The President of the United States, in 2020?

2020 seems a long time away, but since candidates start campaigning four decades prior to an election, it's really just around the corner. So, who will win?

Some say there's actually more than 3 trees

The first contender is, obviously, the current (in 2020) president. Now, since we have no idea who that would be, and no matter what they'll be hated, we'll go for Hillary Clinton. She's the highest in the polls right now at 44%, and the NY Times estimates she has an 89% chance of winning. But that's for 2016. So much can happen in 4 years, and there's surely no way of predicting how well she will do for the next election.

Let's begin with her 'criminal record'. Although not charged, or prosecuted, it seems like Hillary's email scandal is getting worse and worse as time goes on. It's only time until WikiLeaks produces something that the US government (the guys who aren't Bill, Hillary and Monica) will care about. Assuming she doesn't get impeached, but the public opinion decreases somehow, she'll have a tougher time getting into the 2020 spot. 

Another fun-loving-happy-topic is both the rising debt of the US and its citizens. Tuition fees and housing costs are already crumbling the economy, especially in the youth, yet it seems unlikely that Clinton will change these. Getting (legal, somehow) money from big banks and corporations for her campaign, she will side with Goliath in this fight, and I don't see her doing much for poor Dave any time soon. Unless the US economy dies, or its people do, she will stay in office until 2020.

However, fortunately for her, she'll be the sitting president. This means that, just because she already is, it's more likely she'll both get the a) Democrat nomination and b) a second term. Purely because it seems like other contenders will be dead, Trump, or pop icon, I'm going to say she has a 65% chance of becoming the President in the year 2020. (Unless any of the [somewhat likely] bad things come true, then it's only a 10%)

Two flags is overcompensation

Really, who decides Clinton's presidency for the second term will be her rivals. With Trump's ambitious and groundbreaking presidential campaign for 2016, it seems likely he will run again in 2020. He (hopefully) would have seen the errors which led to his possible defeat, and might even promote more of his liberal ideas. Not getting too stuck up on policies, what he really needs to change to get a grasp of the White House is the middle class.

Trump, right now, is blowing it away with supporters who are of working class. He tells them what they want to hear, and blames their failing American Dream on things that, well, aren't him. Whether it's illegal immigration, the Clinton Foundation or Chinese productivity, the working class love him. If he's able to push for a more middle class vote, whilst keeping his working-class-yet-lovable policies, he'll do charmingly. 

The slight hiccup is that, although in theory this works, he's still Donald Trump. As much as we wish he'll turn around and become this sensible, moderate God-Emperor that we would all adore, he still would make outrageous remarks that puts him in the news cycle for three weeks of hilarity. So, since the Donald never changes, and the USA definitely won't for him, he's at a 15% chance of winning. If Donald decides to become a president for everyone, however, I'd up him to a solid 25%. 

Skin texture of a grilled cheese sandwich, but one which has been left in the fridge for one day too long

Now, for the short and sweet outsiders. There's a third option, of course, from the 2016 election. Bernie Sanders: globally loved, politically admired, really old. He'll be 78/79 by the time the next election comes around. Not only will this endanger his chances just because of the vigorous campaign trail, but it would also be used as slander by his opposition. The oldest president to be elected was Reagan at 69. As much hope as Sanders says he can bring, we don't want another FDR on our hands. For this reason, and because he isn't a Colonel (which would increases definitely in the South-East), he has a 1% chance.

Worst ever puppeteer

Who else, who can save us from these political woes? Of course, there's the one and only, the greatest, the Cruz. Ted Cruz is like a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately for America, this bright light is a towering inferno accelerating and encompassing everything in its path for destruction. 

This is a real tweet. Just think about that.

Ted Cruz is what's making the GOP bipolar. Before the nomination, he was hated, an extreme outcast for his anti-establishment views but also for more extreme ideas, like starting an abortion war against women. So apart from his charm, what's he got? Well, since Donald Trump has clinched the nomination, Cruz has done spectacularly well in unifying the Republicans against the Donald. He's used a scare tactic to promote himself and has set him up for the 2020 election. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, he's still crazy. Therefore, no matter how much unifying he does, the public, government and GOP will still see his insanity and his chances of winning dwindle. 2%, and that's generous considering his hate towards everyone who isn't a hetrosexual, white, Christian, married, middle-class Texan.

...the Zodiac Killer was never found...

But wait, what about those who didn't run this year. I know what you're thinking, and you're right. 

Kanye West.

