Binface shall prevail

@sean1: The thing is that it's a weak field, so I don't really support anyone in particular enough to sing their praises. But Buttigieg (fake), Biden (senile) and Klobuchar (bully) are all just blatantly awful. I suppose I could live with Sanders, Warren or even Bloomberg, although they each have serious flaws.

As far as Pete's donor stats, yeah, a lot of people seem to have been bamboozled, which is disappointing to see. And I don't think the fact that he's the poorest candidate gives any reassurance that he won't cater to the interests that have ravaged the country over the past generation. Maybe the opposite.

Also, while I am not a huge fan of Sanders and therefore am reluctant to carry water for him, I don't think the UK results necessarily translate to the US. Corbyn was abysmally unpopular, due in large part to his humorlessness, links to violent extremists and allowing anti-Semitism to fester within his party. Sanders has none of those faults and polls as the most popular active political figure in the US. Plus Labour's traditional electorate was fractured by the all-important Brexit issue, and there is no comparably powerful wedge issue at stake in the US.

Buttigieg is just so transparently fake, it amazes me how many people are taken in by his faux-sincere schtick. Although I can see how Patrick Bateman might approve: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gc_bMkbOOs

@viyida wrote: "MAD (mutual assured destruction) leverage"

An oxymoron. MAD is bi-directional, hence the "mutual". Both sides have reduced leverage over each other under MAD, because threats to use conventional force have low credibility in light of the extreme risks involved.

cloudtraprezer wrote: "宣传部宣"

Turn that smile upside down, sezuwupom. Expressing positive sentiments about fast, comfortable, affordable and environmentally-sustainable new rail connections is not allowed by the comments police. Anyone who is not sufficiently glum will be ridiculed.