Leaders of the pack

In the current polling for the new US presidential candidate, there are a few who are leading the race; on the Democratic side it's Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Clinton was aiming to have comprehensively beaten Sanders by now, but he seems to be holding on; though with only half of the delegates Clinton has. And on the others side, the Republican race; Donald still seems to be Trumpeting in the lead, Ted is Cruising not far behind and Marco is seen having a Rubio down somewhere in the background. John felt Kasich in the car journey over to the sports hall and ended up walking. The other six candidates were simply relegated to the bench, as they weren't picked to run.

I'm simply perplexed at how Trump has managed to hold his lead or even be in the lead in the first place! People say he says it how it is, but really, he doesn't. The sheer degree of bullshit or unsubstantiated 'truths' or the lack of any knowledge about serious political problems or the complete idiotic things he says seems not to have perturbed people. He's certainly controversial as a presidential candidate, and even the Republicans are going cross-eyed at the notion of him representing the Republicans. At first, even close friends were sure it was just a publicity stunt, a publicity stunt to shine a spotlight back on himself and his 'brand'; which is his name (which according to him is worth $4 billion). When his key policies are to exile Muslims, build a war around the country, bomb Iran, is against pro-choice, encouraging the use of guns and supporting tax reductions for corporations to find footing In the country. Considering how much he blatantly lies through the use of ignorance, I find it hard to believe he would target the 1% with increased taxation – because he is of that percentile. He's a popular choice not for the fact that he has good policies or represents the hidden sentiment of the population, but rather because he is a controversial character; if you are disulussioned already by the political framework of American politics, then voting for him could be considered an act of defiance of that system. Well, it's certainly raising plenty of eyebrows.

With money comes power in politics; if you can finance a campaign which promotes your coverage to all the states, flings banners about, nails billboards to public areas and generally threatens the public with the 'ideology of the other candidates' and smiles at a camera whilst saying how much they love you; more than half the job is done there. It seems that the actual policies and change which the candidates are proposing are put as only secondary measures in the rat race for presidency. It's clear that to vote a Republican in, it will be drastically bad on the world perspective. Pro war, deniers of climate change, against pro choice etc... It would be dangerous to put a Republican in power – they literally make no sense, and seem to be in complete denial of the facts.

The grid above illustrates where some of the candidates differ and agree. As you can see Sanders is certainly the most liberal; in terms of peace, drug leniancy and same sex marriages. Trump and Jeb Bush on the other-hand, couldn't be more different; roughly disagreeing on every issue. Hillary Clinton is actually fairly similar to the Republican candidates; other than the disagreement with Climate change.

Clinton vs Sanders.

There is only a choice of two in the democratic race (the left), whereas the 'right' has ten candidates; virtually three now though from the results of the primaries. So, if you're not wanting to place an elephant button on your shirt, and rather pop a donkey; which any sane person would, then you'll have a choice before you of these two candidates. I would be confident in my choice from this grid on the right:

Sanders has repeatedly been written off. Sanders has repeatedly been written off, with many diagrams and talks revolving around Clinton being the only Democrat in the running. Though, it is only bad thinking that 'there is no choice'. Of course there is; and in the 'land of the free' – a liberal perspective should be commended and not vilified.

Meanwhile, The Republicans.

It seems really strange that in the year 2016, there are real deniers of climate change. The single thing which is likely to have more effect on the lives of the planets inhabitants than anything else. This single concept is the legacy of which the current leaders will leave behind to our descendants. It's effects will breach into any and all aspects of life; and to deny it is to be dangerous to all who want to live as we are on the planet. As you can see from this diagram, the Republicans are all those people down in the climate change refusal category; whereas the Democratic candidates Clinton and Sanders have plans and will take action if elected. This shows clearly the mentality of these candidates; how can you trust a president who can't even process facts from ignorance?

This is what they have to say on the issue:

Generally speaking, even the Republican party is embarrassed by the state of affairs of its own party, and rightly so. Followers are either capitalist elites trying to cover their own backs from serious change, or crazy racists who push for spreading American democracy through war, and like to be told what to think rather to think about what they're told. The republican party is fundamentally conservative, but the principles of its leading representatives are embarrassing and does the party no favours via the perspective of other nations (as if they give a crap).

Following the primaries of the elections, where the caucuses results are revealed lends one to become depressed by the elective farce. It bypasses common sense and provokes interest on the same level as a reality TV show than something which is to change the policies of a nation. I wouldn't be surprised if many people find themselves disillusioned by it all and simply walk away...

Obama illustrating my point: