Even when Trump may have a good idea or two, his temperament and personality negates it all.
There is a place for conservatives ideas within the public forum and while their messages are valid and at least deserving of consideration, the messenger in woefully inadaquate to the task.
The GOP will deserve the pasting it will receive come November 8th from not vetting its candidates more carefully.
The populist right is advised to get a better standard bearer, next time. Regardless of what the conserves say about the media, it still hold sway over much public opinion and griping about it will not win elections for you.
Imagine, not one endorsement from a major news paper, but again, I forgot 'Der Sturmmer' as the sole exception. Arizona, a once reliable Red State, is actually waffling on supporting the GOP in the first time in decades.
You conservatives and GOP types need to do some serious soul searching as to how to make your ideas more attractive to the broader population, or you are doomed to repeat this performance next time, as well.
For anyone who has done their research, reviewed the very efforts of Hillary in the last 30 years... then this is a no brainer... there is no one who could be worse... not for our country, not as a person... just type in "Hillary Clinton Exposed" and pick a movie or clip to watch on Youtube.
Determine for yourself, stop listening to the propaganda.
I'm not defending Trump, what I am saying is there is nothing worse than Clinton... everything she says is a lie.... from Healthcare to taxes, everything will become worse... and if you vote for her, you own it.
Yet, Clinton is winning from every aspect used to measure such things. The GOP made a poor case of demonizing Clinton relative to the problems with its own candidate. I neither like nor trust Trump and I will take my chances with Hillary in response. I guess it just depends our own individual world views, does it not? The question is which one will prevail on November 8th.
C2, you take a horrific "chance" with either candidate, and ideology blinds us to the worst in the debacle of choice. I agree with Ken - Clinton is an abomination; Democrats made a terrible choice in selecting her just as Republicans made a terrible choice with Donnie. However, the "demonizing" of Clinton SHOULD have been successful, considering all the information that's available regards her poor temperament, poor judgement, corrupt nature and far left policies that mirror Obummer's.
Yes, I preferred another choice but he is not available. Of course, the same people that warn us about Clinton was telling that the 'sky would fall' at the election of Obama or even Bill Clinton. When they do get 'one of theirs in', he screws the pooch, if you know what I mean?
Why do you think that the demonizing of Clinton was not successful?
Trump's deficits seem to resonate with the electorate far more than Clinton's.
Uh, well, let's see. It wasn't successful mostly because the media (gosh, I hate to treat the media like a monolith, but that's pretty much what it is) didn't even look into much of what's been put out. Take something like the Romney dog incident, and the media dives on it, without even looking into it.
The 'media' as an explanation sounds more like an excuse. Why does the right always blame the media when they lose? It assumes that people are puppets that cannot ferret out the truth on their own. Just like Trump, the media is only legitimate when he and consevative/rightwing candidates win?Nobody has to be capable excellent political analysis and commentary to see that Donald Trump is a toxic candidate.
Fine, you don't like Hillary. I can see why. However, these sources you are citing are exactly the propaganda you object to. None of those are reliable in the least. They have no standards. You may not like them or their bias, but NYT, CNN, Washington Post, most of the major new networks, they all have standards. If you are going to make your decisions by googling stuff on the internet, you are not going to get very good information. I know when I Google stuff, I find people who believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and various other nonsense.
Okay. But you cite NYT, CNN and Washington Post as having standards? Yes, standards from hell; if they really had standards, they would attempt, at least to maintain some degree of objectivity, but they don't. They're extraordinarily biased, just as the sources that cite "propaganda" - there's no escaping it, seemingly, internet sources, newspapers and major news networks. The media is biased, and they're not really trying to hide it.
You don't know what you're talking about and are comparing journalistic standards to baseless rumors, innuendo, and conspiracies. They're not equivalent.
This should be of renewed interest. Trump appears to have threatened Mitch McConnel and he is ticked! I get a lot of heads up on fake news.
This isn't smart, not making nice with the Senate Majority Leader is not a good way to start when you want to make America great again.
I was wrong about my initial position on the 'sinking ship', but the dingy is still full of holes and will probably still find its way down to Davy Jones' Locker, but it will be later rather than sooner.
One man's bias is another man's propaganda....perspective. I understand that some of what's reported on the internet is just that, propaganda, and not strictly an example of bias necessarily. But propaganda and intentional bias (that's primarily what I'm referring to) can spring from the same desire - to mislead, misrepresent, to seek to ensure a particular outcome, etc. I suggest that intentional bias in the media IS propaganda.
I concur with Sychophantastic. I just had a similar discussion of validity with someone on Facebook. If you are going to bring up ways to validate, please bring up reliable sources. Unfortunately, for Donald, he, himself has validated everything for us with his careless rants at the debates and rallies, and discussions with journalists on tour buses. As for Hillary, I haven't seen one speck of evidence that doesn't back up everything she says. She is equipped with sense enough to apologize even though her emails do not even measure up to the disgrace of Trump's crooked ways. That's the truth! like it or not.
May I correct here... That is YOUR truth, like it or not.
" I haven't seen one speck of evidence that doesn't back up everything she says."
That has to be the best line I have read yet, anywhere, during this long race between these two. Thank you for that, humor can be hard to find in all this.
What?!?! Are you insinuating that the FBI did not back up her assurance that she did not put classified material on her server? Horrors!
Alright then Ken, where is it at? All this evidence if you think my comment is so comical. I mean really! You need to come at me better than just acting like I'm a comedian you got a big laugh from. If you think that makes me stand down on what I think and believe; well, you know better than that. We've had debate before over this and you know I can stand my ground. The real joke is the people who think Trump is smart enough to lead our country. That is hilarious!!! Again, please do show us your valid evidence so we can be put in our place. lol... #teamnastywoman #sofunny I must thank you for giving me a laugh back.
Thanks Sychophantastic for posting that link!
No I really don't, no need to "come at you" at all. All I can say is the absurdity of the statement you made is almost as disconnected from reality as Hillary is from the truth.
For anyone else that hasn't already had their fill of this go to 6:15 and watch from there, where discussed are some of the crimes, just a few.
You've come to the party late, half the country has already voted, I know I have... and I'd say 99% of the rest already made up their minds. As for what happens, its out of our control. It was nice to debate the issues and the candidates, but now its time to put this in the past.
The only thing left to debate now, is just how fraudulent the Election is, the voting process, the Electoral College.
As many Bernie supporters can attest, it really sucks believing in a Candidate only to realize that they never had any chance, and the outcome was rigged from the start.
Or if you just want to laugh about it all, check this guy out... he's a riot:
Ken, I totally agree. The system is completely rigged. If you're a woman in this country, it's rigged against you because if you do the same job as a man, you're paid about 75% of what the man makes and that's if you're lucky enough to get the job in the first place. Trump may grab 'em by the you-know-what, but most women are pretty much used to the symbolic grabbing if they're pursuing a professional life.
If you're an African-American, the same thing applies. If you're just as qualified as a white person, statistics show you are much less likely to get the same job if you apply for it. And Donald Trump knows this all too well about rigging the system against black people where housing is concerned. If you're a black person, and you try to rent an apartment or building in a Trump-owned facility or elsewhere, odds are the landlord will give the apartment to a white couple long before he will ever give it to you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/po … .html?_r=0
You're kidding, right? You accuse Trump of racism in renting his apartments and as "proof" offer cases from the other family members that are 30,40, and 50 years old? From the time when such racism was on every street corner?
You're totally right. My bad. I forgot that the GOP declared racism was over in 1965.
Not that I'd EXPECT a "Trumpeteer" to ACCEPT Factual Data, but here's a Well Constructed SUMMATION of REPORTED Racist Activity by "Racist Trump" ~
It includes a FINE of $200,000 for REMOVING Not ONLY African Americans from the FLOOR of a now DEFUNCT Trump Named Casino in New Jersey, but the Removal of Women as well to PLEASE a "High Roller"~ A "DOUBLE Dipper" for DOPEY Donald ~
This guy would be a "SHOE-In" as President of the KKK & given his current position, he might need a REAL Job REAL Soon ~
HERE's the FACTs ~
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-rac … -2431421#.
Honestly, I regretted even coming into this conversation as soon as I posted my thoughts. Not because I feel disconnected with reality, Ken, but moreover, because you are right about something; It's pretty much over now, and it will be a waiting game from here on out. Everyone is already putting their vote in, and I feel I want to follow suit to Elvis, and just leave the building (debate). I can't even believe I commented to be honest. I told myself I was finished with this type of conversation weeks ago. I do, however, wish you were right about my disconnect to reality, but I know I am full focused on the reality of it all and it kind of sucks! I have the sense enough to see the big picture. Donald is the Devil, and Hillary is probably not a saint herself! Even so, out of the two, she is the most knowledgeable and will keep us from the apocalypse. Haha!! This is becoming a big laugh for me. It just is! Peace!
Ken, I'm curious about you.
First, kudos for using, what I assume is your real name. You're braver than I. Second, thank you for your service to our country.
Looking at your bio, I wouldn't automatically assume you're so staunchly, what seems to me to be, right-wing. I guess I could extrapolate that you grew up rich on Cape Cod, but that seems a stretch and isn't normal for somebody who goes into the Army. And you worked for a couple of non-profits, which I'd normally associate with somebody more left wing. Anyway, how'd you come by your political leanings, if I may ask?
Sycho, I appreciate that you took the time to review my profile, and kudos for trying to extrapolate why I have the views I do from that info.
I am not Dem... I am not Rep... I am Pro-America... Pro-better-future for my family and hopefully by extension all American families... but certainly NOT at my families expense.
It is because I have traveled throughout the country, throughout the world, and worked, directed, non-profit programs and in general seen what I have seen that I come by the views that I have.
Mostly I tell it like I see it... often that gets shifted by people into my being 'One of them' sometimes that is "right wing" and sometimes a "liberal"...
I am not going to turn a blind eye to what a person is, simply because they are a Dem, or a Rep, or an American for that matter.
We are largely a product of our experiences... but we are also wired a certain way, and can't help but be who we are.
Ever see the Avengers movies? Civil War, Winter Soldier? Captain America the 'hero' ended up being the "bad guy" wanted by his government (SHIELD a covert government agency) in one and the U.N. in another, because he stuck to his beliefs, what he believed was right, and he paid the price for it.
Captain America the self-righteous do-gooder who believes in saving the world. Well I don't believe in saving the world, or taking on government or anything... but often I can't help but doing or saying what I believe is right.
Corrupt is corrupt, wrong is wrong, deplorable is deplorable no matter what Party a candidate belongs to... Dem or Rep doesn't matter to me... that works the other way too, if the candidate supports the things I believe are right, and isn't a total dirtbag I will support them, no matter what party they belong to.
I don't like our choices... I would love to have the ability to support Condoleezza Rice, Mike Huckabee, or a dozen politicians that are articulate, well mannered reasonable human beings that have shown some ability to empathize with others.
