Originally Posted by Ezeth

Hillary Clinton seems to be more education and foreign policy oriented, if you want less troops abroad and "hillarycare" to be implemented.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

Find it amusing how people care if its a woman/man if he/she is black or white. If he/she is born in USA or not, what name they have and so on. How would that in any way effect their ability to be good leaders what so ever? Jeb Bush seems to be the guy to vote for if you find economic growth and immigration policy important, more open boarders, pro-life while Hillary Clinton seems to be more education and foreign policy oriented, if you want less troops abroad and "hillarycare" to be implemented. It seems like they are both going in the direction of a more open and more covering medical care which is a major issue as of today.

Originally Posted by Uncas23

The next president will be Hillary Clinton because she is woman and its USA so why not. "Who cares, lets just act like we were nice people and dont give a ... about economy and decisions." The next will be a black woman. After that an asian, a gay and finally conchita wurst.

Originally Posted by DeakManiac

Seeing how the USA has hardly any jobs or carrers booming for needing people, I would rather have a economic growth president. As for Clinton, fuck no because that reject will just be another G. Bush

Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort? (Applause.)

“My greatest worry for our country is that globalization and the exponential growth of technology which have destroyed millions of jobs already, will undoubtedly eliminate millions and millions more jobs during the next several years,” he said. “Many manufacturing jobs that we lost will come back to the U.S., but most will be filled by robots and software.”

Competition from emerging-economy exports has surely been a factor depressing wages in wealthier nations, although probably not the dominant force. More important, soaring incomes at the top were achieved, in large part, by squeezing those below: by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, and diverting a rising share of national resources to financial wheeling and dealing.

“America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence,” Greene said in an interview today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We need to reinvent our whole system of life."

Originally Posted by Hyde

God no. That's a good cast for Dumb and Dumber 3 though.

I'd vote for Scott Walker if he ran, he's improved Wisconsin 50-fold since he became governor and is probably one of the best, most well-meaning politicians in the country. Rand Paul is my default vote otherwise. I'd hate to see Chris Christie get any sort of a run. Unfortunately, other than Hilary, I don't see many possible democratic candidates, and I really dislike Hilary and her approach to politics so yeah. Who else would be a serious democratic candidate? Andrew Cuomo? I could see that happening, and he hasn't been particularly bad for NY, but I don't like him.

In the Northeast, Bush continues to maintain a three-point lead over his next closest competitor, Walker, winning 18 percent of the potential Republican electorate in New Hampshire to the Wisconsin politicians' 15 percent.
Just behind were Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 14 percent, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, 13 percent, the NBC News poll, released Sunday, revealed.