Millionaire rapper, husband, entrepreneur and gold digger investigator extrodinarie Kanye West. He announced his runnings in mid-2015, and since then the world has been on the verge of everything he hasn't said, because the world doesn't really care. Maybe a little harsh, but the man has no political background. Yes, he could be the Ronald Reagan of our generation, but I'm sure the mums of the 70s knew who Reagan was. My parents think Kanye West is a type of detergent, but not the expensive kind. 

Celebrities have one advantage, (most) people know them, and their fanbase makes it easier to spread information and policies. In this information age, celebrities can trend and become famous in seconds, nothing is possible to be kept a secret. So Kanye has that going for him. However, he doesn't have the political awareness that he needs in the campaign. Assuming it's not a joke, he would have to begin now to create himself as a political idol in Washington, otherwise he'll be laughed at. Trump, although many disagree with his political attitude, has been in the realm of politics for decades, sponsoring and donating thousands of dollars to political heavyweights. Since Kanye is unlikely to grasp this political intelligence anytime soon, he has a 1.5% chance of winning, upped only because of his fame. If, however, he becomes politically aware, then I'd see him being the dark horse of the 2020 election, and he then has a 20% chance of winning.

That don't kill me, can only make me stronger
- Kelly Clarkson

Of course, we're forgetting this a two horse race, as always. So with that in mind, there's a prominent icons missing in this list.

Kang, although an outsider, and fictional, has extreme political sway in Washington, with the use of disguise, spaceships and mind control. Seriously, however, The Simpsons has actually calculated many correct things for the future, predicting smart watches, Farmville, Siri's failure of communication, and the horsemeat scandal. What are the chances they'll be wrong on this one? Since it's an almost certainty, the real aspect of chance is in the existence of alien life; the universe is infinite, which means it has to be true. So Kang has a 100% chance of winning, depending on his inevitable existence. But don't blame me, I'll be voting for Kodos.

It was either this or talk about another factory-made plastic politician and sometimes you just can't get enough of Kang.

Now, not everyone can be included in such a strenuous list, and there is still 5 years for political heavyweights to come out of the fray. Who knows who will decide to run? To narrow it down, he's a comprehensive list of those most likely to run, and their chances of winning.

Hillary Clinton       60 %

Donald Trump        15 %

Elizabeth Warren     9  %

Cory Booker            3  %

Marco Rubio            3  %

Andrew Cuomo      2.5 %

Tom Cotton               2  %

Ted Cruz                   2  %

Kanye West             1.5 %

Bernie Sanders          1  %

As the observant of you notice, there's still 1% left. That's for the other 322,762,008 US citizens eligible to run. If you are, good luck. You'll need it.

It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

Every so often, we're told the world will end. Whether the Mayan's calendar will eventually end, or it's the second coming of Jesus, a year doesn't go by where humanity isn't confronted with an obscure obstacle that eventually becomes comical. The comedy of something so impractical becoming even improbable makes the notion of the world's implosion just... embarrassing. We're taught that no such thing could ever happen, and instead of choosing to wait for doom, we are taught about the advancements and the history of space, time and us. In an ironically depressing way, it may be that these advancements are what lead us to the dusk of humanity.

Since the dawn of humanity, the most important aspect of our survival, of our development as a species, has been education. Without learning, teaching, reciting and reading, we would never have technologically evolved into the space-invading, life-creating, innovating creatures we are today. Schools and university's have been the way forward for every generation, and rightly so, since we are the age where everything is achievable and possible.

But not today. Today, education has taken a back-seat, and fallen off the podium. Education has failed us for the past 40 years. It has jested with lives, and joked about our future. Today, the end of the world is coming, and we're too busy laughing at ourselves to see it

Climate change is the most serious problem our species has ever faced, and is unfortunately an amazing alliteration I didn't come up with. Global warming has been seen as a political debate for too long, it's divided parties and divided hearts. But not for whether to save the planet or not, but whether the weather is actually weathering the planet. Some politicians, especially those in the US, see climate change as a political tool to compromise and morph into negotiations that don't matter. Or they just down-right don't believe it is happening.

But it is. Climate change has taken its toll already, thinning the Arctic and Antarctic's ice, and making 2016 have the hottest months ever recorded. Humanity needs to act fast, to change its gluttonous ways of fuel use of oil poison to stop the inevitable and undeniable devastation it may have caused. Since the start of the century, there has been cause for concern; recycling increases, awareness of change and basic every-day help towards the environment. However, it isn't enough anymore. The government, every government, need to step in and control what is becoming a horrific turn of events. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 had an amazing concept, except no one kept to their Carbon Dioxide limits. There was no punishment for doing worse and no reward for good since every government is independently run. This isn’t enough; this will end up being the Hail Mary that humanity threw but instead tripped over it's own feet because it had it's shoes on the wrong feet. We need to do better, and we need to do it now.