The system is more corrupt than Trump has alluded to, I think we all know this to one degree or another... its just that some of us still believe that one party or the other is responsible for it... Washington (Congress, the WH, the Establishment elite) has sold out to international corporations and foreign nations, that isn't going to get better with Hillary at the wheel. And we the people suffer for it, we the people pay the price for it, not them.
Would it be better with the CEO of a multinational corporation at the wheel, who shows no indication that he's capable of putting the needs of the country before the needs of his own business empire? People don't realize there is no legal reason Trump can't be the CEO of Trump Inc. while he's president. What happens when the needs of ordinary working people clash with the needs of Trump Inc? Does that sound und like a recipe for unbiased decision making that benefits ordinary people?
I'm bewildered as to why people think Trump would take corporatism out of politics. He is corporatism. All it would be doing is taking away the middlemen (politicians) and letting one of the corporations run the show directly. It's the equivalent of some hens trying to stop fox-related disappearances by hiring a certain Mr. Fox to be their leader. It's just absurd.
It is interesting (and puzzling) to see that same question over and over - "How do we know Trump will do what is right?". Of course we do not, but the (current) alternative is a person that has repeatedly exhibited a very strong disinclination to do it. There seems to be no reason to take an acknowledged evil over what might turn out to be an evil, but that little bit of reasoning seems left out of the Clinton supporters. Either that or they simply refuse to acknowledge that she is evil - the Hillary is #1 on her thoughts and actions, that she does use her political power for purely personal gain, that she does put her every whim above the needs of the nation.
Perhaps that's all it is, but it truly does seem an irrational choice to make, for Clinton absolutely will cause considerable damage to the country while it is doubtful that Trump can, no matter how hard he tries. He simply does not have the political power base that Clinton uses so superbly, and he never, ever will. His fortune will avail him no more as President (to accomplish personal goals) than it did as a businessman, while her political power will grow exponentially if elected.
Quill showed me this once... "^5"
I think it suits here. That was nice work.
Ken suggested Trump would take corporatism out of politics. I'm curious why he thinks that. You're trying to pivot to the morality of the candidates in general. I'm happy to discuss that, but it doesn't address this specific issue.
If Trump followers believe Trump will take Corporatism out of politics, I ask any of you to name one thing (just one) he has done that indicates that. If it's true, it shouldn't be hard.
As I said, rather than remove corporatism, Trump is the embodiment of corporatism. You'd only be removing the middlemen (politicians) and effectively giving Trump Inc. direct access to the influence of the president's office. I'd like any Trump follower to explain how that is taking corporatism out of politics?
And the idea that Trump would only have as much influence as any other businessman is massively naive. It would effectively be Trump Inc. dictating the legislative agenda, and directing foreign and domestic policy. Again, I'd like to know how that is removing corporatism from politics?
(bonus points available for answering without mentioning Hillary Clinton - it seems the "yeah, but Hillary" defense is you can muster)
Well Don, Wilderness said it pretty well.
This is all I can really add, I have reviewed Clinton's long history, and the thing that sticks out that cannot be countered:
She says whatever is politically expedient, whatever she thinks will win her votes, she has flip flopped on every major issue... from race, to trade, from war to religion... she stands for NOTHING because she is willing to sacrifice ANYTHING for her ultimate goal(s).
The only thing that matters to her is power, relevancy and power, prestige and power. If you are a threat to her power and position, you are an enemy, even if you are telling the truth, even if you are totally in the right, even if you are the one that was tragically wronged.
If you are a threat to her power, her position, she will use the IRS against you, the DOJ, private investigators, secret intelligence services you don't even know exist... nothing is off the table, she has used all such avenues already, as first lady, as Secretary of State... and as President I can only imagine her ability to reach out and strike at those she considers her enemies will be limited only to what her imagination can think up.
No one is going to do an investigation on her, no matter what she does, we already see that the media will ignore or bury any accusation that comes out. The mainstream media is owned and controlled by only a handful of people, and they are on the side of the Establishment, the Clintons, and part of the Washington corruption that is in control of this country and its deterioration.
She is going to be the most powerful, untouchable President we have had in this country since FDR... maybe she will surpass even that... this is the closest to a dictatorship America will have come to in living memory, and her ability to shift the Supreme Court to the extreme left... out of balance, will essentially make it a Government unopposed.... the Supreme Court will back her, the media will back her, and Congress will be nothing, President Obama has already laid the path on how to go around Congress with Presidential Executive Orders, he was slowed by the Supreme Court, that is no longer going to be an issue for Hillary.
So yeah, I would rather have an ineffectual (at worst) Trump in the White House, over an unstoppable Dictatorship that will be able to withstand any and all resistance to its authority.
And what makes it most scary of all, is she is totally callous, disconnected from everyday people and their struggles... you can see this going all the way back to her earliest professional years, helping a rapist pedophile get put back on the streets, ruining the lives of anyone Bill raped or molested, swindling elderly out of their retirement/life savings on criminal real estate deals... she is willing to sacrifice any and all of us for her gain, her power, her control.
Perhaps you missed the question. You said: "Washington (Congress, the WH, the Establishment elite) has sold out to international corporations and foreign nations, that isn't going to get better with Hillary at the wheel"
I'm asking you, or any Trump follower, to explain how Trump would remove corporatism from politics, when he is the embodiment of Corporatism? Name one thing (just one) he has done that indicates he will do that.
The idea that Trump would only have as much influence as any other businessman is naive. It would effectively be Trump Inc. dictating the legislative agenda, and directing foreign and domestic policy. Again, how is that removing corporatism from politics?
Before anyone starts with "yeah but Clinton", please note I'm interested to know how you believe Trump will remove corporatism from politics, which has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.
This "legislative agenda" you so blithely ascribe to the President actually belongs to the legislature. To congress. To the House and Senate, not the President.
To a large group of people, then, nearly all of which hate Trump as much as you do. Explain again, please, just how President Trump will dictate that agenda?
I'm still waiting for a Trump follower (any Trump follower) to explain how putting Trump in the White House will take corporatism out of politics. No one seems willing (or able) to explain how making the embodiment of corporatism the President would remove corporatism from the political sphere.
Of course there are checks and balances, but to imply the president has no real power or influence is ridiculous. Corporations pay millions of dollars to influence politicians with only a fraction of the influence the president has, and look at what they have achieved in the last 50 years with that limited influence.
Now imagine one of those corporations controlled the White House. Trump would not only be able to set the legislative agenda for an entire party, but would also strongly influence which way members of that party voted on certain legislation. In a two-party system, that's significant.
But how would Trump influence the Democrats? The same way corporations influence politicians now, by buying them. Through various lobbying efforts (all done legally of course through subsidiaries and obscurely structured business entities) he can easily exert influence over the Democrats too. More importantly, he has the money to. Or perhaps you think the Democrats are too principled for that to happen? That would be a very naive view.
So Trump, unlike other GOP presidents, has the ability to buy Democratic politicians, which we know corporations do all the time already. What about SCOTUS? Who confirms the Justices for the Supreme Court? The Senate Committee on the Judiciary. And who makes up that committee? Members of Congress . . .
So through a unique combination of extreme wealth (he's richer than all previous U.S. presidents combined) and political power, Donald Trump (and by extension Trump Inc. which he can legally remain CEO of) would be unique in the amount of power and influence he wields.
Again, can you explain how electing Trump will take corporatism out of politics?
"Of course there are checks and balances, but to imply the president has no real power or influence is ridiculous."
Almost as ridiculous as implying a President can dictate whatever laws he wishes. In reality, Trump will never have political power that can come close to the economic power he already has. The addition of the tiny bit afforded to a President without a party (and he has none) won't make a bit of difference.
Just as you say, Trump can use his business influence to affect congress. Whether he is President or not, he can do that and being President will add very little to that power.
"So Trump, unlike other GOP presidents, has the ability to buy Democratic politicians, which we know corporations do all the time already."
Thank you. That is indeed the point I'm trying to make. His power is already there and becoming President will add virtually nothing when it comes to making laws benefiting him personally. That takes political power and he has none.
"...Donald Trump (and by extension Trump Inc. which he can legally remain CEO of) would be unique in the amount of power and influence he wields."
Except that he will never, in his wildest dreams, even being to approach the amount of power and influence Clinton wields...without being President. That takes long years of politics, as an intimate member of the legislature and not as a businessman buying politicians.
So all the questions and insinuations that we know Trump will conduct nefarious activities if in office means nothing. Just as we know Clinton already performs such activities and that being President will greatly increase her ability to do so. Seems rather silly to worry about the mouse in the corner when a fox is already in the hen house and looking to become a wolf, doesn't it?
Question for you: has Trump ever (successfully) lobbied congress to get laws enacted that will positively affect his business? Has he ever made million dollar contributions, followed by such laws being enacted? We know Clinton is on the receiving end of such things, and in a big way; has Trump ever played the other end of the game?
Money alone is not enough. Political influence alone is not enough but: money + political influence = power.
Right now Trump has the money, not the influence. Elect him president and you hand him both.
And no, of course he couldn't dictate all legislation, but he wouldn't have to. He would be perfectly placed to "steer" it in the relevant direction.
This money to power dynamic has been years in the making. Corporations have naturally tried to influence successive governments to meet their own interests. Over the years that has gradually chipped away at the democratic process. Electing Trump would be the apex of that process.
Trump doesn't lobby, he makes deals, with anyone and everyone. That's part of the problem. It's not that he is immoral. He just has no morals. Like a corporation, he is A-moral. Remember, Trump Inc. is not a public company. There are no shareholders to answer to, i.e. provide a moral compass (not that it works with other corporations anyway). Donald Trump is Trump Inc. Make no mistake, if Donald Trump is elected president, a corporation will be in the White House.
You can downplay that, but I think you're being naive if you think putting a corporation in the White House will not do a great deal of damage. The worst part is that Trump doesn't even have the knowledge to understand the damage he could do.
If Clinton had her own money she could be just as dangerous, but she doesn't, so she's not. Even if she became president she will still have relatively little wealth. Again, money + political influence = power. Even as president, Clinton would only have one part of that equation. Donald Trump is unique in that becoming president would give him both parts. That would be very bad. We're not talking end-of-the-Republic bad (personally I think he would be impeached within 2 years at most) but bad enough to cause some lasting damage.
So I'm still waiting for a Trump follower to explain exactly how putting Trump in the White House will take corporatism out of politics.
"Right now Trump has the money, not the influence."
"Political influence alone is not enough but: money + political influence = power."
"Corporations pay millions of dollars to influence politicians"
I trust you can see the inconsistency in your statements?
"He would be perfectly placed to "steer" it in the relevant direction. "
Yes he would...if he had any influence with his fellow politicians. He doesn't and he won't, but Clinton does and will. By your reasoning she will be quite capable of "steering" things, and experience shows she will do just that. Isn't your concern misplaced just a bit, then?
