On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:48:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2015 10:11 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/5/15 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2015 6:47 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/5/15 12:45 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:46:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

meanwhile, continued to lead the field,
with Carson outperforming Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical
general-election matchup.

Scary huh?


Most of the rest of the GOP wannabe filed is just as bad or worse.
Whoever the GOP nominates, it'll be bad for this country if that person
wins. The rich, of course, will become even richer under a GOP POTUS as
their ability to loot the country increases, but that will end when
their heads are on pikes.


Do you seriously think that will change if Hillary becomes POTUS?
Talk about people getting "richer". She was broke not too long ago,
remember?




I think Mrs. Clinton will try to upset the current applecart, and take
steps to slow down the looting of America by the wealthy. It'll take a
Democratic House and Senate to speed up the process and make it more
drastic.

The question is *when* the tables will be turned, not *if*


She's just giving lip service to that issue because of Bernie.
Once she gets him permanently out of her hair, she'll flip or flop
again ... as usual.


I am not sure Bernie is gong to go away.

The thing we need to remember is it is still pretty early.
At this time in previous elections, people were still talking about
people like Gene McCarthy, Paul Tsongas and Pat Buchanan.
Iowa and New Hampshire have never been much of an indication of who
will be the candidate.

It would be interesting if no one showed up at either convention with
enough delegates for a clear first round win. That is far more
possible at the GOP than the DNC tho. It has not been an issue
recently because the losers are usually able to broker a deal where
most of their delegates go to the front runner and they get something
nice in return, like the SoS gig or a VP slot.