[QUOTE=only_human;433282]ok. The mission is to sneak this stylist into Trump's circle through his wife's modelling career. Another team will emplace a Van DeGraaff generator into the bible that Trump will touch when he takes the oath of office. I'm not clear on the rest of the details but the goal is to superglue the heck out of his hair while it is sticking up like a frightened chimpanzee child.

Then he won't loosen regulatory commitments on coal carbon emissions because he will no longer link this to bad hair spray. Global warming lies in the balance. This may be the first of many necessary interventions.

I'm thinking we can get Rip Torn to throw glitter on his head at the crucial moment confusing the circumstances and possibly distracting his ire.

Prototypes appearance:
[URL="http://mashable.com/2013/07/01/bald-eagles-toupees/"]15 Bald Eagles Wearing Wigs[/URL][/QUOTE]
tl;dr apparently Saturday Night Live had an unbroadcasted skit last year starring Trump himself being served by an elite team of special forces who are miniaturized and sent in for emergency Trump hair stabilization for a presidential meeting with Putin. I'm not saying anyone should watch this skit; I'm just adding it here into the dustbin of posterity.
[url]http://youtu.be/RHq8O0ievbo[/url] 4:56
[YOUTUBE]RHq8O0ievbo[/YOUTUBE]

[URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/"]Where Republicans Stand on Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet[/URL]
Best Opening Line: "How do you solve a problem like The Donald?"

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria. From [I]The Sound of Music[/I]
[url]http://youtu.be/M1HwVmY28Pk[/url]
[YOUTUBE]M1HwVmY28Pk[/YOUTUBE]

The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?
 

[url]https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/02/the-bigger-nuclear-risk-trump-or-clinton/[/url]

If the U.S. election comes down to[URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/02/the-bigger-nuclear-risk-trump-or-clinton/"] Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump[/URL], the American people will have to decide between two candidates who could risk the future of the planet, albeit for very different reasons, writes Robert Parry.

[QUOTE]Hillary Clinton made [URL="http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/"][U]a strong case[/U][/URL] for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In perhaps the most likely area where nuclear war could break out – along Russia’s borders – Clinton comes across as the more belligerent of the two.
In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.

“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”
That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTe]If the U.S. election comes down to[URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/02/the-bigger-nuclear-risk-trump-or-clinton/"] Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump[/URL], the American people will have to decide between two candidates who could risk the future of the planet, albeit for very different reasons...
[/QUOTe]Assuming that those are the major candidates in November,
we can also assume that one of them will be selected president.

The Donald is a reactive pro-nativist who doesn't want to intervene
militarily overseas but would, perhaps too quickly.

The Hillary is a strident-sounding hawkishly-oriented former secretary
whose foreign policy pronouncements are designed to ensnare voters.

Both of these populists have to become more informed about
the proper nature and role of America and its military might in
this still fairly hostile world. If our common goal is a peaceful world,
without fear of terrorism or unprovoked warfare, within our lifetimes,
then eventually we must all find common ground. For now,
we have to choose between two very imperfect candidates.

This means we have to look to the future as well as draw from the past.

Success in future foreign policy depends more on having
a comprehensive philosophy and a workable plan
than on the historic personality of the president we choose.
The man or woman we select will depend on the people of
the nation and its representatives in government to suggest,
inform, advise and support the policies and actions we have
to generate, aiming for the end of these hostilities without
forfeiting our freedom or our defensive strength for the future.

In this thread's OP with its original title, I predicted that
the next president would not be Biden or Trump.
Biden did drop out, and Trump is teflon on steroids.
Since Sanders is socialistically self-excluding,
the choice between the Hillary and the Donald remains.

[QUOTE=davar55;435489]In this thread's OP with its original title, I predicted that
the next president would not be Biden or Trump.
Biden did drop out, and Trump is teflon on steroids.
Since Sanders is socialistically self-excluding,
the choice between the Hillary and the Donald remains.[/QUOTE]
The original title was: "Our next president"

That title carried an implicit "USA = world + dog" assumption in my opinion.

It was changed to "Your next president." The addition of the "Y" acknowledged that "world + dog" > "USA" alone.

I then changed it to "Your Next Novice Supreme Commander." Now that was my editorial tacit implication that a great deal of authority could end up in inexperienced hands and was also intended to be a widening of permissible discussions up to and including other country leaders who are not presidents.

