it's gonna be a Bush and Clinton showdown.

Well, I guess its time to start the cycle again. Let's see who's running so far...

Note: I sometimes get a bit... emotional about politics. I apologize in advance for anything malevolent and/or harmful I say in the Politics Discussion forum up through November 2016.

Republicans

• Ted Cruz -To be fair, his foreign policy does not seem to be in the absurd isolation/domination binary that many candidates have had in recent elections. That may not sound like a compliment, but I rarely have good things to say about Republicans involving Foreign Affairs. That said, I can't imagine myself supporting him even in a field of Republicans. Even concerning foreign affairs, he seems a bit inconsistent. For example, he criticized Obama both for aiding rebels fighting in Syria and not aiding Kurds fighting ISIS a hundred or so miles away. His environmental positions are stereotypical Texas Republican, he seems to be trying to win over the religious crowd that would want to hurt me and a lot of people I like, and generally supports a number of social stances that I can't support.
• Rand Paul -  I don't trust him. It's not that Libertarianism is a bad political philosophy, though I do dislike the mark left by Ayn Rand and company. Reducing NSA powers? Great! Opposing militarization of police forces? Sounds good! Cutting taxes and spending? Not what I'd assume to be the right answer in some cases, but this can be a viable strategy regardless of political leanings. But his positions considering abortion, tax breaks, gay marriage, immigration, and so either imply or outright require more activity from the federal government. He's obviously lying about one part of the formula, which is perfectly understandable for a candidate. But since I can't figure out what he actually supports, it's hard to support him.
• Unannounced - Based on my general knowledge of major political figures at the moment, those potential candidates generally cause me to frown more often than smile. I will give Chris Christie credit for putting politics aside after Hurricane Sandy and working with Obama, despite the elections coming up. I don't like him in general (in my neck of the woods, he's not been particularly popular since the Bridge incident), but he seems like my favorite likely nominee so far. Jeb Bush is not terrible, but I love my future children too much to make them try to keep track of which Bush was which in school. I could describe my feelings about Huckabee, but this is not the NSFW forum.

Democrats

• Hillary Clinton - Ever since 2007, when I started following politics on a semi-regular basis, I have not been a big fan of Hillary Clinton. Back in the 2008 election, I was rooting for Edwards and Obama as opposed to her. Even back then, I thought she had a history of changing stances on a whim, somehow supporting a position that is popular at the time. Even by the standards of politicians. So even though I agree with her on a number of positions, I'm hardly enthusiastic.
• Unannounced - Joe Biden and Howard Dean might be able to win me over. Biden has not been too bad since 2009, and Howard Dean has popped onto my radar in the past. But Clinton has a lot of support (for reasons I don't understand), so Clinton will likely be the Democrat nominee this time.

Conclusion: Time to look at my 3rd party options.

And as a Nintendo fan, that felt weird to type.

This would be the worst-case scenario. We might as well write off American representative democracy to competing dynasties in that instance. Both are more of what we've had for forever now. I will never vote again if both Bush and Clinton win their primaries. I'll work on other efforts like counter-economics and civil disobedience in that instance. 

What's wrong with Rand Paul's stance on same-sex marriage? This was literally posted 3 hours ago. 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/12/politics/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage/

"Rand Paul isn't endorsing same-sex marriage, but said Sunday that "people ought to be treated fairly under the law."

"I do believe people ought to be left alone," Paul said. "I don't care who you are or what you do at home or who your friends are or what, you know, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to, what you do in your home is your own business. That's always been who I am."

"And then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/11/exclusive-rand-paul-throws-weight-behind-immigrati/?page=all

Mr. Paul has been calling for a reform of immigration laws that secures the borders first, provides for a robust guest-worker program and can, under certain conditions, lead to the legalization of those who entered the U.S. without authorization or who overstayed their visas.

^ I'm personally for open-borders, but I understand that reaching ideals must be an incremental path. He's nowhere nearly as bad as other Republicans on this matter. 

I also disagree with him on anti-abortion (which I don't think should be enforced by the state) but also I don't think it should be subsidized or supported by the state (like drug usage.) 

As for tax breaks, he doesn't go far enough in my opinion. The tax system needs a major revamp and trimming. 

Look, I'm not an American citizen, but let me ask you all one question.

How do you people keep taking this?

All your presidential candidates are backed by PAC's (which is basically legal corruption). Your rights and interests are only a second matter to them.
Your voting system is horribly outdated and undemocratic, with the winner takes all mentality actually voiding near half of the votes and blocking out more political parties.
And to make matters worse, you vote for people to vote for you. Don't you think people can decide for themselves who to vote for?

People of the USA, wake up, you're not living in a real democracy anymore.

at this early stage i would say that Hillary has an edge, but it is absolutely possible for a Republican win. it all depends of course on who the candidate is, how they conduct their campaign and similarly how Hillary conducts her campaign.

i personally think the most electable choice for the Republicans is Rubio. i think he has a good mix of personal image (which like it or not has been a critical part of any presidential campaign since JFK) and policy.  unfortunately the fact that Jeb is around makes Rubio's campaign 1000x harder.

of the current Republican announcers: Even if Cruz wins the nomination i think he will be doomed to failure in a general election because his strategy is literally designed to be divisive and alienating. not what you want when you're trying to bring a country together to vote for you.

Rand i like very much, but i don't think he's going to secure a nomination unless he just comes out swinging and blows everyone away in the primary season. he's too "odd" for the Republican establishment (aka money) to back. i can't say for sure how he would do in the general against Hillary. it would all depend on whether his strategy of courting young and minorities with his outside-the-Republican-box policies would work. i personally think they could, but who knows for sure.

*puke* how could anyone support someone like Hillary Clinton?

I for one  would love to see Rand and Hillary debate.  He is so back and forth on many of his opions I think she would wipe the floor with him.  But it would be fun.

I thought she actually beat Obama in most, if not all of their debates.  She is a very sharp person. 

I don't know how you can vote Republican nowadays. They really come off as the bad guys honestly lol

Hilliary is a a stooge, doesn't belong in any leadership role.