"Trump doesn't lobby, he makes deals, with anyone and everyone."
Trump doesn't play the political power game, then. Naturally not as he has no political power base to work from, and he never will, whether President of businessman.
"You can downplay that, but I think you're being naive if you think putting a corporation in the White House will not do a great deal of damage."
And yet...it seems silly to think that a business man that hasn't a chance to create political alliances with a group that actively hates him and has done everything possible to exclude him from their organization (both parties) can do much of anything in the White House. On the other hand a woman that has an enormous political power base, and is known for using it for personal purposes, most certainly will accomplish things. Your forlorn hope that those things will be for the good of the country (like exposing secrets) is just that - forlorn.
When one has the power base that Clinton does, money is no longer necessary. When she can, and does, use the FBI, IRS and other strong arms of the nation as her personal tools she doesn't need to buy political power. Rather, they buy her, and with a vengeance. Bad. Very bad. J Edgar Hoover bad. End of the Republic bad, just as you say. Unfortunately, you indicate (correctly, IMO) that Trump might be thrown out, but Clinton can never be as she controls the powers that would do the throwing.
So take another look, a real hard one with reality in mind rather than simple hatred for Trump and re-think the position that Trump will do terrible things while the angelic Clinton will do only good things for us all.
I don't think Clinton is an angel, by any stretch, but I find this characterization of her to be less than persuasive. I'm not her biggest fan and am not supporting her enthusiastically, but I find it mildly off-putting that politics is an arena where attempting to pursue advancement is considered a negative. And if it's a woman, it's generally considered downright evil. I am, by no means, asserting that this is your view. That said, it is common for people, particularly men, to look upon women who pursue professional advancement as being mean and unlikable. I think this is where a lot of the animosity toward Hillary Clinton comes from.
I am not happy with the current state of things in Washington, but Clinton is actually known to be someone who is an uncommonly good listener and somebody who can work across the aisle. I don't see that in Trump.
So let me clarify.
Right now Trump has money, but not the influence he would have as president.
The limited political influence he can buy outside the White House makes him no more powerful than any other CEO, but his money + the political influence of the president's office = more power than any previous president or CEO.
Corporations do pay millions of dollars to influence politicians, but that influence is limited by the fact they are on the outside looking in. Elect Trump and you will be putting a corporation in the White House.
That opens up a whole new level of influence. The power to veto legislation (yes Congress can override but only with a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House). Commanding the armed forces. Convening/adjourning Congress. Granting reprieves and pardons. Issuing Executive Orders etc.
More importantly, the president can promote and demote members of congress by using positions on various committees and subcommittees, and by appointing/ removing cabinet members. Those movements can make or break a member of Congress's political career.
So suggesting Trump would have no influence over fellow politicians is just incorrect. Just being president would give him certain authority and influence over members of Congress, especially from within his party. That's one of the perks of the job.
And where that authority and influence doesn't extend, he can fall back on his deep pockets. As you rightly say, Trump isn't interested in politics. He doesn't care about political ideologies (see Trump quotes posted by IslandBites). He'd have no qualms using one of his obscure companies or business entities to throw a stack of cash at a Democrat. Comcast, Wal-Mart, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Coca-Cola are all corporations that donate to both Republicans and Democrats. That's just business, but it only gets them limited influence. Trump would be different.
No corporation could ever hope to exert from outside the White House, the kind of influence Trump would be able to exert from within. I know Trump has cultivated this image of being a straight-talking ordinary hard-working guy. He is far from an ordinary working guy. Elect Trump and you will hand over an unprecedented amount of power to a single corporation, because make no mistake, a vote for Trump is a vote for Trumpo Inc.
Whatever you say about Clinton (and I know you can say a lot) putting a corporation in the White House is not an effective way of taking corporatism out of politics. You may as well just raise a white flag and announce a corporate takeover of government.
Don and wild are mistaken.
Trump and Clinton have no control over Corperation being in the White House. Most Americans are delustion by this American dream myth that the Government works for the people first and not for the Corporatism first..
America Government was a corporation in 1877 the all functions of the US Government went under Corp. US in 1913, even the Queen of England is a Corperation. US military, Police, Federal Reserve and so on are Corperation having no or little responsible to the American Continuation or Freedom act or true democracy. When your ID name is in Capitals you allow them to own you. Corperation go under the law as a person yet can escape the same responsibility.
Continues this path and continue slavery to toxic products and synthetic living.
Your big list of things a president can do that we don't want a business man to do are all boogey men. He can convene congress, on extraordinary Occasions when the houses cannot agree. He can appoint cabinet members, with approval of congress. He can grant pardons. He can even give executive orders.
But none of those are likely at all to benefit him personally. I suppose he might grant a pardon in return for cash, but come on! That's always been the case!
Overall, that's all you have to offer: scare tactics about what Trump could do (but in actuality can't to any significant degree) that have nothing to do with being rich. And not a single one of what you DO propose as being scary apply exactly as much to Clinton, with the added caveat that she has 30 years experience in doing just such things (abusing political power for personal gains).
And yet somehow it is only Trump that "concerns" you. It seems very obvious that it isn't this at all - that you just don't like Trump and are willing to ignore what Clinton is and does. It is only the boogey man in the dark that you have to offer with this repeated question of what might he do as President.
Let me get this straight. Ken suggests Trump will take corporatism out of politics. I point out Trump is the embodiment of corporatism; that he's legally entitled to remain CEO of Trump Inc. while President; that he would have more wealth than all the presidents in history combined; and more political influence than all current CEOs. Then I ask (reasonably I think) exactly how electing this man would remove corporatism from politics.
And your response is: being President of the United States is not a very powerful or influential role anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
That's just not true Wilderness and you know it. You didn't mention authority for executive action in your summary. An example of that authority includes Executive Order 9066. That's the Order authorizing the forced relocation of Japanese Americans into internment camps in 1942. No approval of Congress is needed for the President to issue Executive Orders (you may remember the GOP complainaing about Obama's use of them). That's the sort of authority the president has, and that's what you want to give to Trump/ Trump Inc.
You can't possibly think that's insignificant, which leads me to believe you want Trump to have that sort of power. That begs the question, why? Are you really that desperate to build a wall, deport families, and ban religious groups from entering the country?
First, you didn't ask how Trump would take corporatism out of politics: you asked how we know he wouldn't use his money, as President, to increase his wealth. A far different matter, and the one I've been addressing.
Second, I didn't say that the President wasn't powerful: I said that Trump as president would not add appreciably to his already considerable economic power base. Again, a far different matter.
You complain that I didn't mention executive orders: "He can even give executive orders." is what I said. I didn't say that those orders would not increase his profit margin, but it's true and such actions as interring Japanese won't do that. Now, he could make such orders as Obama's wherein illegal aliens would be allowed to stay in the country and police could do nothing about it and that might gain him money...but that order was illegal and Trump can't make it stick any more than Obama has.
So we're back to where we started: Trump will not have the power to benefit him monetarily, which is what your insinuation was and what you feared might happen. While Clinton has already used her political power to do just that and you pretend it isn't happening.
And yes, if whole families are here illegally, violating our laws and feeding off our largess, I want them out. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Clinton has any intention at all of ensuring compliance with our laws and openly flaunt them. Not that that illegals is sufficient reason to vote for Trump, but Clinton's willing and eager stated intention of ignoring the President's constitutional duty to protect our borders is a reason to vote against her, just as is her willing and intentional violation of other laws is.
But against that stated and experienced violation of our laws all you can provide is scare stories that Trump might follow her footsteps and do the same kind of thing. Doesn't wash.
"First, you didn't ask how Trump would take corporatism out of politics: you asked how we know he wouldn't use his money, as President, to increase his wealth."
Here is every time I have asked how Trump would remove corporatism from politics:
"Ken suggested Trump would take corporatism out of politics. I'm curious why he thinks that."
"I'd like any Trump follower to explain how that is taking corporatism out of politics?"
"Again, I'd like to know how that is removing corporatism from politics?"
"I'm asking you, or any Trump follower, to explain how Trump would remove corporatism from politics, when he is the embodiment of Corporatism?"
"Again, how is that removing corporatism from politics? "
"I'm still waiting for a Trump follower (any Trump follower) to explain how putting Trump in the White House will take corporatism out of politics. No one seems willing (or able) to explain how making the embodiment of corporatism the President would remove corporatism from the political sphere. "
"Again, can you explain how electing Trump will take corporatism out of politics?"
"So I'm still waiting for a Trump follower to explain exactly how putting Trump in the White House will take corporatism out of politics."
Perhaps you'd like to answer the question now.
"Trump will not have the power to benefit him monetarily"
Only in your reality is that true. In the real world, sensible people have no doubt Trump would be even more self-serving in the White House than he is outside it. If you don't understand how, I'm sure Trump's friend Putin and his cronies would be able to explain the dynamics of making money and corrupt governments.
"And yes, if whole families are here illegally, violating our laws and feeding off our largess, I want them out."
And there it is. You're willing to hand over the White House to Trump Inc. because you hate undocumented immigrants. You should have said that from the start. Would have avoided all the other nonsense you've tried to rationalize supporting Trump with.
The fact is, you believe someone who is sexist and racist, and the embodiment of corporatism, should be president because . . . you hate undocumented immigrants.
Finally, the truth. But you do realize that is, in fact, deplorable.
Perhaps we're talking about different statements or things:
"Would it be better with the CEO of a multinational corporation at the wheel, who shows no indication that he's capable of putting the needs of the country before the needs of his own business empire?"
But to answer your question of how Trump will take corporatism out of politics: he won't. Any more than Clinton will. And the difference is? It is increasingly odd that you attack Trump for doing exactly what Clinton is. Although Clinton sells her power to the highest bidder and Trump hasn't.
"In the real world, sensible people have no doubt Trump would be even more self-serving in the White House than he is outside it. "
And as support you offer...what? That all "sensible" people believe that? As long as "sensible" is defined as those that believe as you do you have a point. Otherwise, none at all.
"And there it is. You're willing to hand over the White House to Trump Inc. because you hate undocumented immigrants."
Somehow you conveniently left out the next thought on illegals: "...Not that that illegals is sufficient reason to vote for Trump,...". Did you mean to? Not quite so deplorable when the entire thought train is included, is it? But that seems to be your method; to only consider the words you wish to, without bothering with the whole discussion.
The fact is, you believe someone who considers herself above the law, is a thief and a criminal and grossly abuses her political power should be president because . . .well, because you hate Trump. Bad hair, maybe.
Sorry folks, there is no taking corporations out of politics nor Government.
America is a corporation, not a Country. It made up of franchises of corporations and the people are slaves or servant. I can find all kinds of documents and even sign stating it is law of private corporation. The public have given up their domain sovereignty to corporation.