The other argument that I left out was that the climate change we are experiencing today is merely natural, and can be seen in patterns from millions of years of Earth's history. This is a valid argument, and there is no disproving that a pattern is emerging. and we're just in the wrong place at the wrong time. What matters, however, is that this argument still means the basic end of the world; the end of humanity and the end of our lives. This argument, however, doesn't stop our activism for the environment, but propels it even more. It shows that if this pattern is natural, we need to do everything possible to stop Mother Nature. We need to act more, act fast and act now.

Education is still important, and always will be. But would you rather give the best education for the last days of your great-great-grandchildren, or save the world and leave a legacy for their great-great-grandchildren. This isn't about whether if we should act; climate change has already begun. The question now is, how do we stop it? How do we save the world?

Generation Socrates and the Ever-Changing Similarities

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannise their teachers."

I know it's a long quote, but it has meaning for what I'm going to say. And don't worry if you didn't read it all, I normally can't get through it without laughing once or five times at the word 'gobble'. It's just great. Anyway, the reason for the quote is because, although seemingly modern and really relevant to today's millennials, it's a quote from Socrates. The philosopher who lived 2400 years ago; he lived closer to the Pyramids of Giza being built than he did to the English Civil War.

So I use his quote to establish the millennials, my generation's, plight. It would seem that, just like Socrates', society has essentially not changed in the aspect of how generations view each other. We see our parents as children did during the Napoleonic Era, and parents view us just like parents saw their children during the Roman Empire. But, as a teenager, and especially one from the 1990s, I'm here to be stubborn and demonstrate how we're different; how we have it worse. 

Let's look at, initially, the worst possible thing: war and suffering. The generation now have it splendidly well, with the longest and greatest peace-time in recent human history. There is no Cold War, and nuclear winters to be afraid of; no European superpower conflict, and no barbaric colonisation. We live, today, in a world of relative peace, where our parents and grandparents and grandparents may have died for us to live in it. Unless, of course, we include the latest form of war; terrorism. Of course, terrorism has existed for millennia, destroying spirits, hope and democracy. But only recently, due to the explosion of transport, information and technology has it become a new form of war: a way to actually gain something politically. When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, that was terrorism. Now we live in an age of New Terrorism, where thousands of people can be murdered instantly through the use of transport, or through the use of new arms technology. Terrorists aren't going for the heads of state anymore, now they aim to kill anyone and everyone. They don't have political agenda, rather they terrorise to be terrorising, nothing more, nothing less. We now live in a world, created by those older than us, where thousands of people might as well be Heath Ledger's Joker. 

So maybe war wasn't the best one to start with, since it's never been great, and really I can't blame my parents for a man who get's tactics and Tic Tacs confused, and then decided to invade/arm the Middle East. But enough of the US presidents from 1970-2008, the next topic of our plightful agenda is money. (I'm kidding, but to purposely name presidents would just be unfair, so you get to guess which Bush I'm talking about)

This is about the direct link of money to Millennials compared to those of Generation X. Living in the UK, and having lived in Dubai, been to the USA and most European countries, I hope I can have a somewhat unbiased opinion of how the perceived value of money has changed. But unfortunately that won't be true; you will have to make up your own opinion not just from me, but from everything. Money is a very vague and difficult topic to discuss, so I'll start with probably the biggest failures of Generation X to now: house prices. To buy a house, you will most likely (almost definitely) need to put down a deposit (5-10%) and then pay the rest in a mortgage over a certain time period, as expressed by whichever bank and/or pay-day lenders you're getting it from. This is what it's been for years, but only recently has the getting of the deposit actually become an issue. House prices have increased so much (And I can talk, I'm going to live in London and I literally have to work 30 hours a day so I can live there [literally]) that gaining that 5% minimum for a deposit might take 10 years. "But hold up... that's 10 years after you start work, even if you finish university and then work you'll be 31 and own a house" I don't hear you say. You're right, that isn't much. Even if you do have a family and have to get a 3 bedroom home when you're 31 which means having a great job (which is much more achievable since you went to university) then you're set, what am I arguing for?

