed since Reagan's election? More importantly, why is age bad? If we were to follow your logic of younger is better, than shouldn't Ted Cruz be president?

Im sorry-can you explain to me why the role of governor is not a governmental job? Does that mean issues like balancing a state's budget, passing legislation that affects the state (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, state welfare programs) are just a volunteer's job?

Here's the important part-what did you dislike about Hillary's policies in the Middle East? Name me a specific act she committed that you dislike. So should Democrats somehow conjure a candidate that is completely devoid of any flaws? I'm not trying to diss you or anything-but you seem to be following a completely different line of logic from the average American political commentator.

Wish Elizabeth Warren was running.

Where did I say anything against her gender? Am I allowed to criticise her without being called sexist?
I also found that McCain had no chance against Obama 'coolness".


I never said 'the younger the better', I said she will be 'too old' compared to Obama and her opponents. She was born in the 1940's.


I meant "the federal government", a federal minister is much more exposed in the national news than a senator or a governor.


I hope you know that American campaigns are not led on rational arguments. The Republicans will attack her on the mess in Libya and Syria.
I also found the USA apathetic when the Syrian Revolution (in 2011) broke up, whilst they should have armed the Syrian opposition immediately. There wasn't any islamist at that moment.

I'd say she was too far left to run.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You are indeed allowed to criticise her without being called sexist if you use a non-sexist argument. That was not the case.

So coolness has something to do with age now? See? It is a flawed argument. I think charisma is the word you were looking for.

Tell me where I was sexist. I'm curious.

Yes it's easier to be cool when you're younger. Charisma is ageless.

I think the Republicans do have moderates, I think they get thrown so far to the Right by candidates like Cruz and Bachmann that no one believes they are moderate. The Republican primaries seem to be more damaging to any candidate than anything the democrats do.

I am glad UK election campaigns are not as long.

I'd say she was too far left to run.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I said earlier that McCain was too old and would say the same about anybody above 65 who runs for presidency.

Anyway, I principally dislike Hillary - and Bush n°3 - for being there for too long. They look like a aristocracy. I hope some younger and "new" candidates will beat them in the primaries.

I said earlier that McCain was too old and would say the same about anybody above 65 who runs for presidency.

Anyway, I principally dislike Hillary - and Bush n°3 - for being there for too long. They look like a aristocracy. I hope some younger and "new" candidates will beat them in the primaries.

That could stop her from getting the nomination, but that won't stop her from running. As a matter of fact, most of my teachers are excited about her running.

Interestingly that could change this election if Cameron remains PM. With the fixed terms parliament act not being repealed in any coalition (it would be stupid for the smaller parties to agree) and Cameron saying he will serve every day of this term but not a third, that means more than likely that summer 19 would have to see the leadership election in the style of the US with the leader in waiting running the campaign while Cameron finishes his term as PM.