Obama stated the American people are too small minded to Government themselves. So Corporation since 1913 are all powerful sovereignty overlords and all powerful beyond all people and things. Everyone bows down to the Government, for it is the only true God that everyone worship.
This is a little confusing. A corporation, at it's roots, is nothing more than a group of people that have agreed to work together. To share their resources (whether capital, labor, skills, knowledge or something else) and share in the profits (whether money, society, culture or something else. It might be a business, a church, a commune, a government or many other things as well.
The country as a whole is definitely a corporation, then, albeit one without the legal aspects as defined in our laws. It is a group of people working and living together, sharing their resources and profits. We can never take corporations out of politics as corporations are people, not some vague evil entity out to do us wrong.
It is one thing to working together. Or are we mostly following what ever the mass Corporatism is telling us what we must do, or what to buy and what we think by media, like the Matrix.
The evidence for me is 80 % of people spending most waking hours of their lives not liking what they do. Rather than financial being 1/5 of the equation in a persons life,. It is most of the equation worth of a person.
If you think people are Corperations . Then you have been bought, package like stuffed sausage and Sold down the river like politicians.
corporatism |ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm| noun
the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
corporatist adjective & noun
who makes up the "groups?"
P E O P L E …?
Yes, the most evil people in the world who are only interested in more for themselves and less for you.You know the Greedy basdard who want new world Corporatism order. Why do many Americans keep preventing central bankers and greed is good, they will all go down with the ship of fools too.
We agree on something. Trump will not take corporatism out of politics. And I agree Clinton is unlikely to do that either. But I believe Trump represents the greater threat to the country and to democracy.
And yes, in my opinion no sensible person would want Trump anywhere near the White House. I'm entitled to express that opinion, just as you are entitled to disagree with it.
I missed the part about "sufficient reason". Nevertheless, immigration is something I know you have strong views on. So I believe it's an important part of why you (and many other Trump followers) support him. I also believe it is the reason he has more support from a particular demographic and less from others.
Your view on what Clinton thinks, is just opinion. Your claim she is a "thief" and a "criminal" is just untrue. When was Clinton found guilty of theft (or any crime) in a court of law? If people are guilty based on what their accusers say, then Trump is a sex offender.
In contrast it's a fact Trump is sexist and racist, and it's a fact he is the sole owner of Trump Inc, a fact that he happily admits he is part of the problem of "lobbying and influence-peddling", a fact that the influence of the president's office would be a boon to any corporation, and a fact that there is no legal reason he cannot remain CEO of Trump Inc while president.
So the election comes down to: should someone who is known to be sexist and racist, and the embodiment of corporatism, be president?
My answer is "no, someone who is known to be sexist and racist etc. should not be president".
Based on your comments, your answer is: "yes, someone who is known to be sexist and racist etc. should be president because . . . although Hillary Clinton is more politically capable than Trump, she doesn't agree with me, so might change things in a way I don't like".
Not the best justification to put a sexist, racist corporatist in the White House is it.
Let's remember that President Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any other two-term President in the last 100+ years.
Very good point. But, if you listen to the right-wing hype - you'd think he was an evil (literally) dictator. Absolutely NOTHING would get done in DC if the Presidents didn't do that because we keep the Senate & Congress divided against that office - JUST SO that they can't accomplish anything. It was the same way when the GOP was in there - which is why Bush was one of the Presidents who used THE MOST 'executive orders'. (It was one of the things that really p*ssed us 'liberals' off - bad us!)
GOP are always blind to their own double-standards. Why is that?
Rant as much as you want about the media, but conservative media has been JUST as harmful when it comes to objectively reporting on Democratic perspectives (including Hillary's). The Obama's have done a pretty good job in office. At the very least, they should get credit for somehow NOT bringing about the apocalypse.
As such, I have absolutely NO REASON to believe that Hillary won't do an even BETTER job than Obama has.
I've said this before and I'll say it again here... The GOP are the ones who shoot themselves in the foot - you really need to stop blaming everyone else, including the media. If McCain had chosen a semi-acceptible VP nominee than Palin, he may very well have won against Obama in 2008. And now you're mad because we Independents don't like Trump for reasons that are just as concerning.
Pick a decent nominee, and next time you MIGHT win.
How many executive orders did Bush give out that were determined to be illegal?
How many of those illegal orders set major American policy?
How many executive orders did Bush give out that were determined to be illegal?
How many of those illegal orders set major American policy?
Determined by who,Wilderness? Are the distinctions you make just merely partisan snipping?
The court system. Neither you nor I, nor a political party, has the ability or right to declare that something is illegal. We can only offer opinions.
Well said "Misfit~Chick" ~ Just a couple "OBSERVATIONs & Responses" if I may ~
* Anyone who UNDERSTANDs "Global ECONOMICs & Finance" as I do & "Drumpy Trump" doesn't, will Recognize the FACT that President Obama & Administration Performed a Proverbial "MIRACLE" by "Resurrecting" the Catastrophic Economic DISASTER Republican George w Bush left him ~ Therefore, President Obama will indeed be recognized as a "TOP 5" in United States HISTORY for that Accomplishment alone, not to MENTION his many others ~
* If I remember correctly, John McCain was LOSING his Bid for the Presidency against Obama & his "PALIN Pick" was a "HAIL Mary" act of DESPERATION to change the trajectory ~ An act which as we know now, SEVERELY Backfired ~
BTW ~ NICE Pick of the President Looks like a Potential CD COVER
So, a pedophile, a racist, a misogynist, and a self centered blow hard is much better for the country? How does ANYONE justify this individual's actions? If he was anyone else, he'd have been under the jail by now. And what his supporters fail to realize is that he's getting ready to screw you guys too lol. The one thing I can say about Trump, is that he is an equal opportunity hater. NOBODY likes him lol. The Aliens are really laughing at us right now lol...
Well said C2. I take no joy in seeing my candidate win this election. The GOP didn't even put up a fight. But just watch them fight come January. Their goal will remain what it has been for the last 8 years: that absolutely nothing get done. Then watch and see what sorry nominee they get to run next time. We need a second major party in this country. By any chance, after this experience, might they become one?
Yes, talk about bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight? Thishas to be embarrassing for the GOP regulars. I am a left leaning voter, but if the GOP had picked a better candidate they would have had a chance to defend itself and its issues well enough to be at least competitive. Polls leaning both right and left are talking about not merely about a loss, but a rout.
We still have the problem of the GOP house majorities, we need to dispense with them as well. Since, there is a chance the Dems will regain the Senate, maybe President Clinton can finally get the Supreme Court vacancy filled. It was dumb for the GOP to deny Obama his initial choice for the position as it would have been much more conservative than what Clinton, as President would place in nomination. But alas.....
Conservatives are, by their very nature, stubborn. I would like to think 'lessons learned', but not with these guys...
Marco Rubio would have won this election if Clinton was his opponent.
You are probably right, a less caustic mainstream GOP offering would have certainly done better. Because of that possibility, I was afraid of Clinton's highnegatives and was more comfortable with Bernie Sanders on her left flank.
Not with the robotic drone of his 'message'.
"Their goal will remain what it has been for the last 8 years: that absolutely nothing get done". Yeah, I don't mind that when the things that are to be done are WRONG!! Not that Republicans want to do a lot of great things, but under Obummer, the agenda was just plain wrong in most cases.
Its a little bit late now... not enough people, not enough by far, have woken up to this reality. We are going to be marching off to a major war soon.
Russia, China, and Iran VS America, some European states and Saudi
Or in other words... we are about to make global the Saudi Arabia vs. Iran war - AKA - The Sunni-Shiite Proxy Wars
Why you ask, would we do that?
Because Saudi Arabia has invested Trillions into America?
Because Saudi Arabia has invested hundreds of millions into the Clintons?
Because we are fighting over control of the world's largest sources of oil & gas?
And more prone to destruction if it attempts to do away democratic principle and the rule of law....
personality! Who cares about personality when what he proposes will help the ship stay the course to SOME extent as opposed to NOT AT ALL.
Oh, I am in Liberal waters ... sailing away quickly .. heave ho ...
You will thank me and the majority of the electorate for keeping the egomaniac Trump away from the White House. And yes, we of the left will win this contest. The Right only has itself to blame.
The problem is that the vast majority of Americans are not left or right. They are in the middle and being crushed by the hatred the two sides display.
I don't know about that, conservatism and liberalism are distinct values and concepts and working within these forums I see very little middle ground just looking at 'regulars' who participate. A liberal on one topic has the highest probability of being a liberal on another, for example. What kinds of people make New York and California a democratic stronghold while TEXAS as a large, populous state remains GOP? Just wondering...
Within the last 30 -40 years from where we all saw things pretty much the same and the differences between the parties was minimal, that is far from the case, today.
I'd say that the average american is a hodge podge mix of conservative and liberal values. I lean liberal in a lot of ways, conservative in a lot of others. Most people I know are like that. The fact that the left and the right refuse to work together to compromise and do what is best for all of the people of this country is the biggest travesty I see. I know the left will whine that the republican congress stands in the way of progress but I will say that when one side is not willing to look at the ideas of the other and incorporate them into the whole there is valid reason to balk.
The problem is that the left and the right have divergent solutions to the nation's problems. For instance, I find it purely obstructionist (McConnell)to interfere with the President in filling the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. We also differ in our belief over how much the Obama administration has attempted compromise with the GOP, who seems to favor an all or nothing strategy as the modus operandi.
Wilderness, for example, departs standard conservative dogma over most of the social issues, but is ironclad regarding all of the rest of it.
Where do you consider yourself liberal? Reading your comments seems to point to a conservative bent in your overall point of view.
American Conservatism: The attitude and policy that although the American citizen is willing and able to support and care for themselves, they are basically children, uneducated and ignorant in all matters of Our Lord and Basic Morality. As the inquisition ended centuries ago, Conservative politicians must provide laws that force education in both areas and force compliance with correct morals as defined by the Lord (or at least as defined by the shamans interpreting what our Lord tells them). In American conservatism that means the Christian god - no other gods or beliefs need apply.
American Liberalism: The attitude and policy that although the American citizen understands basic morals and will behave in a moral manner (except when it comes to providing charity), they basically children and have neither the responsibility nor ability to care for themselves. It is up to the liberal politician, therefore, to ensure that all people have not only the necessities of life but as much in the way of luxuries as can be taken from others without active revolt. The liberal politician must provide not only physical care but protection from stupid or unknowing actions by the citizenry as they are incapable of making decisions themselves. There must be no aspect of daily life left unregulated as the citizenry cannot decide for themselves what they should do.
I would assume I'd be classified a social liberal. I do think we should help our less fortunate neighbors. Although I think my idea of help would deviate from the standard liberal because I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.
I think we should have national health care although that isn't what I consider the Obama solution to be.
I suppose I am not a liberal since I do believe in less government control over the individual and I don't believe that money grows on trees. And, of course, I am not a liberal since I refuse to overlook Hillary's many crimes.
