We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money....Much more at the link, where you can also watch the video.
[I]t’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy. It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them. It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools. It’s rigged against you, the American people....
If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C. The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests. Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft. She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash. Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public. Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001. They totally own her, and that will never change.
The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control. Those are the stakes.
२२ जून, २०१६
"The political system that’s rigged," says Donald Trump, inviting "Bernie Sanders’ voters to join our movement: so together we can fix the system for ALL Americans."
Here's the full transcript of today's speech.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०० टिप्पण्या:
I don't know what person or group of people wrote that speech for Trump, but whoever it was deserves a big, big raise.
Yeah, that was a helluva speech.
Trump gave the Clintons money, yet he doesn't own them, so don't know what makes him think others own them. He's starting at 100 decibels, where can he go from here?
Being completely right about Hillary is not the same as being qualified to be POTUS.
As the speech concluded, the media scattered like ants when their anthill is disturbed.
Now they don't know what to do first, ignore it, refute it, or misconstrue it.
Whoo hoo! What an awesome election year.
Well she came to his wedding like a good girl, I am not sure he paid her enough for chattel slavery.
...waiting for the earth-shattering kaboom.
Wash, rinse, repeat. He has the hair for it.
Alright. All that occupy protests and talk of the 1% and income inequality finally paid off. We're finally going to an election addressing these issues. And the Democrats are shutting their pants.
Hahahahah.
Muddy the waters. That's the job of the Clinton trolls. It's right in those hacked documents.
What's not to like?
Chris Lopes said...
Being completely right about Hillary is not the same as being qualified to be POTUS.
He's better qualified than Hillary.
I think he's not emphasizing the damage to this country that 22 Trillion of debt has done.
The 103 trillion in IOU's (unfunded liabilities).
Without a completely new regime, we are doomed, and the revolution will occur rather swiftly when the IRA's and 401K's all go broke on a lazy Friday.
As my 86 year old mother said "Can't they both just go away"? "The two of them are giving politicians a bad name"..............
The man knows how to counterpunch. And unlike Rick Lazio and Bernie Sanders, is willing to get inside.
Hillary is not used to this.
If I'm Hillary, my strategy would be to lead him on early in the campaign, get him to overreact, and then brand him as a bully.
If I'm Trump, my strategy is to relentlessly use free press time to brand Hillary as a crook and an insider. Looks like Trump is doing that. We'll see about Hillary.
Gonna need more trolls
My prediction: Over the coming weeks, Hillary's campaign will demonstrate to us that superlawyer Clinton has no fecking idea how a single-purpose real estate entity works.
@Chris L.
Being completely right about Hillary is not the same as being qualified to be POTUS.
As if behavior like this doesn't disqualify someone from being dogcatcher much less president.
I think he's not emphasizing the damage to this country that 22 Trillion of debt has done.
I'm with you but Romney reconfirmed you still can't run on policy. Populism sells.
Rusty,
Even if you accept that as true, it's a pretty low bar to reach. We are porked anyway you look at it.
I, for one, am not going to vote for the person who won her nomination outright during the "invisible primary."
He may be right about Hillary, but her disqualification for the presidency was already known to most of us. The question for Trump is whether he is acceptable. This is a lot like a cat trying to tell you that it should be allowed to drive the car because the dog certainly can't do it.
Maybe the car is going into the ditch either way, but we don't have to pretend this was a good idea.
@Brando,
This is a lot like a cat trying to tell you that it should be allowed to drive the car because the dog certainly can't do it.
Well, Brando, come January one of the family pets will be driving that car, fer shure, fer shure. So, is it gonna be the dog or the cat?
May God have mercy on the Republic.
Chris,
Trump is as qualified to be president as the trash that is present there now. In fact, he is super qualified. I have never seen a candidate more qualified for the position than Trump, certainly not any Clinton or Bush and Obama is only qualified for janitor. As to Hillary, why isn't she in jail?? If any one else was in her shoes, they would be wearing orange by now.
Brando, we are "thrown." We can't change that we are unsafely flying through the air, but a vote for Trump is the best way to poke the people who did it to us in the eye. We know that they are all fine with Hillary.
The Democrats seem to be counteroffering with everything they've got.
David,
Again, it's a low bar.
Chris Lopes said...
Rusty,
Even if you accept that as true, it's a pretty low bar to reach. We are porked anyway you look at it.
Let me guess. You voted for Obama. Twice.
"Well, Brando, come January one of the family pets will be driving that car, fer shure, fer shure. So, is it gonna be the dog or the cat?"
Probably wouldn't be so bad if these were particularly smart dogs and cats!
I suspect a lot of whiskey over the next four years! And just ride out the stock market slide.
Clayton Hennesey said...
The Democrats seem to be counteroffering with everything they've got.
6/22/16, 3:21 PM
And you can tell that they are "super serious" as there are no cushions in sight!
Don't these billionaires vet the people they give the Democrat nomination to?
Put your money in agricultural land and hope they let you keep it.
[I]t’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy. It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them. It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools. It’s rigged against you, the American people....
Boy, is that the truth!