We've missed two key points. The first key point is that the 10 years I stated it would take can only apply if you're debt free. So you can't have any university debt. Which is a problem, since most graduates have about £50000 worth of debt. But it's ok, since the debt is dissolved after 30 years, so you will be able to put down that deposit by the age of... 51. And then you won't be able to get the mortgage since the banks don't see how you'll be paying off a 30 year mortgage in a time-span of 14 years (assuming you'll retire at 65). But wait! That's only the first problem. And incase you were wondering, the answer to the first problem was that you should get a better job, you went to university after all. Which leads us on to our second problem; everyone's going to university. Not only do I spell it wrong every time, univercity has also become so saturated in the past 30 years that a degree now has the equivalent value of a-levels in the 1980s. This isn't exactly a problem, since it's amazing that the generation of today is smarter and brighter on average than anyone beforehand, just because we have so many resources in education. But that isn't why people are going to university; they're going because they want more money, and better jobs. Which ironically isn't happening because they're degrees are pointless because of that exact reason. University should be about learning, for the academics and for the people who want to excel in knowledge. I'm going to university so I can learn and debate better, so I can expand my capabilities and so I can become a better me for whatever I do. I'm not going to university so I can become a money-loving, wealthy business scoundrel. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be that, so would everyone else, but university isn't the way to go for it. You have a higher chance of winning the lottery. 

There are many ways Millennials are disadvantaged, but probably the biggest, and most factual one, is climate change. Climate change has been proven to be related to human activity in the past 50 years, and the generations before us have done nothing (until very recently) to stop this. The ice caps are melting, temperatures are rising and animals are dying, and this is the biggest issue of our generation. The older generations saw it as there's to pine off to us, hoping we'd ignore it or it would just go away. Now, we stand in the face of adversity and need to change what people older than us have started. Climate change is the only issue that matters because if we don't care, our future generations won't be able to care. 

So there we have it, maybe Socrates was right, maybe every parents and children see each other the same no matter the time frame. But one thing is for certain; each generation has to stand up against something, whether is be fascism, racism, sexism or terrorism. Today's generation need to stand up against climate change, against the tyranny of money and against terrorism. We need to fight back, like our parents, and their parents, and Socrates's parents. We are the new generation, now is the time we become the generation that matters, and who mattered.

Jimmy Carter or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

In 1977, NASA's Voyager 1 took off for a journey of the unknown, experiencing anything and everything other than human. In 2013, it was the first man-made object to enter interstellar space, and leave the solar system. The spacecraft consisted of 116 photos and diagrams of human life, imagination, culture and science. These photos will adventure into the outer realms of space, further than we can fathom, to encounter any other civilisation or life that exists. It will exist through humanity's height and humanity's fall, and only these 116 images will remain of everything we know.

One thing that stood out was the letter that Carter signed, declaring "We human beings are still divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a single global civilisation". At such a pinnacle time of humanity, on the brink of a nuclear apocalypse, Carter saw the world coming together, closer than ever. This is because, even though the Cold War was an anguished time for the world, we were at global peace for longer and more consistently than ever before. World War One, World War Two; wars that saw the greatest destruction of humanity never seen before, but this was still more peaceful than the rest of the centuries prior. Whenever a soldier dies, and it's displayed on the news, it's tragic. But by simply showing their death indicates how far we've come, from the Second World War, from the Napoleonic Wars and from conflict millennials prior. When one death in one day is seen as horrific, we've come far as a nation, as a civilisation, as a world.

Can humanity ever condense itself into a single global nation, one of relative peace and harmony?

The cynics would say no, that culture and difference of nations breeds conflict. Judaism in the Middle East is a prominent example, where there has been constant conflict since Israel's creation. But is this disaster due to the separation of heritage, or because of the way it was founded. Personally, I view Israel as a successful failure. It was the worst outcome for the best options, and had the best outcomes of the worst options. Unfortunately, we will never know what would have happened if anything was different, whether a different option could have started World War Three, or made peace in the Middle East. The failure of Israel isn't the condensing of nations and culture, but due to the effect on the Palestinian people. Nation-states can, and hopefully will be, a political messiah that does create harmony, but it cannot start with Israel. Still today, the UN, those who created Israel, don't see Palestine as a country. There are few issues that I can't argue both sides of the story, but to dissolve a country, move it's inhabitants and then disregard any pleas from the Palestinians is disrespectful to humanity. Israel will only exist as an oppressive state, not because of it's people, it's nation, or because of it's politics. It's oppressiveness survives on in it's existence, and hopefully soon this will be vanquished with the creation with an equal Palestinian state. For those unknowing, the creation of Israel would be similar to an Islamic State (not to be confused with the barbaric troglodytes with the same name) being installed over and replacing Rome, with all it's inhabitants having to live in a desolate area of the Alps with no sovereignty. Mistakes are human nature, but then ignoring your mistake at the expense of the lives of others isn't naturally human. Israel isn't a model state for a global nation.