It is impossible for Americans like you to " soul search " away from entitlement voting isn't it ?
You talk about personality ; Yet you are swayed by Hilary's sociopathic , psychopathic , totally unbelievable rants and promise . That means you and those like you don't have a clue about what you're telling others TO DO!
Some advice , keep believing the media cool-aid , BUT remember that old saying "don't count your chickens yet "speech ?
Don't count them yet ..................:-}
Like my dear departed auntie used to say, 'you gotta use for head for something else besides a hat rack'. Eh, horsey?
We all have plenty of clues as to what is going on as you will discover on November 8th. That has got to stick in your craw.
Nobody is talking about entitlement. Do you read and comprehend? She is not being put up on a pedestal, but in my opinion, Trump is worse and who are you to say otherwise?
You and your sort will lose and continue to lose from now through eternity.....
I just love that last line , THAT shows the entire mindset of this new liberal America ! The leftist ideology becomes actually biblical to you , it's a "War of the Worlds " fed and nourished by cronyism , false flags , cries of "racist , homo-phobia, gender-phobia , Islama-phobia ", just about any phobia possible as long as the media feeds on it and the YOUR school kids swallow it whole.
"Smile for the camera" is the new left in America , Any camera that ,as liberal as the essence of the new the media is , points in your ego-centric direction !
You know it and I know it .
I don't know about your portrayal of left wing ideology, but I am certainly familiar with the rightwinger and his or her fascist ways!
Aren't you afraid of blacks, gays, and Islam?
Not at all,
I am more afraid of
Authoritarian attitudes that see the democratic process as an inconvenience.
Rampant militarism that more crosses the line as offense rather than defense. While we have a trillion dollars to build an airplane, we have no money to invest in our people and our society.
I am afraid of the bunch that are more than willing to support corporate cronies and their excesses at the expense of the working and middle class.
I am afraid of people that insist that we all have to have the same religion, political outlook to be considered AMERICAN.
Contrary to consevative dogma, I define people based upon what they do, rather than linger on superficial labels, always promoting an US vs THEM attitude.
No , actually THAT is what you wish to PORTRAY me as ;
What liberals will never be able to do is debate and win in political discussion , it always comes down to a name calling , that calling out of about six terms............. , always ! What liberals also fail exclusively to see is the futility of trying to disprove their true intent in ANY political debate .and What is that ? The attempted disguising of entitlement voting .
So There !
A most revealing and interesting read, particularely from the National Review. Even if we consider both candidates scoundrels, Trump's affiliation with bigotry and alliance with those groups that have been the greatest offenders, knocks him out of the running in my opinion.
I'm tired of trying to reason with Trump supporters. They're beyond hope. So, I wouldn't mind seeing them sink with the ship.
I have said it innumerable times in the past and on this forum, unless the GOP gets it's $#!^ together, Hillary will win the Presidency. Both of these horrid candidates can do nothing to change the country for the better and probably things may get worse if either win. We are wretched bunch when we are left to elect a candidate that will make the country worse but each to what degree? Congress is at the heart of the problem yet we ignorantly elect someone who even on their best day can only make things worse. Congress will do to either of these candidate elects what they did to Obama and the corporate donation train knows it. We really do deserve this as our apathetic and ignorant knowledge of our government and how it runs plays this out. We cannot see the forest for the trees.
Lets review our recent past and consider.
We elected Obama. The Democrats held House and Senate at the time.
They chose to pass Obamacare despite 75% of the nation being opposed and lying to us about how it would work and benefit us.
That is a sign that the majority of Americans were pretty smart, in not wanting a bill turned into law that no one could see or discuss what was in it.
Voters voted in as many new Politicians as they could after Obamacare was passed, in 2010 and 2014 hoping that they would do something about it...
Hundreds of new politicians were elected as much because they said they opposed Obamacare and would do away with it, as anything else.
Yet nothing happened, all they seemed to do is get in bed with Obama and do as he asked. Ryan especially seems more pro-Obama than most Democrat Reps and Senators... what options do voters really have when the Speaker of the House is doing more to help Obama than most Democrat politicians?
So here we are... the people are so frustrated with how corrupt Washington is... with how they are being ignored, their futures ruined, their healthcare and taxes raised... that they trashed all the Republican Politicians in favor of Trump... and most likely will do the same thing on Nov 8th against Hillary.
Sad thing is, it won't matter, the popular vote doesn't choose the President.
Good analysis! With an approval rating of around 13% to 16% it seems that many don't care for the way Congress does it's business.(1) Yet we seem to re-elect them from a low 82% to 93% rate.(2) I have to ask where the disconnect is other than ignorance or just plain apathy. Without the electorate even paying attention to what it votes on maybe it is time to make the law such that it winnows out the cancer with term limits. Maybe then people will become more involved when responsible leadership takes a few of the perks their bought representatives hand them.
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/172859/congr … level.aspx
and the motivation to keep it. We must rise above the media.
So, what is your solution, tyranny and dictatorship? The process we have while not perfect has no alternative except brute authoritarianism. I won't tolerate that and neither should you. What do you think has to be done about all that 'poor and misled rabble'?
This is true, technically the country was lost in 1913 I believe, when Woodrow Wilson decided to allow a central bank. From there on out neither the politicians or the people really had any control of the country.
Social issues have progressed, heck, they do everything possible to get people to focus on social issues... equality, abortion, sexual misconduct, whatever they can come up with... anything other than the real issues and especially economic issues.
Before computers, it was a lot harder to control elections, but with 16 states now having Computer Voting Machines its no longer a problem, the days of having to worry about real election results are over.
Hillary Clinton will be the next President, that was decided... ohhhh about two years ago I imagine, the rest has just been a show... one that has concerned them some due to Trump's surprise popularity and unconventional race, and strong support from about 40% of the population... but none the less a show.
The voting has barely started and you're telling people to give up as if the votes are already counted? Isn't that an admission the election is rigged in favor of Clinton and a reason she shouldn't be allowed to take office?
Her corruption is another reason she shouldn't be allowed in.
The day that Cheryl Mills told Podesta they needed to 'clean up' the email scandal, Hillary Surrogate Terry McCauliffe met with the FBI agent who oversaw the Clinton email case & his wife and promised financial support ($500k+) if she ran for office.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/com … ryl_mills/
Then there is the proven left wing bias of the social media sites.
WikiLeaks Makes DNC Look Bad - Banned on Facebook and Shadowbanned on Twitter
http://investmentwatchblog.com/twitter- … ebook-now/
That's on top of Twitter's outright purge of conservatives and libertarians and sneaky shadow-banning of others like Scott Adams when they post something positive about Trump.
Allum Bohkari: Leftists Rig Social Media!
I expressed an opinion, I am not telling people not or how to vote. You can vote for whomever you want, but just be aware that I am going to do the same. I am just another dangerous minority voter that the GOP has been trying suppress, but I can't be suppressed easily.
Against the rightwinger, we will see who has the last laugh?
From your profile, I see a dangerously fascist oriented individual. You can call my background what you will. But your portrayal of yourself is anything but flattering
But like most rightwingers who run out of ideas and give up on the idea of consensue, they resort to stupid talk of violence and insurrection. Nazi Germany was defeated, and so will be the fate of the new fascists wanna bees.
This type of militant attitude is of your own making. No one is attempting to suppress anyone in America and claims of such simply foment ill will.
Congratulations. For being so easily manipulated and used.
What are you talking about? What militant attitude? Are you sure you are addressing the right post? You ought to be talking to Hemisphere, but I hear nothing from you or others about his promotion of naked fascism within our political system.
This voter suppression thing is not science fiction, if you would look beyond the right wing blogs, you will see my point.
I don't read right wing blogs. I don't read left wing blogs either. Voter suppression? I have seen reports of attempts at voter inflation from the left but not voter suppression.
It's funny how the left constantly complains about their imaginary evil right but won't open their eyes to transgressions by the left.
Unfortunately you are giving some examples that only prove that this election is over. From how facebook and mainstream media has handled this plethora of insider information that has become public knowledge, everything prejudiced beliefs to outright criminal activity and perhaps even Treasonous acts... perhaps... definitely in other times in our Nation's past what has been exposed by WikiLeaks would have landed the Clintons on death row for treason.
When you think about the stink they made about Iran-Contra and prior to that commissions about the Commie scare... and here we are with evidence that the Clintons are involved in far worse, and all the media and government does now is bury it.
That tells you exactly who is going to win this election... and the outcome was decided long ago, before one vote was cast.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/ … index.html
Even Trump is going to vote for Hillary!
While I know that Clinton has high negatives for a reason, the conservatives would have found a problem with Sanders or Obama as well. You don't like politicians of a liberal bent, and I do, ok, just admit it. So, how much of this Clinton is Machiavellian stuff is suppose to register? So, we have had Bush dynasties, Kennedy dynasties and Roosevelt dynasties, none of those occupants have brought the nation to the brink. So, how is it that Clinton is the great usurper that would defy separation of powers established by our government? Just how much power is she being given credit for actually having? Trump speaks like a dictator and tyrant, while most of these accusations regarding Clinton and such come from right wing blogs. If Clinton wins in a landslide which is totally possible, it is the same people that tells us the sky is falling who always do. If Hillary Clinton is the monster that you claim that she is even when compared to Trump, I will just have to see it for myself.
You don't like the Obama administration nor the progressive agenda, I get that. However, I do and most probably the majority of the electorate does as well. She will earn her victory by presenting better ideas to the populace, not through vote rigging or people being spoofed by so called liberal media.
No, she will not win the election by presenting better ideas. She will win by dirty tactics, backroom deals and subterfuge. She will win by garnering votes from people who don't like Trump personally. She will win by lying to the American people as she always has.
God help us all because her arrogance will keep us embroiled in wars.
What Republican candidate dose not want to go to war or don't dare say it? All top Politicians must go to war rigged by the Puppeteer masters.
Most Americans don't want to go to war, they don't have a say in the matter. Because US is no longer a democracy and is a war economy. There is very few other areas America is number 1 in anymore. Certainly Muslims countries do not want democracy.
New world order is already here, only the common people can change it by a revolution. War is not justified and never solves anything except makes big money for the greedy and gives us less.
I think the last hundred years of our history show Republicans mostly walking softly and carrying a big stick. The big wars had democrats in office when we were pulled into them. Hillary,.by statements she has made, is a much more dangerous candidate to the quest for peace than most democrats are willing to explore.
I only have faith in the people, never would climb in to bed with federal politicians. Don't trust them at all, not at all. It would be a relationship based on fear, not love.
Yup, I suspect what is to follow will be a succession of events:
1- Hillary as President
2- One way or another she replaces two Supreme Court Judges in under 24 months time.
3- Congress is made irrelevant due to the Supreme Court's balance being shifted in her favor.
4- Executive Orders combined with the continuation/follow-through of TPP, TTiP and U.N. agreements being enforced and brought into effect even if Congress tries to block them (as they have done, and as the Supreme court has done to Obama).
