The candidate known as "Deez Nuts" is a 15 year old child. He can't be president since you have to be 35 years or older to become president. And this isn't even the election, it's just to get your name on the ballet. Which he can't do.

But I would totally vote for him over Obama or Trump.

You can't exactly vote for Obama, since he's already served two terms. And the only people who will vote for trump are moronic white supremacists (if you're planning on voting for Trump, reader, I am not sorry). At this point we'll just have to wait and see who makes it past the primaries before making any solid predictions or forming too much coherent discussion.


His Wikipedia page probably made his stances sound more elegant than when he originally gave them. However, the section on voting rights is interesting and indicates that he at least paid attention in his US Government class.

There is no real discussion to be had here about "deez nuts". He can't be president, by a loophole in our election system he can technically "run" but can not be appointed president. But I am more curious on why you think people who want Trump are white supremacists. Would you rather have Hilary who is under Federal investigation for private e-mails containing classified government files? The U.S is in major debt, and if we don't get somebody in there that can get us out of it (let's not forget, Trump is a multi-billionaire) then we won't even have a country to live in. Maybe he isn't the prime candidate, but I'd take him over any liberal candidate that thinks whether gays can get married, or whether we all get treated 100% and totally equal, is more important than whether or not we owe TRILLIONS of dollars to other countries and are still giving other countries money like we have it. Let's remember guys, nobody will get treated like anything, and nobody will have any rights if we don't take care of our business.

I'd vote for Deez Nutz but sanders needs all the votes he can get. Sure he could just be another obama, and trump makes some bold claims, but in the end it doesn't even matter, they're either bought or emasculated.

Not sure if this is directed at me or at the thread as a whole.

Because repeatedly, people at his rallies chant "white power" and in one reported case, beat up a Latino homeless man in support of him, and his only response to this is "My fans are passionate." Also his campaign is very anti-immigrant, legal or otherwise, with very little being said about other issues. I think he's made a firm stance about various tax issues, but I haven't seen anything in the news about other issues that other candidates are addressing.


If I had to choose between Trump and Clinton, I would choose Clinton. While her background isn't stellar by any means, she does have experience in political office, of which Trump has exactly 0.


Alright, everyone take a seat and let me tell you why Donald Trump is rich. Let's start with his father, Fred Trump. This guy right here was smart. At age 15, he partnered with his mother to create a real estate development company. During his career he built any sort of building you can think of: houses, supermarkets, barracks, apartments. He was also very frugal, to the point of saving unused nails and doing repair work himself. His son, Donald Trump, was given a bunch of money to start his own real estate business in the Manhattan area, while Fred stayed in Brooklyn and Queens. That's his start. His father gave him money to start his business. But wait, there's more. After Donnie decided that affordable housing in Manhattan wasn't bringing in enough cash, he built casinos, one of the more well known ones being the Taj Mahal in New Jersey. Now because of this, his companies owed over $9 billion. Because they could not possibly pay that back, his companies filed for bankruptcy twice, while Trump himself had to pay no money out of pocket. The banks and lenders had to absorb those $9 billion in losses, and business went back to normal for Trump and his companies. Later on, when he expanded even more, his companies were forced to file twice more, with the same situation as before. Trump pays nothing, banks eat the losses, the companies start profiting again. It has nothing to do with Trump actually working for any of his money. He just used loopholes in our own legal system to get himself rich and screw banks and lenders out of their money. Do you really want him to be president?


Sadly there is no easy way to fix this problem. There is no shortcut, no "miracle method" to raise the money. Just a lot of changes to how things work in government and then waiting twenty years for those changes to bear fruit.


If one of the moderators feel like these last few posts belong in Ele's POTUS thread, feel free to move them there and do what you will with this one. As Zelda edited into the OP, this is likely a joke thread that should probably be moved to off-topic.

Moved the not-shit posts from the Deez Nuts president thread to here. Let's keep it super cereal, k guys?

Hillary is a woman, Bernie is a jew and Jeb only has his family name going for him.


Joking aside, your best bet is probably Sanders if you want to catch up to 21st century "modern" nations (my country is a shithole and we have these). Having a proper social net and free healthcare is a nice thing to have and not a waste of money. You could probably afford all that by cutting back a little on the military, or taxing the rich which I don't think he'd be afraid of pushing for.
Although looking at European interest, Trump would probably be better. He seems more likely to go and restore order to the middle east. Install a few new Husseins to keep the savages in check and we won't have to fence off our borders.

You'd probably find a few new Husseins wouldn't be at all in the Europeans interest... or is that the joke?

Totally not in the general Middle Easts best interests either.

Actually, removing or undermining those brutal dictators (like Hussein or Assad) caused all the bloodshed we see today. That same bloodshed everybody is running from... towards Europe.
Killing Gaddafi in Libya removed a big chunk of the Northern African barrier that kept the masses from running. Stabilizing the region would take another ground war, and then installing new dictators to keep the ISIS stuff from repeating itself.
So yeah, thanks USA. Let's hope whoever comes to it's helm next will try to fix this mess.

Because you can't do both. You have to focus on economic prosperity and throw civil liberties under the bus. To further accomplish this, let us put all the black people back in to chains until our agriculture and cotton industries become competitively viable in the global market again, then we can start talking about not shooting them. I sincerely hope I do not need to explain the sarcasm in this paragraph.

Second, the worst that can happen because of the U.S. not paying back it's debts is the U.S. dollar tanking and causing a global depression because of it's status as a market standard currency causing a lot of people to suddenly lose a lot of wealth. There is no magic disappearance of civil liberties, we do not magically become assimilated in to China, the economy just crashes and everybody scrambles to not lose the shirt on their back. The only way you will magically lose your rights is if we were invaded, which will not happen, or you let somebody take them away from you, which is what you are advocating for disadvantaged groups. Which I have already replied to with sarcasm and snark because of the one dimensional approach you take to political action.