Hillary and Bernie might actually throw down tonight. My money is on Hillary in the third round by tko.
It won't happen...neither would take the VP slot to the other...Maybe Bernie, but he right now has the momentum.
The only thing Hillary and Bernie have in common is that neither has had any cock in the past 30 years. Obama has had more cock during his term than the past 20 First Ladies combined.
Hillary's entire political career has been punctuated by scandal coverups. That's why Donald Trump is there. The FBI investigation will probably halt because some key investigators die in a much publicized terrorist attack.
Some insight right here folks. No wonder you are so revered on this forum. Though I do agree with the Hillary assessment
He's right that North Korea is a greater threat than Russia or China. The rationale is correct also, Russia and China live in the real world. North Korea doesn't. Russia and China would be unlikely to accidentally start a major war between the Superpowers. We would see the buildup coming and we would have time to react and use diplomacy to try to prevent the worst outcomes from happening. China and the South China Sea is a perfect example of this. We're watching the Chinese push against the boundaries that contain them but we have little fear that they will suddenly attack Japan or South Korea or the Philippines to try to gain a strategic advantage. We know what we know and we have a pretty good idea what we don't know when it comes to containing (or more likely easing into) China's emergence as a Superpower in that area of the world. Russia and just about everything on their periphery is another example of where we know enough that big surprises are unlikely. It's another example of where diplomacy is likely to prevent the worst outcomes (all-out war in the Ukraine, an invasion of the Baltic States, military action against US assets in Syria and the Eastern Med, etc.) Again, we know what we know and we have a pretty good idea of where the redlines are and what we would have to do to avoid stepping over them ourselves or watching the Russians step over them. The fact that both nations are fighting in the same theater of war, with different goals and a few shared ones and we've managed to largely keep the peace between NATO and Russia tells us that while the situation is dangerous it's not highly volatile and surprises are unlikely to create a tipping point. The Turkish shootdown of a Russian jet is a good example of where diplomacy ultimately worked even though it created a tense situation for awhile. With North Korea we just don't know what is going on and what we do know is fragmentary and often in dissonant conflict. It is very unlikely that North Korea is run by only a small number of people whom Kim Jong-un is clearly in control of. It is much more likely that an oligarchy of some form is in control and that Kim Jong-un is the figurehead around whom their rule revolves. He is likely to have a fair amount of power in the arrangement but it is likely to be similar to the power that the pre-war Japanese Emperor had. He is untouchable in terms of his position and prestige but decisions are largely made in the military and industrial complex and then bubble up in ways that they become his decisions. Like the pre-war Japanese Emperor he probably has a veto power over decisions that he is inextricably opposed too but he likely does not exercise that power very often, giving way to the judgement of the oligarchy in most decisions. As he gets older and more comfortable in the role the people in the oligarchy are pushed aside one by one in various ways and so his power grows as his advisors change. His uncle, Jang Song Thaek, was likely not executed solely because Kim Jong Un felt threatened by him but because other members of the oligarchy wanted to remove a power broker from the previous regime who was a little too well placed to fit in well to the new regime. Anyway, the point is that we do not know who exactly is pulling the strings in North Korea in terms of the overall power structure, we just know that North Korea's positions, belligerent and otherwise will always be expressed through Kim Jong Un because he is the figurehead of the oligarchy and revered by them as the seat of their collective power. This means that Kim Jong Un is not going to suddenly wake up one morning and order the tanks into the DMZ with missile strikes on Seoul and Japan. That's not how things are likely to work. Instead that type of decision would filter up from the oligarchy, persuading Kim Jong Un over time, maybe a very short time, that such action was necessary. He would then become the commander who either veto'd the idea, possibly at great peril to himself, or gave the order and let hell loose on the Asian Pacific and shortly therafter the rest of us. Since we don't know precisely how the oligarchy works and we don't have a clear view of who is involved, outside of a few prominent figures, we would have no way of knowing when the group think changed and since groups tend to act more quickly than they should and make more mistakes than they should we could wind up in a very bad situation very quickly. Now throw in the fact that the oligarchy makes repeated feints towards belligerence through Kim Jong Un and testing of weapons and military exercises, etc, and our situational confusion grows. It might be more ominous if North Korea was quiet and seemingly pacifistic for a period of time than if they were bellicose as they often are. The silence might signal an emerging consensus towards hostile action in which everybody was being careful not to tip North Korea's hand and Kim Jong Un most so since he might well not know how quickly the dynamic was evolving below him. I think North Korea is the most dangerous threat we face right now but not because they're batshit crazy, which is the image they want to present to the world. They're the most dangerous threat because we have no idea what we don't know about how they operate. That combined with their military posture and slowly growing strategic weapons systems makes them 100 on a scale where ISIS is maybe 50 and Russia and China in the 20's or lower in terms of danger.
Bernie is way too romantic to be president but I prefer him over Hillary. Why do blacks like Hillary more than Bernie? Anyone can explain?