5- By the time re-election time has come around, there will be no real opposition party, there will be no real elections... we will have them... but the outcome will already be determined, just like the Dem Party primaries, there is no real alternate choice, just the illusion that people have one.
6- After her re-election... the 2nd Amendment will be amended, but in effect done away with, the IRS, DOJ, NSA, etc. will be used against 'terrorists' those terrorists will not be Islamic Jihadists or other threats... they will be what we have considered for generations common, normal Americans... the ones that ride around with bumper sticker saying 'you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands'. It will be a slow, progressive, change to our nation, that occurs over years... nothing to worry about so long as you don't mind having less... less liberty, less income, and less justice and protection from an overbearing government.
A not unreasonable forecast. We can certainly look for a far more authoritarian government with subsequent loss of freedom and income under a Clinton regime. Obama grew the process; she will continue it in spades.
Of course, she will have the opportunity to replace Supreme Court justices, what is sinister about that. They will either die or resign, isn't that the way it has always been done? But I will welcome her selections over that of a sitting conservative GOP President.
A leap of fantasy, how is Congress made irrelevent by the Supreme Court? Except for the view of the Alt-right, I see them as performing their functions as intended.
The authority of Congress will not, all of the sudden, be nullified by Clinton. The issuance of Executive Orders is not some sort of novel concept. When so many Presidents have used it, why make her a demon for doing so?
If there is no opposition party, the GOP only has itself to blame. The conservatives still have a voice in the public forum. You fail to make your views relevant in a electoral system where majority rules, don't blame Clinton and the Democrats.
It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution of this magnitude, it is ridiculous to consider that such a majority will annul the 2nd Amendment as much as the idea that conservatives could Constitutionally ban abortion.
You paint an unrealistic and dismal picture. In this case, I am from Missouri and I say prove it beyond your mere conjecture.
"she will have the opportunity to replace Supreme Court justices, what is sinister about that."
What is sinister is that with nearly every passing year the SCOTUS has drifted a little farther from interpreting the constitution as the writers intended into interpreting as the current party platform wants it. The more "out of balance" (what a sad term to have to apply to SCOTUS) the worse the problem.
"it is ridiculous to consider that such a majority will annul the 2nd Amendment"
Except that it will be done in stages, with each stage taking just a little more - "the constitution doesn't guarantee you can have a nuclear bomb". Or automatic rifles. Or make believe assault rifles. Or handguns. Or semi-automatic rifles. Or rifling in the barrel. Or bullets with powder attached to them. Or weapons using gunpowder. etc. etc. Eventually it will get to the point where enough people are so afraid of guns that the amendment WILL be nullified - we've already come a long ways towards that ultimate goal. Just the step denying weapons to anyone on a secret government list without recourse and without ever facing our accuser is an enormous one. Can you say "J Edgar" about guns instead of communists?
Wilderness you say...
'What is sinister is that with nearly every passing year the SCOTUS has drifted a little farther from interpreting the constitution as the writers intended into interpreting as the current party platform wants it. The more "out of balance" (what a sad term to have to apply to SCOTUS) the worse the problem.'
Does that out of balance include the type of justices that Trump would appoint? Every President has that constitional obligation. To the winner goes the spoils. Did you say the same when the Bushes and REagan appointed judges?Your position is that of a typical conservative, it is partisan and ideological. Your comment of 'out of balance' is just your point of view.
The second paragraph is mere conjecture on your part. Clinton could not make such a change, solely even if she wanted to. Most of the statehouses are headed by Republicans. Do you think that they would sit down for such a thing?
"To the winner goes the spoils."
Above all other past Presidents I believe we can count on Clinton to appoint judges that will ignore any requirement for constitutionality to promote liberal agendas. Trump might (although I actually rather doubt it), but Clinton absolutely will, for she doesn't give a flip about law.
The only reason we currently have private guns is because states (and the NRA) have stopped it. But I actually put very little in the political arena past Clinton. She will be a dictator, not a President. Ken Burgess stated it well.
Do notice that we have already seen much of those violations of the amendment already put into affect. What can possibly make you think Clinton won't fight for more? She has repeatedly stated that "common sense" regulations are necessary...without ever bothering to define just what "common sense" IS. Leaving it wide open for whatever she wants, in other words.
Obama administration has doubts that key Hillary gun proposal can work
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl … 9ae8c30403
We will have to agree to disagree on this. I say that Ken is an alarmist.
As far as conservatives are concerned, any justice proposed by a Democratic President strains constitutionality. That, in itself, is not good enough.
As for not giving 'a flip' about the law, neither does Trump. His outrages will just come from the other direction, promoting rightwing agendas, which in my opinion are worse.
The is no precedent to support the idea of H. Clinton as a dictator..
Of course you say Ken is an alarmist: just as your next paragraph claims for conservatives, you are black and white. The Democratic Party, and liberals in general, can do no wrong. Realistic predictions are not allowed; only ones that paint liberals as gods.
You may be right about Trump...in the field of finance and business. In the field of politics his ignorance will prevent him from being effective whether he tries to go beyond law or not. That and hate from everyone else on Capital Hill.
But Hillary is the Darling (mostly from outright fear, I suspect) and the Hill will allow her anything she wishes.
Sure there was a precedent; J Hoover. He misused his power almost as badly as Clinton did and came as close to being dictator as anyone ever has in this country.
This is a good point, one I failed to consider... just as Ryan and other Republicans who don't represent the Party's so called platform and promises have conceded to nearly every wish of Obama... even more of them will likely fall in line with Clinton, partly for fear of what she will do to them if they don't and partly because she is better at coercing and playing the game.
What I write may seem "alarmist" but sadly, my projection of what is to come often is spot on. In fact I just reposted a Hub about Condoleezza Rice which I had posted after the election in 2012... and how I predicted the Dems would run its campaign against the Reps was spot on... its amazing that the Reps ran a campaign ideally suited to losing to the Dems... that Trump (rather than Cruz or Romney or Bush, etc.) was the Candidate was just a small glitch.
Its not hard to see that the only thing that really slowed Obama's efforts was a hard swing by the PEOPLE to inject a couple hundred new politicians, mostly Reps, into the Congress AND the Supreme Court which was balanced with Conservative - Constitutionalists and Liberal - Progressives once that balance is removed the Supreme Court and the Executive Office will essentially be able to bypass Congress on just about anything of significance... Congress alone has no real authority, if the President overrides its authority and the Supreme Court supports that effort of bypassing Congress.
As for doing no wrong, you take the same attitude about GOP and conservatives.
Realistic from YOUR perspective, that hardly makes it absolute or correct.
Trump is not so ugly as to not promote standard conservative political positions and dogma. And with that damnable GOP controlled house behind him, he could take us all back decades. So, even if he weren't the ridiculous clown that he is, I could never vote for a such a fellow.
This idea of Hillary as some sort of sorceress is way out of line. Fear of what? There are plenty of Republicans in Congress, she won't be free to do what she wants. That is just conspiratorial speculation from the right, without any proof to substantiate it.
Edgar misused his power only because his bosses were intimidated by him. The chain of command remained unbroken.
Honestly I am kind of looking forward to Hillary's Administration, I have always been a huge history buff... the chance to witness some real historical changes, real shifts in geopolitics the likes of which we haven't seen since the 40s is an attractive one.
The bad part of that is that the shift in power is likely going to move away from America substantially, the stage has been set for America and Europe to take a bow, and for a Persian-Asian world dominance to take hold.
Or more specifically, Iran, China, and Russia to become the rule makers and game changers on the world stage, while everyone else plays second fiddle.
History is my interest as well, so what can the U.S. do about rising CHINESE power and influence?
We could start by refusing to borrow money from them or to buy the products they make. Unfortunately our own greed ensures that both will continue to happen.
America can't work cheaper than them without the Mexicans.
Of course we can. We just can't do it an keep that mini mansion we call a house, the two cars, boat and RV in the 3 car garage, the 4 flat screens we covet and the 1600 hour work year.
In practice I believe we could come a lot closer than we think, because of automation, but that is only a guess. Whether true or not, though, we CAN produce our own goods that we need.
I understand, but people would have to pay more for products produced domestically, would they?
I also heard that we are in substantial debt to China based on borrowing. Their investing in the AMERICAN economy has kept much of it afloat. How do we cease to be so vulnerable?
This entire thing is a mess and has been over a long time over many administrations. This is serious, Wilderness, there is no political position but only an American one.
Yes they will (have to pay more). Our standard of living, at least for the middle class, will fall (those in poverty could rise as wages rise to meet the demand of additional production). We are living beyond our means, both from borrowing and from imports, and it WILL hurt us - putting it off as long as possible will only make the hurt greater.
Yes, it is an American position and problem. No political position will ever solve it, for it means that the politicians supporting a lower standard of living will not survive re-election. Only when we return to the "Buy American" will anything improve much. We tried, by shifting jobs to white rather than blue collar production labor...only to watch as those white collar, IT jobs, disappeared overseas as well. We MUST be as self-contained as possible and that does not mean buying everything from foreign labor because it's cheaper.
All this financial mess leads to war, just like Germany with Hitler. Then you got a delusionial strongman like Trump and a women in bed with the Elitist.
Take your pick of destruction, I love freak shows.
Russian roulette with a live round in every chamber?
Don't like though odds.
Bolivia has far less firepower to be concerned about.
Your chances are better, but there is stii fallout and collatoral damage. The big one's damage would not be localized
Chinagate aka Commercegate and the Clinton-Russian uranium deal are two of the most serious scandals in U.S. history.
Were World Wars One or Two avoidable if a GOP president were at the helm? I doubt it.
World War I was more questionable though, would a GOP President have cause to declare war on Germany because of their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and the revelation of the 'Zimmerman Note' by 1917?
Korea were the result of the Cold War politics which both parties and the nation were prosecuting.
The Vietnam conflict reared its head under Kennedy to be ratcheted up Johnson and NIXON.
I say that it
was more the cause of the timing of history than any tendency toward bellicosity by former Democratic Presidents.
I agree that we would have been drug into the two big wars no matter who was at the helm. We really had (in my opinion) a moral obligation to become involved.
And, I suppose the Korean war was inevitable considering the world climate at the time.
I find it funny that you capitalize the name Nixon, as if somehow he bore more responsibility for that war than the other two.
I suppose you can blame history, as opposed to the decisions made by democratic presidents. I wonder if you would be so prone to transfer blame had they been Republicans. I seriously doubt it.
Vietnam actually developed under Eisenhower and escalated from there.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … p-movement
This is correct if we want to return to the mid 50's and the French experience. However, I read that President Kennedy sent AMERICAN troops officially to Vietnam in December, 1961.
When you need to burn a village to save a village, it is no longer a defense military. It is a Offensive attack around the world with a offensive budget go match.