Well, glad to see the Dems are back to their traditional role of opposing civil rights. Takes balls to do an anti civil rights sit in.
@Todd
I would have been less nonplussed had the Tweet featured this.
The best line of the speech that would be repeated endlessly on the front page headlines if he were a Democrat running against a Republican,
Hillary's line is, I'm with her. But I say, I'm with you.
Not an exact quote.
"It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages."
The same BIG DONORS that Trump is talking to to bankroll his campaign.
Funny, the system hasn't been rigged against Trump as he seems to have done just fine.
The Trumpsters are going to get stiffed all the way.
"He's starting at 100 decibels, where can he go from here?"
200 decibels. There is plenty of material.
Rusty,
You guessed wrong. I held my nose and voted for McCain and Romney. Thinking about voting libertarian this time if I can get over my disdain for Weld.
"The same BIG DONORS that Trump is talking to to bankroll his campaign. "
He hasn't, yet. What was that spending ratio last month? 23 to 1?
Yeah, if Trump wants to sell out to catch up to Hillary, he better get cracking!
David Gergen was trending on Twitter right after the speech. Many said he shit himself on CNN.
He seems to think calling out the Clintons' on their corruption is slanderous.
Do you think Brian Williams appreciated the shout-out?
Gergen is seriously out of date.
And out of touch. He was always a courtier.
Bernie's voters will join Trump when hell freezes over. But keep hope alive.
That speech is going to confuse the hell out of Mitt Romney's forty-seven percent.
"Bernie's voters will join Trump when hell freezes over."
Read The Inferno, regarding the pit of Hell.
They totally own her, and that will never change.
Trump is wrong. Hillary has become so wealthy from pocketing dirty money that the special interests no longer own her — she owns them.
So, in order to attract Bernie Sanders voters, Trump thought he'd adopt a lot of Bernie Sanders' positions and rhetoric.
I'll never vote for Clinton, but I really can't imagine myself voting for Trump.
What exactly does Trump think he is going to do, about political "donors"? Somebody please, be specific.
What does Trump propose to do about "big donors"? Who are the "big donors" that Trump objects to? How exactly does Trump think wages are "being kept down," and what -- exactly -- does Trump propose?
If I wanted a speech from a left-winger, I could go to YouTub and search Bernie Sanders or any of 500 Democrats.
If Hillary thinks Bernie voters are going to file into the Hillary ranks and surrender their dearest values obediently, maybe you have not been paying attention.
Chuck makes his living off of these donors.
Importing cheap labor keeps wages down Chuck.
In the 'rigged' portion of the speech he didn't let the GOP off the hook. I wonder if he thinks his general election chances are better without the GOP elite support.
Seems like he keeps telling the GOP to "blow me".
I think he's setting up a big us against them campaign.
Us=Trump/American People
Them=all those that keep screwing Us.
Exporting good manufacturering jobs also keep wages down.
I thought Chuck made his money from Hillary's trolling project.
Gusty Winds:
I think that clearly Trump is condemning "big donors" to both political parties, and perhaps political donors outside of the parties themselves.
That part doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am cataloguing all of Trump's condemnations of the GOP establishment, of GOP donors, and his comments on campaign finance reform (which sets up a pretty clear distinction between free speech advocates who like the Citizens United decision, and leftists who abhor Citizens United).
Because I expect (no predictions) that Trump will lose in November, and afterward, as Trump always does, he will blame somebody other than himself. He'll blame Republican mainstreamers, and "the establishment," and donors who didn't turn out for him like they did for other Republican candidates.
And at that point, all of Trump's disowning of "the GOP establishment" will be particularly useful. Trump never wanted any "establishment'" support. I hope he doesn't get any. For everyone's benefit.
Smart. Very smart.
Despite the occasional detours into the twilight zone, striving to reconcile moral and natural imperatives is characteristically American.
Good luck to Americans.
Trump bashed the "big donors" during the primaries and continues to bash them in the presidential campaign.
Trump says he is worth $10 billion dollars. So, why doesn't Trump go down the escalator at Trump Tower and into a bank to cash a check for a $1 billion dollars for his campaign? Because, Trump knows he'll lose his money.
Offshoring, inshoring, and progressive debt. As well as monopolies of capital and labor (e.g. Obamacare, public Unions).
Americans deserve better, beginning with restoration of The Constitution to secure the Blessings of Liberty [and Life] to ourselves and our Posterity.
When was the system not rigged?
"Chris Lopes":
Nobody believes that you voted for anybody without the (D). You should go back to your handlers and get a new nickname.
This effort at trolling failed spectacularly.
J Farmer:
When there was no system? What do I win?
Otherwise:
The reason to devolve power to the states in a federal system is so federal elections have less influence in our lives. This would make a presidential election much less important. Any system that consolidates power will necessarily diminish freedom.
Leviathan must be killed.
Fun speech. At least we get entertainment value out of Trump going after Hill, before the whole thing comes crashing down to earth in November.
@n.n.:
"Americans deserve better, beginning with restoration of The Constitution to secure the Blessings of Liberty [and Life] to ourselves and our Posterity."
