I'd have to go with Bernie myself.This is my reasoning for why:











https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQINZ7N1Ses











http://www.americangreenzine.com/rt_story/r_psychedelic/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-sav/506764366b2f414367703261596f41525a356d3762773d3d


http://anonhq.com/43157-2/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVJOl-7ig5k

Bernie has said what I want to hear, and he's certainly more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. I don't know how many promises Bernie will keep, but for me he's the best choice.

The question should be who will, because it will most very likely be Hillary Clinton. Democrats are so desperate to hang on to dynasties that they hope she will get the presidency.

If Sanders gets the nomination AND, by a terrible stroke of bad luck, gets elected, this is the end of this country. Socialism has ALWAYS failed, and countries that have tasted it like Argentina and Venezuela are realizing their mistake.

I do not support the GOP in anyway, but at least they do not hang on to dynasties. Jeb Bush's campaign has been a disaster since he officially started it (the media wanted him to run). And at CPAC last year, he CLEARLY had only fringe support from the people there.

janus : There are quite a few countries that are doing well that are fairly socialist(i.e. Canada & Denmark).

http://www.thelocal.dk/20141218/denmark-worlds-best-country-for-business-forbes

I'm not sure if Hillary will get the nomination,since things feel similar to how things went with Obama(although Bernie has more donation & bigger crowds than Obama did).It will probably depend on who does better in New Hampshire & Iowa.

Supermatt6534 : Right. Canada is so socialist that it ranks HIGHER on the economic freedom index than the US. The country might have socialized healthcare, but its federalism is MUCH more functional (at least, as of now with Junior in power...).

Who gets the nomination also depends on who gathers the most supporters. Many claim that Trump will lose steam since his supporters might not be as enthusiastic for the primaries.

janus : Didn't say it did better,I said it does fine.That doesn't address the fact  Denmark is socialist,& is doing very well.Sort of,winning the popular vote doesn't mean you win though because of the way the electoral college is set up.Maybe.

I like Clinton way more than Sanders.

Supermatt6534 : it depends on what you definition of "better" is. Welfare amounts to $30,000 per year and people have no incentives to work, taxes are so high that cars cost twice what they cost here and income tax is prohibitively high.

tornadocam : yes, I admit that Sanders is more principled. Nevertheless, should the stars align to make HIM president, this country is done for. However the media still seem to favor Clinton because of her name...

Sanders.

I don't trust Clinton at all, and with the likely Republican nominee being Trump, it would lead to cancer vs. cancer for the presidency.

I will have no part of that farce of an election.

I don't think Sanders is the 100% right answer for this country either, but I think he's the least likely to send us spiraling into total destruction.

It's not about who is good. It's about who is the least awful, and this time around, it's probably Sanders.

janus : Welfare is often for those who can't work.Then tax the 1% more,cut back on unnecessary military spending,legalize weed & tax it to bring in money.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
You haven't refuted my points debunking the claims that Sanders would run us into the ground,yet you still repeat the claim.

Supermatt6534: unless you understand how incentives matter in ANY policy, you will keep saying that I did not rebut you.

Other than having a cash cow, why are politicians creating "sin taxes" (tobacco, alcohol)? In order to decrease consumption. So why would increasing income taxes any different? As Laffer observed, there comes a point when increasing taxes by one dollar gets government less than a dollar in revenues. After that threshold, people work less (or under the table), "aggressively" plan their taxes or move away (like Burger King).

So if you think that increasing welfare payments, therefore creating an effective 100 percent income tax rate when the person starts working, increasing the income tax on the 1 percent - who already pays 37 percent of all income tax despite earning less than 25 percent of those revenues - and taxing newly legalized drugs will make the country better, there is nothing I can do except "pray" for your enlightenment.

janus : You didn't,you didn't even address some of what I presented.Because people should pay their fair share?It costs the country billions giving the 1% unnecessary tax breaks.That is why it's needed to end tax loopholes.What the billionaires currently pay is like nothing to them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-talbott/rich-pay-taxes_b_1873392.html
Do some research before saying someone needs to be more enlightened. 

Supermatt6534 :

Dude, the 1% makes 25% of income, but they pay 37% of income tax. You realize they do actually pay a higher percentage, ya? Of the income they make, they pay more on each dollar than we do.

What you seem to desire is a wealth tax. The 1% do have the majority of the wealth, and much of that wealth goes untaxed. There is no wealth tax in America (instead we have property taxes and land taxes and other means to hit wealth). There is no wealth tax in the majority of the world. In fact, places that have had wealth taxes in the past have removed those wealth taxes because they don't work.

I would consent to a wealth tax on one condition: that the tax only apply to wealth located outside the US. So Apple would have to pay a wealth tax for the value of their factories in China, but not here. It would decrease the incentive to outsource, and therefore bring more jobs to American soil. This is the design of Italy's wealth tax. But, be wary doing this, as many Frenchmen have moved out of France due to a 1.5% wealth tax, and France is losing the ability to tax their wealthiest citizens.

Also tagging...

janus :

Txgangsta : They pay more because they have more money & it goes by percentage.Billionaires have billions,so thousands of dollars is nothing to them.Plenty of countries have such taxes in Europe.That is the reason tax loopholes must be dealt with,especially before raising the taxes on the wealthy.

Supermatt6534 : The richest one percent already pays 37% of all income tax; how MUCH is "fair"? You also did not answer my question about incentives.

You also told me to get informed? I majored in political economy, read all of Bastiat, Cantillon, Say, most of Mises and EVEN Das Kapital. What about you?

Txgangsta : This is quickly turning into a "deaf's dialogue." He acts as though he has the absolute truth without even looking at what the others are writing. He has not addressed my inquiries about incentives.

janus : Yet they get to exploit loopholes?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-12/how-wal-mart-s-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune-taxes
Or tax subsidies?
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-welfare-tax-breaks-subsidies/
They don't pay fair share at all.If you were as educated as you claim,you'd know the idea of them paying their fair share is BS.You have not addressed much of what I gave you(i.e. when I refuted the claim that socialism fails),seems hypocritical to say that when you do that exact thing.

Even though I don't live in the US I think Sanders should get the nomination, like leggy said, he isn't the complete correct answer for America, but he's currently the best option for America right now.

As for the Republican side, Trump or Rand Paul seem like good enough candidates though Rand's polls aren't looking too promising.

mike345 : Trump would be a terrible idea & I don't think Ron Paul is the best idea either.
http://www.adn.com/article/20150929/trumps-tax-cuts-could-cost-us-trillions-dollars-experts-say

Well, the candidates in this election suck. If Joe Biden would've decided to run, I would've voted for him, but since he's not in it, I guess Hillary Clinton should get the nomination, and win the presidency because none of the republican candidates in this election have what it takes to be a great president.