I worked for DOD in the contracting arena. I am well aware of the culture of waste; cost overruns, no-bid contracts and late receivables. I think that there is room for efficiencies in this area.
Imagine, a trillion dollars in RD and deployment for a new jet fighter, is there any wonder we have no money for domestic matters?
And while, I don't think much of what Trump has to say, he is right in the fact that we are far too entagled in international security matters and that our allies, rather then committing their resources solely to domestic pursuits, should pay a larger percentage. We all, from across the globe, need to sit down and consider renegotiating these agreements.
I say that the entire system, DOD and domestic entitlement programs need to be culled for waste, even before we talk about cutting any legitimate program related dollars. I think that the savings would astound most.
So, isn't life a bit Spartan in Bolivia? I have to check and see if you wrote anything about your experience there.
When the world bank tried rob Bolivia of it's entire water supply, even the rain water. Bolivians did get Spartan on them and even over charge or boycott Americans on many things today.
Just finishing selling my second ego village in Belize wail still searching for a place to open up a new one in Bolivia.
I can no longer imagine renegotiated with a pile higher and deeper BS crooks. I'm hoping for the best results of only a 100 million killed like in my dreams for (I dream for a living) the final wake up call of abuse..
If much greater kills, I wish for insects , water bears and jellyfish to rule the earth and to do a better job than us humans. Always optimistic.
You're kidding, right? The world bank tried to stop the rain from falling in Bolivia?
Read on the water wars in Bolivia, it was the first time indigenous over threw the Government. They can steal almost everything, yet water and rain water was the last straw.
He is not, and Hillary and the Democrats in general plan on importing that type of government regulation and rulership here to America...
And because people vote on emotion and propaganda rather than real issues like trade, economy, Supreme Court, and a history of corruption a mile long they deserve what they get from a Clinton Presidency.
I don't understand why the fate of the world relies and depends on these two political caricatures.
Where throughout human history shows that when 80% of the consciousness and chariture of the people reach a certain level of abuse. It is the People who changes the tragedy of hierarchy to another higher level of enlightenment.
Again, if people don't see things or believe as you do, that does not means that they are duped or misinformed. That is the first problem with political right wing thinking. Your people need to do a better job of political persuasion and advocacy.
I don't like conservative viewpoints, relative to progressive ones and my thinking is just fine.
Credence2 if you believe in Hillary, you ARE duped and ARE misinformed. You have blinders on to all her corruption, her lies, everything that has gone on the past 20+ years, which is on record, as well as everything that is coming out now in WikiLeaks, from the FBI, and other sources.
Calling me 'right wing' is ignorant, I have no loyalty to either Party, no love for Trump... I just happen to recognize what it going on. It is no surprise to me that many don't. We just think because we are America and we had more or less a real Republic with plenty of Liberty for 200+ years that we can't lose it.
The media back in 1980 was controlled by over 50 different people... now its controlled by 5. We're talking ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and all the major papers and all the internet sites they have... 5 people.
The two Parties are not representing opposite platforms when it comes to Trade, the Economy, Immigration, Wall St. etc. oh they pick sides when it comes to abortion, and guns, but Wall st., and the Corporations don't really care about those issues... for the important issues that effect our taxes, our wages, our health insurance they are two wings of the same vulture.
The only thing good about Trump, is the establishment hates him, he isn't beholden to them, and the Establishment realizes the people who vote for him are trying to send the Establishment which is bending us over and sticking it to us the big F.U.
Clinton IS the establishment, she IS everything that is wrong with Washington, everything that is corrupt and criminal in politics today.
I cannot abide race baiting misogynistic bullies. It might be easy for you to overlook this as incidental but that is not true for me and millions of other voters. There is nothing ignorant about that and for you to dismiss all Clinton voters as ignorant and naive is just as arrogant as my saying that all Trump supporters sympathize with his racist banter and strident rhetoric.
I am not convinced that Trump is any less dangerous. I am satisfied with extent of my Liberty and while you cry from the hilltops that Clinton will usher in a new dictatorship, that is your opinion and I believe the same of Trump, so we break even. I don't see you as any more authoritative in your view than I am in mine
I am not blind to the problems and good points you bring up, I just believe more problems ALWAYS come from the right than the left in regards to bringing us to the precipice.
You say both sides are guilty yet appear to excuse Trump and the political Right, am I not mistaken?
I agree with Don, Trump represents the epitome of the very forces that must be brought to heel if we ever hope to return power to its rightful owners. Trump is as dirty and unethical as they come and the Right dupes people if they really want everyone to believe that he is truly above the fray.
Surely, the Right does not want to parrot Trump with the idea that the voters are decieved just because they do not embrace right wing dogma. If they lose will they fall back on 2nd amendment solutions as democracy is inconvenient? That the biggest immediate concern I have.
I am confident that in this democracy, the people will make the right decision come November 8th, will you abide by it?
Credence you are blind to everything I am saying, I don't mean that to be insulting, just that so long as you spout about 'right wing' and 'left wing' or whatever labels you want to throw on it... it shows you don't get it.
You know what the REAL difference between the Reps and the Dems are in our world today?
There IS NO difference.
There is the ESTABLISHMENT... that being those politicians that have sold out to Wall St. & International Corporations and they are flushing our dreams, our jobs, and our futures down the drain... there are those even worse, like Clinton who have also colluded with the worst foreign nations and used branches of the government against innocent citizens and to cover up their wrong doings...
Clinton is nothing if not the poster child for everything that is wrong with Washington and politics today, hell she is inventing new ways to be corrupt.
And she is a politician she LIES... she tells you exactly what you want to hear about how evil Trump is, that the Russians are responsible for all these leaks... same way she told you a YouTube video was responsible for the Riots throughout the Middle East.
Wake Up... you are worried about misogynistic bullies, Clinton is it in spades, Trump is a joke compared to her, Trump wouldn't know where to begin on how to use the IRS, the DOJ, the NSA against the people... Clinton not only knows how to use those branches of government, she has done so in the past... what is to come is the Dictatorship you believe Trump to represent, because the Media and Clinton Campaign have told you that is what he is. Sadly, you swallow what they are feeding you and ask for more.
I capitalized NIXON to emphasize thata Republican President had a major role to play in the Vietnam conflict.
'I suppose you can blame history, as opposed to the decisions made by democratic presidents. I wonder if you would be so prone to transfer blame had they been Republicans. I seriously doubt it.'
History is history and You are seriously incorrect....
I can't disagree with you. Although, the establishment is heavily invested in the military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower warned us about at the end of his presidency.
* http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist … al-complex
But that was a long time ago... those companies are now international, Boeing is moving its major building operations to China, as are others... as all the trade protections are stripped from America by our politicians, all major companies and corporations will move their factories and plants elsewhere, including the "military-industrial complex".
If China is not already the world's Super Power, it will be shortly... by the end of Clinton's Administration I'd wager.
I agree, the shift of power to China is unavoidable. The new world order will not go down without a hell of a fight. Greater than we have ever experienced in human history.
It will effect everyone on the planet. I'm prepare for the worst.
You are correct, Ken. When Trump said that about Boeing the media said that was “bizarre". I read that China built its own military-industrial complex. While America is regressing, China, Iran and Russia have been progressing with our homegrown traitors' help.
Anytime the media or establishment says what Trump says is “bizarre", I know there is a cover story, and a story under that, and story under that... Its like when Hillary lost it over Benghazi and the four Americans that died, she yelled, "What difference at this point does it make". Red flag!
“Hillary Clinton was a great friend of Saul Alinsky, she was on a first name basis with him when she was a student. Saul Alinsky wrote the book ‘Rules for Radicals’ If you haven’t read it then I recommend you read it and see the kind of things that are recommended to fundamentally change this nation from the great success that we have to a socialist country. The dedication page of that book says “dedicated to Lucifer the original radical who gained his Kingdom.” I don’t want anything to do with anything like that!”
-Dr Ben Carson (speech when endorsing Donald Trump on 3-11-16)
So, what do we do about this situation. Did we really think that we could remain on top, forever? As China develops its economy with over abillion people did you think that they would remain under in the Rick-shaw standard? We cannot dominate these people militarily, the keys now seem to be in education of our people in the new disciplines of the future if we ever hope to maintain our standard of living. Companies are leaving based on Capitalism and the pursuit of profit and opportunity. The conservatives say that high corporate taxes keeps them away. I say with lower labor costs and fewer regulations outside the US, it won't really matter much about the taxes they pay in comparison to those savings.
So who can answer? What do we do besides blame the Democrats for a systemic problem that is byproduct of international trade and relations, today.
The US military budget is ten times greater than the education budget. Cut Military budget in half, give it to Education and poverty in America. That puts America in order to stay on top.
If Elitist don't like it, FUC_EM. !!!
I'm sure the Public fears for the safety more so from NATO. Military intelligence Wins again.
I hear you, despite the magnitude of the problem, the powers that be will never make that concession.
And if they make that concession and they are wrong? That we become a vassal state of China or some other military power?
The risks of cutting military expenditures might or might not be great, but the result is unthinkable if we're wrong in that assessment.
Does it matter, what is strong enough? We are in a state of mutually assured destruction? In a military confrontation in the nuclear age can anyone really come out on top?
There is one optimists view.
There will be only 2 billion people on the planet, the other plants and animal may like that.
"Better dead than red" is a slogan I can identify with. Perhaps not 100%, but the concept has merit in some cases. And coming under the likes of Kim Jong-un might be one of them.
But that "mutual assured destruction" worked for many years. Perhaps it is what is necessary.
I would like to stop playing policeman, though! Unfortunately far too many Americans feel it is their duty to police the world, mostly for "human rights violations", as if the US can define what those rights are for everyone.
Blame Dems... blame Reps... that is a sign that one doesn't really see the big picture. When you realize that the system, the establishment, the politicians the lawmakers are now subservient to International Corporations, banks and Foreign Nations... not we the people... then you will at least have an idea of what the problem really is.
Anyways this was what Ike alluded to when he left office, only on a much grander and more powerful scale.
What can WE do about It?
Nothing... other than be aware of it, and not waste your time blaming Dems or Reps or playing that game.
Be aware of it, and do your best to position yourself and your family to be able live as best as you can if the bottom falls out of our economy... or if we just continue to decline as a nation.
That said, voting in the most corrupt and willing to sell America out politician to come along in two hundred and forty years isn't going to help things.
Yes, the neverending hierarchy fairlytales are never getting better for all.
In northern Europe they have found smaller Governments and smaller self sufficient companies are a greater solution for all.
I believe you would be interested in reading the white papers of the "World Bank-IMF (Stiglitz)"...some people have broken that down well.
* https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bit … sequence=1
Its a scientific destabilization program to destroy countries.
This is beyond a Jim Jones cult.
The IMF World Bank is an assault on humanity.
Trump knows this stuff and has to sink it. Its the sinking ship!