The liberal nationalists of you, however, would, like me, see how Israel has failed not due to the concept but because of the execution. A far better example would be the United States of America. [Side note: we have to ignore that the American's killed most of the natives, because then the example doesn't work. This is different from Israel since America has seen it's wrongs, and obviously tried to make amends. Also, at no point has a supranational body not accepted the existence of native Americans] The USA, today, is a conglomerate soup of diversity, every citizen has another nationality other than American. Irish, Italian, German, African, Cuban, Mexican, Canadian, Vietnamese, from all over the globe you will meet an American with a second nationality that their just as passionate about as their first. The United States shows how these different cultures can all live together, with different cultures, heritage and language, under a single banner. It's a success, showing the world what we need to try and achieve.

Circling back to what Carter was portraying, and asking the question: are we at the start of a single global nation? The information age we are in has brought everyone closer, with science, music, language and history. We share culture as the world becomes a smaller place, and now we can achieve a single global nation. A single global nation that strives to achieve exploration, adventure, excitement; together. In hundreds of years humanity will look back on this time and see now as the time everything changed, from looking inward to looking outward. We need to do what is hard, we shall counter what is bleak, and we will achieve greatness. 

All ideologies are flawed. Apart from mine. Mine's great.

Parties exist to have some uniform system in government so it isn't 650 independants who can't agree on anything. It began because a like-minded set of people believed in roughly the same policies, and ideologies, and became a party. The problem with parties, and like-mindedness in general, is that all ideologies are flawed. The initial flaw in ideologies are that with each different person, they will have a different ideology. The individual has their own ideology and only theirs; people may think a like but if you talk long enough you'll find differences. The second problem, the more fundamental one, is that all ideologies believe in a utopia. Since a utopia is unachievable, a literal dream, then trying to achieve a society in a utopia is flawed.

Socialism is an amazing concept. It is the best form of government, and cannot be argued with since it means everyone is equal, innovation is at it's highest, and everyone is the happiest they could possibly be. But only in a socialist utopia. The same could be said about a capitalist society, where everyone gets a piece and even the poorest of the poor are uber-rich since the trickle-down effect works. But only in a capitalist utopia. So we're stuck at a standstill, where ideologies only work if the impossible can happen, and thus ideologies are worthless. You might as well be throwing pennies in a wishing well, or growing beans in your garden and changing your name. Ideologies are flawed because it's what we want, not what we can have.

The current system of government we have now, Conservative vs Labour (and Lib Dems and SNP etc etc but who really cares about them) is a two dimensional system. It's a 2D system in a 3D world, where different ideologies have to work together since believing wholly in one will create utter chaos (see USSR, or Germany 1938). The only way we can achieve relatively what we want is by compromising with the enemy.

This my interpretation of Churchill's quote "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." It shows how democracy, because it instigates separation of people and parties, is the only governmental system which can have a compromise. Democracy uses the people as pawns to elect those who are pawns to decide and debate and negotiate what they should do with their pawn lives. Alright, the chess analogy didn't work as well as expected there, but it means that only with democracy will we get the freedom of debate. Democracy is the only form of government that operates at a three dimensional level, getting what the left and the right want; in proportion to what the people want. Parties are used to create factions, but only when there is a large majority does this really matter, and when there is a large majority, it's because the people wanted it. Only when there is one party, a majority so large the others don't matter, is when a democratically elected government fails to be democratic. This is because there are divisions between the people who voted for the same party, but they did anyway since they had a major issue or out of desperation (like Hitler in 1933, where he was democratically elected). When a party becomes too large, it should split into separate factions to keep the democratic system alive. Otherwise we might all as well just get the Queen back into power and see what ideas she has, because apart from democracy, we're all out of them.

God Bless America 2: The Chamber of Secrets

This is only a short follow up, since I didn't think it was necessary to write it in the first post.

