Trump or Iran: who is scarier?

Which do you find more frightening, the idea that Iran may someday have control of nuclear weapons, or that Donald Trump might?

My son plays this game—"Would you rather?"

There is a third option. however: Trump for President of Iran.

They'd never elect him. They have more sense.

We could play this other game Trump or Ted Cruz? Trump or Santorum?

I don't look at the Donald as all that much worse or worse at all than much of the Republican field running for POTUS. I'm not sure I'd not plump Clinton into that mix either. I have no use for her. Trump or Bush? G. W. Bush got us into a needless war in Iraq--we've lost thousands of our own servicemen dead--trillions of dollars siphoned out of this country--a good % of it siphoned to his friends--let alone all the death, maiming, destruction visited on the Iraq people. Would you rather another Bush? Trump or Huckabee? Trump or Walker?

No--I don't like Trump but I'm not playing this game that Donald Trump is the beate noire of the NY Times/Washington Post and the 24/7 television news media--and I'm supposed to suck that in. I don't trust those asswipes either and I certainly don't give a fuck about Megyn Kelly or her Fox News employer.

Mr Trump has simply distilled the Republican brand down to its basic elements: misogyny and racial/ethnic antipathy.

#5--Pretty much. He's a bit of show biz patina or WWF style bombast of the basic Republican message. To me if we're going to look at a good POTUS over the last 100 years or so it begins and ends with FDR. The two worst by far are Reagan and GW Bush. Currently we have the longshot campaign of Bernie Sanders--if he doesn't win---what we'll get we've more than less seen before and it's not going to be good even if it's another democrat. Obama turned into a huge disappointment for me. He ran as a leftist populist but turned into something more like a New Labour Democrat. A Bill Clinton/Tony Blair clone--only the empiricist version.

In the end I don't think Sanders is going to win the democratic nomination. If he doesn't it will be all over for me as far as the two major parties are concerned.

I suspect Trump and Sanders are similar in that they have pretty much captured all their potential voters all ready. I am not looking for either to substantially. increase their base.

Not sure as far as Sanders. Most Americans do not keep much track of politicians unless they're celebrity politicians. That's why I think Trump (not that he's really a politician) gets so much attention. He's a celebrity. There's not a lot of real substance IMO there. This is the first time for a large % of Americans to get to see and hear what Sanders has to say and he's consistently been on his message for years and years. I think there is a whole lot more substance there--he's just not a celebrity. He's been running under the radar. Sanders is a forceful and dynamic speaker who knows the issues and not just 3 or 4 issues that most normal POTUS candidates focus all their attention on. Sanders has a grasp on pretty much upon a whole shebang of things. Sanders does have some anger management issues. When angry you can see his face inflate and turn red and he will literally spit out what he has to say. I don't know how that will play out in this campaign if it comes to that. It can be a problem when a politician actually believes the things he says. Politics have been his whole life. He lives and breathes it like some super duper sports fan with an endless amount of time--or like a kid who plays video games all day long--every day year in and year out.

IMO if he somehow got the democratic nomination--the republican nominee would be smart to not debate him. Sanders has the numbers and facts on so many issues and the mind to bring them up almost instantaneously that he can embarrass someone who's just spinning something really quickly---and republicans like to spin.