Hillary will ABSOLUTELY Win with IDEAs & that's just ONE Reason WHY REAL Polls Forecast Trump's HATE Filled Self Aggrandizing INSANE "PSEUDO-Campaign" is HEADED for a Humiliating LANDSLIDE Defeat ~
* Hillary will "RAISE Wages" for ALL HARD Working Americans - "Delusional Donald" has PROMISED to "LOWER Wages" as he's already done in a Vegas Property which bears his "Tarnished Name" ~
* Hillary will ENCOURAGE Builders to Use U.S. Steel for Projects, not USE Steel from COMMUNIST China as Trump has already done ~
* Hillary will PROTECT a Woman's RIGHT to "CONTROL her Body" while "TRUMP the ABUSER" would Unlawfully INVADE this Space ~
The DIFFERENCEs are Endless ~
BTW ~ It's not a "SINKING Ship" it's a "S*U*N*K*E*N Ship" ~ ~ Even many within his "CORE Fan BASE" are FLEEING Before CON-Man Donald goes "DOWN in Flames" then turns his Sinister Intent toward "MONETIZING" them which was his ORIGINAL Idea ~
According to REPORTs, Traffic is DOWN at his Properties 17% to 27% so he's gonna' need INCOME Soon ~ ~ Did he actually EXPECT Traffic to INCREASE during his HATE Filled Racist Woman HATING Pseudo-Campaign ????
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/technol … s-traffic/
I rather stay in a sinking ship. Than to live in a world full of lies.
It seems to me people that hate trump so much aren't concerned with sinking ships as much as the history of the Whole Sunken Clinton flotilla ! Win or lose the Clintons are a typhoon waiting to happen !
Trump supporters KNOW that Trump is behind & sinking. However, they will insist that Trump will win November 2016 against all inductive & deductive logic. The polls show how behind Trump is in comparison to Clinton. They refuse to see this, instead remarking that the polls are rigged, even sabotaged by the "Liberal media complex". This is going beyond the fantastical if you ask me.
In my assessment, Trump supporters are analogous to Hitler in 1945. He knew that the war was lost for a VERY LONG TIME but he insisted that somehow the war will be won. Evidence showed that since late 1943, the Allies were gaining group which was accelerated in 1944 with the gradual liberation of European countries in the West & East. Oh no....instead of accepting this, Hitler become more hell-bent. He decided to go all out e.g. the Battle of the Bulge, he wanted somehow to regain the west. This battle resulted in many American deaths but nevertheless Americans won & pushed German soldiers into Germany. Well, we all know that the Russians were pounding Germany from the East. Hitler never accepted responsibility yet continuing to blame & execute others until his suicide. Trump supporters have a delusional mindset "that somehow, everything will be all right in the end".
“Look, politicians are all talk, they’re no action. They don’t do the job, they don’t know what they’re doing. I know them better than anybody, Howie. I deal with all of them. And, you know, I make contributions to many of them. They’re friends, they’re this. It’s smart. It’s called being an intelligent person and a great business person. But the truth is that, you have to be able to get along with—if you’re gonna be a business person, even in the United States, you wanna get along with all sides because you’re gonna need things from everybody. And you wanna get along with all sides, it’s very important.” - Trump
“When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” - Trump
“I’ve given to everybody. Because that was my job. I gotta give to them. Because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true. They kiss my ass. It's true.” - Trump
“Aren’t you part of the problem?” When it comes to lobbying and influence-peddling. He responded, Absolutely. 100%. Absolutely, I was on the other side. They will do whatever I want. Up until you decide to run.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … ax-breaks/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/d … ist-230191
I have personally work along with politicians and met many through my arts and entertainment business.
Bottom line half the time they are lying and the other half they don't know what they are doing.
With exception of lower forms of Government
There is always room for more on the ship of fools. Until they hit another iceberg.
Like your view's I.- bites
Trump supporters: Are you going to stay on a floating ship?
Its our only hope.
Trump is your only hope.
I would rather hire a fox to guard the hen house.
Its the only option we have. He cares about the country. Watch his entire speeches on You Tube. See him in a clear light. Don't watch the clips which take him out of perspective. Which make him look like a bad guy. He isn't.
Trump is the special interest. He represents the corporatism that has been undermining the democratic process for the last 80 years. But if you think he can't be owned, think again. Compared to the Russian Oligarchs, Trump's wealth is pocket change, and Putin has a tight leash on all of them. If anyone can buy Trump, Putin can. Trump's submissive posturing to Putin, like the way he gushes everytime Putin's name is mentioned, is a big mistake. Putin is not the type who respects sycophants, and it indicates that Trump would be the submissive partner in any relationship between them. Trump would no doubt see himself as Putin's equal. Putin would see Trump as a useful idiot, which I suspect he already does (and let's face it, who wouldn't?)
we mostly following what ever the mass Corporatism is telling us what we must do.
define: "mass corporatism"
In all fairness to Trump, I have to give him credit for a couple of good ideas. I wondered how he was going to get corporate America from exporting so many jobs?
This quote from Michael Moore from Salon:
“Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said, ‘If you close these factories as you’re planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I’m going to put a 35 percent tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody’s going to buy them,'” Moore noted. “It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
2. He has said that it was high time that our allies chipped in a little more regarding the cost of defense and global security. We can reduce our outrageous military budget and ask them to increase theirs a bit more.
Those are great ideas, why does he, otherwise, have to be so damned abrasive and troublesome?
If he could have focused his campaign on issues instead of being a dick, he would win. His views on trade are anti-Republican. Strangely, as Democrats have been moving to more of a free trade platform, Republicans have been moving back to protectionism.
He's also not entirely off on illegal immigration. I think there's basic agreement that we can't just let immigrants flood into the country illegally and that spending our tax dollars on illegal immigrants doesn't make a lot of sense. However, the way to do that isn't to attack the people themselves, but the businesses that utilize them while recognizing that paying a living wage in order to attract non-immigrants into those jobs means we will all be paying more for certain things produced from certain jobs traditionally worked with immigrant labor.
"If he could have focused his campaign on issues instead of being a dick, he would win."
You mean if he had acted as a normal politician he would have won. Right?
But I would have to disagree with that statement, for Trump's being himself instead of politics as usual is why he's where he is.
Here's a "PARTIAL LIST" of WHY "Delusional Donald" will LOOSE in a LANDSLIDE ~ In REALITY, if U INVESTIGATE his HISTORY you'll REALIZE he "RIGGED" the ELECTION AGAINST Himself ~
* His INTENT to "CUT Wages" for ALL Americans
* His Misogynistic Behavior Toward WOMEN
* His Impending LAW Suits for "SEXUAL Assault" Against at LEAST 11 Women & COUNTING
* His RACIST Beliefs
* He LOST 1 BILLION Dollars in 1990's
* He BANKRUPTED Casinos in New Jersey ~ VERY Difficult ACCOMPLISHMENT unless the CEO is Completely INEPT
* 5,000 AMERICANs are SUING Donald for "ELDER Abuse" & Racketeering" ~ Trump UNIVERSITY ~ Google it
* His COMMUNIST Connections & Business ASSOCIATEs like "Felix Sater"
* His ADMIRATION for Vladimir Putin & other MURDERING Dictators
* "Undervaluing & UNDER-Paying" Employees
* Manufacturing his Merchandise in foreign lands like CHINA etc etc
The LIST is NEARLY Endless ~
Good job. We could even simplify things a bit more. Most people are the maddest at Clinton/Trump for the following reasons:
1) Clinton ILLEGALLY had her own email server created in an attempt to improve the performance of her team; AND she has potentially LIED about absolutely everything surrounding that treason.
2) Trump has outright insulted & offended people in racial & misogynistic ways - since the beginning of his campaign (and if we're being honest, before) - without any sense of civility, sensitivity or tact: things needed to be President of the US for what should be obvious reasons.
Trump has done nothing but threaten people who don't think like he does; and fan the flames of division.
Hmmm... Let me think...
That's FINE Misfit Chick, but we CANNOT Discount nor IGNORE the Nearly "INNUMERABLE UNDERLYING" Reasons WHY Donald will LOOSE in a LANDSLIDE on NOVEMBER 8 ~ That's Just a "PARTIAL LIST" in my Previous COMMENT ~
Trump's PENDING Trial for "PEDOPHILIA" on December 16, 2016 is a "DISQUALIFIER" in and of itself ~ There's really no COMPARISON Between Hillary & Donald ~
Well, as I've said before... Sexual misconduct isn't really a deal-breaker for me. As a woman who was a victim of pedophelia as a child; and of course inappropriate behavior from men throughout my life in varying ways, since: sexual dysfunction obviously has no bearing on how capable you are to interact in this life on a sentient (or even brilliant) level. Plus, nothing been proven yet - can't use that lawsuit against Trump in this election.
It seems to me that just about every man in politics (or is it most - never all - men in general) probably have PILES of offenses that could be listed if we could get to every sin and unveil it. There IS something to be said about the attitude of people and Trump's defense of, "Its just locker room talk." Society has been forgiving talk - and worse, ACTIONS - behind 'locker room behavior' long past the time when MEN should know better. Teach your kids to be men, not boys in that room, Coaches - and we would have fewer jerks spouting off 'acceptibly' like Trump does.
Everyone is guilty of something; and it is ALL BAD. But, how do you treat people? What are your reasons behind saying what you say? What are the intentions of your heart? Why do you think you would be the best person for that office? Those are the important questions - and yeah, Trump loses from every angle.
I guess you're probably right. He had to get the Republican nomination first, so apparently all the hatred, misogyny and racism secured that vote. However, as many have said, a general election requires a different tack. He just needed to focus on the issues, because there are some big ones, and hammer Clinton on them.
Still, there's hope for him. This latest revelation from the FBI could help Trump.
It's also worth noting that, as a Trump supporter, his vow to contribute $100 million to his campaign and filings that show he only contributed $31k in October have got to make you pretty mad. After all, money is important for ads and rallies and such. Perhaps that additional money would make a difference?
He spent a fair amount to get the nomination, but hasn't spent much since then.
by Kathryn L Hill10 months ago
R E A L L Y ?
by Scott Bateman9 days ago
They were wrong. They should admit they were wrong. We will forgive them for their ignorance even though we warned them.
by Mike Russo10 months ago
Trump is not your normal candidate nor is he running a normal campaign. I know the word normal is relative, but in the world of campaigns, it is based on previous campaigns that had some sense of being normal with...
by Sychophantastic13 months ago
Here's the link to the poll, which was taken in February:http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main … leads.htmlHere are some of the things that South Carolina's Trump supporters apparently believe:80% support a...
by Credence215 months ago
I reference the title as that of a book written by Dale Carnegie in the middle of the last century and was mandatory reading at our household when I was a kid. Folks are running away from being associated with the Trump...
by Sychophantastic10 months ago
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … p-movementAnd do we see this sort of thing on the Left?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.