Clinton won't win the election. She is disliked by half of Democrats and all Republicans. She takes money from big banks, and can't handle debates against Bernie Sanders, a 74 year old living in Vermont. Hillary came into this election assuming she can walk it in, using her gender, past and husband to win over the public against some radical Republican who wants to build a wall against CANADA (nice one Cruz). Instead, she has had both a battle internally against Bernie, and externally against Trump. Unfortunately for her, she seems to not understand the change this year is showing with money outside of politics. Regardless of policies, Trump has her crushed since she has taken a wealth of riches from Wall Street, and with Bernie supports still eager for change, they will agree with him. She won't win, it won't be close, Clinton will lose and it will be Trump 2016 since he cares (we don't actually know what he thinks, but it seems like it) about the 99%, not the 1%.

Also she totally broke the law with all that email fiasco and really it's a federal crime and she's shrugging it off like she knows she's above the law. Or maybe she's internally screaming and in her free time searching for apartments in Moscow next to Snowdon's. In reality, she won't be punished for it, rather she'll get a free pass because of reasons outside of all of our control.

Oh, that's another reason she won't win, since it is in our control, with what democracy we have left.

God bless America

There will be a revolution this November, a revolution that will change the face of US politics, and hopefully world politics. The election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has already become the most talked about topics of everywhere I go, and I'm 3000 miles away in a country that will see little effects from it. The problem with revolution is that the reason for it isn't to promote a new system, but to destroy the current one. We don't know what will happen, what won't happen and if anything will happen. We just know that in January 2017 we will either have the first woman president, or Donald Trump as the United States President.

To digress slightly, there are three things I believe about government. Three opinions, so be careful with trusting what I say, because that's the basis of my entire blog.

1. Democracy, and only democracy, is the safest, most stable and only long term way to succeed as a government.
2. Religion should not interfere with politics.
3. Money should not interfere with politics.

Now the first two are standard, written in some constitution somewhere in every democratic country across the world. The money is what breaks that pattern. Money in politics is the reason for the destruction of our democracy, and then the breakdown of relations between religion and government. The Koch Brothers are, for those who might not know, the puppeteers of the Republican Party in the US, controlling and funding many of the Republican officials. This wouldn't be a problem if money wasn't needed to say, get re-elected, but unfortunately the US has turned into a busk-a-thon rather than an actual governmental system. Congressmen from both parties work constantly, every day, trying to raise money to be re-elected. If they don't reach a quota, then the other party with more money will be elected instead. This is, of course, in theory, since money isn't 100% what gets someone elected, it's only about 75%. Money does however help advertise the other 25%. The Koch Brothers, of almost limitless wealth, can boost the Republic nominees as long as they vote and do things in their favour. This isn't official, but is common knowledge to anyone with access to 15 seconds to Google and the willpower to actually care. The money in politics is what leads to a stalemate, a stagnation of change and destabilisation of our democracy.

This is why there will be a revolution. Trump, strangely enough, is the shining light in a murky sea of despair. Ignoring the positives and negatives of Trump as president, his election will be the end of the Republican party, or rather the end to money in politics. He isn't controlled by the Koch Brothers, or any other higher power, just himself and his own money. Regardless of his policies, personality or polygamy, his efforts will change the face of politics. It will show the people how money is invested in politics, it will show how the Republican Party is controlled by money, and it will show how Trump, a man hated by millions, can get into power because of his millions. This revolution, of course, began with Bernie Sanders, who outlined all these issues. He demonstrated and showed the people how money is ruining our democracy, and how there was no politician not controlled by the money. Bernie may have lost, but he will be remembered for what he started.

Fortunately, in the UK, there is law and rule on donations, campaign money and election capital. MPs do not have to campaign every day, and can time in doing their work, actual political work. There are flaws to the UK political system, but not one in regards to money. Although it should be universally standard, we have a great thing in the UK, where even the Conservatives (the Republican [but not really] UK alternatives) aren't bought by money. Remember the "pig-scandal" last year, with David Cameron allegedly putting his genitals in a pig's mouth? That was from one source, Lord Ashcroft, who wrote it in retaliation for Cameron rejecting him a place as a minister. Ashcroft is not an MP, and tried to buy his way into politics. He failed, and Cameron's reputation smeared through the media with an outrageous (probable, yet not impossible) lie. In this sense, Cameron is a hero who defended our democracy, and with it sacrificed himself to slander and conviction of doubt. Fortunately, in the UK, we have politicians like David Cameron who will stand up for democracy. 

Money in politics is a paradox, since money being in politics makes it a business, not a form of government. Therefore, the US is running a business, with money in the centre of it all; rather than what the public wants. Money should be what our government controls, distributing it how we see fit, with education, policing, law and education. Money should not control our government, because then it is those who control the money who control the government.