I've noticed a few times you've brought up this thread's original title and post.
Here is your original post:
[QUOTE]... will not be Joe Biden. Or Donald Trump.

Who else will it not be?[/QUOTE]
I do not want to be oblivious to an original poster's wishes.

Not only did I change the thread title but I also had one of my posts in this thread deleted in May so therefore I do not want exert additional heavy influence on the thread but neither do I want to ignore your mentions of the original title and original poster and original post.

Are you satisfied with this current thread's title and scope?

I'm satisfied that we're discussing the current US presidential race,
which since that first post has taken some turns that I sure didn't expect
and that make this important election the strangest in recent memory.

To take the topical tangent, of discussing issues instead of merely candidates,
now that we're down to three candidates among the two major parties,
none of whom have expressed a coherent workable platform across the board
of issues, we might try here to scope the range of issues that a candidate
should have an expressed policy towards.

If we divide the range of areas that government addresses into
social, economic, and defense - and these do overlap, but this
division helps put things into perspective - then the spectrum of
issues and approaches to them can be addressed in the context
of differing political and philosophical attitudes. In general, the
right addresses economic issues from a free market first concept
and then brings in government only where needed to iron out conflicts;
whereas the left puts government first and is willing to create
impediments to freedom of economic action in the name of other
ideas. In general, the left approaches social issues in the name
of liberalizing social norms, while the right tends toward social stasis.

Perhaps a list of labels of categories of general issues, and a
checklist of alternative actions regarding those issues, would
draw out who stands where on what, and provide input into
the basic philosophy behind their approaches to the more general
categories of economic action and social attitude. From this
over-generalized approximation we can approach a philosophical
perspective, which could then inform the political process in
the two spheres and let us distinguish among the choices of
approach to specific issues within each sphere. By this, we
can evaluate choices against a philosophical value system
rather than against different criteria for each issue. This would
lead to best choices among the ones we start with, which can
then be used as starting points to more complete, even comprehensive
solutions to the the individual issues within a framework that
approaches philosophical consistency.

From this we can generate a set of policies that can be compared
to the pronouncements of the various candidates and of the
platforms that they and their parties either have or are developing.

Well the truth of the matter is I don't think Dr. Strangerug will be elected.

I'm not too concerned about Hillary's email investigation. I don't particularly like her but I don't hate her. As far as her place in crony capitalism, I think that is fairly well established and realistically is not much different from most participants over that last forty years.

I think Bernie Sanders' run has overall been good in shaping the the Democrat platform and has a good heads-up in alerting the campaigns to millennial trends and feelings.

Bill Maher made an interesting comment recently about socialism being the lap-band that keeps capitalism from eating everything.

o [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/06/hillarys-foreign-policy-speech-queen-galadriel-before-her-magic-mirror/]Hillary’s Foreign Policy Speech: Queen Galadriel Before Her Magic Mirror[/url] | Counterpunch

o [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/-clintons-speech-shows-th_b_10306592.html]Clinton’s Speech Shows That Only Sanders Is Fit for the Presidency[/url] | Jeffrey Sachs, Huffington Post

o [url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tom-engelhardt-how-donald-trump-reveals-the-march-of-american-authoritarianism.html]Tom Engelhardt: How Donald Trump Reveals the March of American Authoritarianism[/url] | naked capitalism

o [url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/wh-so-many-americans-are-voting-against-the-status-quo-in-one-chart.html]Why So Many Americans Are Voting Against the Status Quo, in One Chart[/url] | naked capitalism

I wonder which bracket in the table contains the "us" for whom $hillary claims to be fighting...

o One thing The Muskrat of Antiestablishmentarianism [Trump] is undeniably good at: speaking impromptu, sans TelePrompter. Our current Novice Supreme Commander, [url=http://theduran.com/see-happens-barack-obamas-teleprompter-breaks-trump-speech-video/]not so much[/url].

I don't remember if I already posted this , but well, it seem appropriate :
[url]http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/silly-jared-you-cant-vote-in-the-united-states-youre-from-kanto[/url]

The Hillary versus the Donald ... I must admit
I never expected this to be the final choice.

In light of the OP, back to the drawing board.

The Hillary was the presumptive nominee from before the beginning.
The Donald has a great talent for pushing the buttons of the willfully ignorant, who are willingly hornswoggled thereby.