As if a person's character has no bearing on their behaviour and, when in a position of power, has no influence on the amount of damage they can inflict.

Recent history shows just that. And why people pay attention to what the guy who will be supposedly in charge says.

Long gone are the days when voting equated to selecting between John Jackson and Jack Johnson.

I guess now it's more between John Jackson and Mecha-Nixon, and I wish all the best to Bernie. I hope his bureaucrat sex-appeal and sensible fiscal policies swoon the electorate.

Enough with demagogues and plutocrats! Feel the Bern 2016! Yay? Who's with me?!?

This country fought a revolution to be free of monarchies and here we are voting ourselves back into it. I can't think of anything more stupid.

Monarchy can be much more irritating

BTW Americans frown at any hint of a political dynasty in their own country yet the biggest support for the British monarchy is from the US. (Oh hell, hear the ladies scream when Prince Williams tour the US)

Because it's cute that you guys have kept it going for so long. We just don't want to have any part of it in our own country.

Personally, I'm the same in that I'd never vote for anyone blood related to another president. Clinton or Bush.

Long gone are the days when voting equated to selecting between John Jackson and Jack Johnson.

I guess now it's more between John Jackson and Mecha-Nixon

Nice Futurama reference, but I go with South Park's Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche to explain the election. Particularly if it grinds down to the least interesting of possible outcomes, Clinton v Cruz. At that point I might just write-in for the MAD Magazine kid.

And the Best President for America is....none that are running. They all have short comings or delusions that make them a liability. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

QFT!

Why do Americans hate a good economy?

because most don't understand economics.

Why don’t Americans know what is best for them?

cause by and large we're stupid, and too wrapped up in our own little worlds to worry about the big picture.

And why do they have to take the rest of the world down with them?

because no other countries have become powerful enough that america no longer has a significant impact on much of the world.

I go with South Park's Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche to explain the election.

yup, that pretty much sums it up. we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with our choices this time around. one of the worst lineups i've ever seen, and KENNEDY was president when i was born!

The point is 16 years of the Clintons (who, in contrast, would have fought with every ounce of their strength to get elected) is a very very finite time. So the dynasty thing is no excuse - if for policies reasons fine, but to avoid a dynasty? Nah you ain't seeing anything close to that

The Bush's tried to put up Jeb this time around, and IIRC they've got a younger bush they're already grooming. Do I think we'll see Chelsea Clinton run in 30 years? Unlikely, but I remain committed to not voting dynasties into office, least of all in rapid succession, simply on principle.

Dynasties are dangerous because they enshrine one family's way of thinking about the world, one family's political and financial ties, one family's biases. It gives moneyed interests more leverage by having given past support, and promises of support for future dynasty candidates.

And I don't buy it when people counter me with "what if they're the most qualified of the candidates running?" Maybe they are best of who's running, but best of all who could have been put forth in the first place? Unlikely. I call bullshit on the national parties for playing cronyism.

1, they never get elected
2. they never stop being head of state (and that means hundreds and hundreds of years - head of state for life)
3. they are tax payer funded for life (official duties, non-official, personal life included), yet all they do is walk/travel around smiling, shaking people's hands, and doing some fake stuff through charities

Slightly going off topic, but:

1. Elective Monarchy is a thing.

2. Monarchs have abdicated the throne in favour of someone they deemed far more fit for the task several times in the past century or so.

3. Most Monarchs are also landowners, and own a hell of a lot of it in their nation (Some even beyond their nation), and in the case of the UK they actually give several times more to the nation than what the nation pays them in return.

Monarchs also have the advantage of not having to pander to voters on petty issues every 3-5 years to ensure they stay where they are. Given the politics of the past century around the globe, I would almost feel more comfortable living under a parliamentary Monarchy that was far far stronger than the one I currently live under, as it would mean more actually could get done long term rather than flushing millions down the drain when one party cancels all the contracts and deals the party before them made in a petty attempt to be 'right'.

Well now, I not any kind of American and I suspect I don't even understand how their over-complicated system of choosing administrators work, but If I may I'm going to make a suggestion.

Everyone should choose a write-in candidate for president on their ballot.

They should write in "Votey McVoteface" for president.

C'mon folks, we can warm our backsides as we watch the world burn.