Who do you think should be the next US president?

Two words: Native Americans.

@Makhaidos: fought on both sides of the war

@thegerg: if you generalize and are wrong, and? some tribes brokered agreements with the rebels, some with the English, and some with the US through France.

Uh-huh. And why exactly do you think some of them fought for Britain? Because Washington killed a shit ton of them when they were neutral.

@Makhaidos: how does that differ from any other civil or revolutionary war? i guess the french should have just eaten cake?

Congratulations: you've just made no sense whatsoever.

What about Jay-Z?

Hilary Clinton is a possibility -

Elizabeth Warren is a definite NO...while we don't expect a politician to be honest they can not be so blatant in their lies and she has continued that B.S. about pretending to be Native American when everyone knows it was a scam to get votes from the beginning and a poor idea from a woman who is the whitest of the white bread.

this is too bad because if she had the sense to play her hand properly.

She could have used some guidance from the Fabian Society in gradualism.

not worth my time.

lol

That's deep brah. You deserve a cookie.

Christopher Michael Langan, he's smarter then Obama

Not educated enough to recognize basic sarcasm though.

ITT: surrealnumber5 thinks he's a lot smarter than he is

Doug Stanhope.

Iraqis and Afghans fought in the Revolutionary War?

The next President should be a lower-class individual who knows little to nothing about politics and doesn't want to be President.

most of us here are smarter than any of the candidates.

we are too intelligent to enter politics in the place

I don't know.. someone, anyone, that really cares about this country.

If that's true, he doesn't seem to know anything else besides that and medicine.

@Hemmaroids: If he knows the Constitution then he knows that the electoral college was mandated by the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change it. The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that densely populated states don't smother sparsely populated states in every presidential election. The electoral college was intended to be the great equalizer among the states, thus it's never been changed.

would be kinda funny if hilary won. i remember they were saying she was running the white house when bill was in there.

My money is on Hilary.

The outlash from the Republican would be hilarious, but she is a lot smarter than people give her credit for. She made big bucks on the board of directors for Wallmart while Bill was governor of Arkansas so I wouldn't be surprised if she was pulling the strings as the puppetmaster!

No he doesn't. He has no actual qualifications in the field and bases all of his obviously crap policies on a long discredited school of thought. And yes, I'd far prefer a national leader who is ignorant of constitutional law and knowledgeable of economics than the other way around. At least if he tries to pass "unconstitutional" policies there's a supreme court right there that can strike them down.

That's him in every thread lol.

cool, i dont need to be here and frankly the nostalgia is thin without the old folks who left long ago. if you people hate reality i have no reason to stay around.

peace out! much love and take care. math is the path to success, everything else leads to pain.

Gary f**kin Johnson please!

he knows nothing

other things he's called unconstitutional:

- social security, medicare, medicaid

- executive orders

- income tax, paper money, federal reserve

- moar federal departments: energy, education, agriculture, commerce, health and human services, homeland security, and labor (as seen in vid)

And you base this on what?

(And don't just say 'the constitution! herp derp!")

He's not my first choice, but I might be willing to settle for Rand Paul.

Income taxes are explicitly allowed in the constitution (16th amendment).

even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

paul-ites tend to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the u.s. constitution

Stephen Colbert. He can't do any worse than those with a realistic shot at the presidency and his state of the Union addresses would be both funny and soul crushingly honest.

As for those who actually have a hope in hell I'll go with Rand Paul. I don't get to say "I told you so" enough these days and maybe it would knock some Libertarians off their high horses.

Someone of Oriental decent.

Yeah, I'm not in disagreement. I just find the income tax thing particularly appalling because of it's explicit reference. It's the clearest indication I've seen of someone reading into the Constitution exactly what they want and only what they want.

When historical, empirical evidence demonstrates many of their policies to be bunk (such as the gold standard), what makes you think more evidence to throw on the pile will finally convince them otherwise?

The wishful thinking side of me wants to say that it would at least be a libertarian candidate f*cking up like everyone else. The rational side of me acknowledges that in the case of a **** up either congress would be blamed or there would be claims of him not being a "true libertarian"

Can we bar people who advocate for the return to the gold standard and other insane 'Paulonomics' from criticizing the economic policies of any other president?