The two most popular things the government does are Social Security and Medicare. How do you square that goal with a large majority of the public favoring a forced pension savings scheme and a single-payer healthcare system for the elderly?
@Birkel:
"When there was no system? What do I win?
Otherwise:
The reason to devolve power to the states in a federal system is so federal elections have less influence in our lives. This would make a presidential election much less important. Any system that consolidates power will necessarily diminish freedom.
Leviathan must be killed."
First, so long has there's been civilization, there's been a "system," so I'm not sure when you're talking about.
Second, most of the ways the government interferes in people's life is at the local and state level. Except for paying federal income taxes, which nearly half the population doesn't pay, the average American has very little interaction with the federal government.
Unknown has her work cut out for her to make Hillary's corruption seem noble.
Like Climategate, the DNC hack was probably an inside job by Sanders supporters disgusted by the fix.
I am sure they sent them through Russia to cover their tracks.
As the speech concluded, the media scattered like ants when their anthill is disturbed.
Now they don't know what to do first, ignore it, refute it, or misconstrue it.
The only thing I heard on CNN was that Trump 'stayed on script' and 'used a teleprompter'. Most of their comments this morning were about Pelosi and the anti-gun crowd.
If you are forced to compete with illegal scabs on price for your grass cutting business, you are dealing with the federal government.
Dunno why you guys are crapping on Chris Lopes. His/her comments are entirely reasonable.
The best line of the speech that would be repeated endlessly on the front page headlines if he were a Democrat running against a Republican, Hillary's line is, I'm with her. But I say, I'm with you. Not an exact quote.
Agree. That's an awesome line.
brent scowcroft, patriarch of the wahhabi lobby, along with richard armitage and powell has endorsed red queen,
he was chuck hagel's patron at the atlantic lobby, supported by the same banking and industrial clan,s the alamoudis and juffalis, that favor red queen,
brent scowcroft, patriarch of the wahhabi lobby
Ain't THAT the truth! All on the Saudi payroll.
Why would Gergen find that calling Hillary a crook or corrupt was somehow beyond the pale, but saying that Trump was a con man and engaged in a fraud totally ok?
I mean, I already have an answer (because Gergen is in the tank for Hillary) so its more of a rhetorical question. But seriously, you can't allow for one and then not allow for the other.
Richard Armitage? The guy who outed Valerie Plame? I am sure he is happy to endorse a woman even more careless with state secrets than he is!
The Saudis wanted Keystone killed, Hillary was too happy to oblige.
'brent scowcroft, patriarch of the wahhabi lobby, along with richard armitage and powell has endorsed red queen"
Richard Armitage? Wasnt the the guy that essentially outed Valerie Plame and started that whole Plamegate thing and let Scooter Libby go to jail for perjury when he really had nothign to do with the incident in any meaningful way.
He worked with Colin Powell and Colin came out for Obama in a big way. Just because they've worked for Republicans in the past doesn't make them Republican.
Everybody is a special interest. Cronyism is what you want to eliminate, not special interests.
Cronyism screws over millions of people of billions of dollars to make a thousandth of that for themselves. It's not even zero sum.
It's a guy stealing your $500 stereo and selling it for $10.
@tim in vermont:
"If you are forced to compete with illegal scabs on price for your grass cutting business, you are dealing with the federal government."
Not exactly, but I take your point. You're talking about the federal government not doing something (e.g. enforce the national border) that it is supposed to do. I can only presume when Bickel says he wants the federal government eliminated, he does not mean he wants it to stop enforcing a national border (unless he believes each state should control their foreign border, but that's an EU-like recipe for disaster).
Both Gergen and Brooks must be living in an alternate universe.
tim beat me by 2 minutes.
Birkel,
Believe what you will. I'm just saying that although Trump is 200% correct about Hillary's corruption (and as one of those who participated in the corruption, he's in a unique place to know), that doesn't mean voting for him is a good idea either. This election has become a Kobiashi Maru test, the ultimate no win scenario.
He might peel off and nab a few here or there, but I doubt it would add up to more than 5 - 15% of them. Not enough to overcome the deficit that he'll likely continue to incur against Hillary.
They may both be responses to the same problems, but other than for trade they are generally too different in their prescriptions to overlap as politically equivalent candidates.
Tim in Vermont
You figured it out. The Clintons collected speaking fees from TD Bank and other KXL backers. HRC triangulated and collected money from both sides. My former NE Governor botched it and gave Obama cover to delay. And then Obama denied it. Canada screwed. The Clintons cash in. Perfect play.
Americans don't need good union jobs like Keystone anyways.
Rusty,
You guessed wrong. I held my nose and voted for McCain and Romney. Thinking about voting libertarian this time if I can get over my disdain for Weld.
***********
Political onanism. Straight up.
Buwaya:
200 dB ain't no thing.
Now 300 dB - that's roughly equivalent to the temperature difference between the core of the sun and Pluto's orbit.
(My kindle's Autocorrect keeps trying to change "dB" to "dh". Damnable heretic.)
Tim,
It's more a matter of the Democrats needing campaign contributions from rich environmentalists more than they need to worry about blue collar jobs. They made a choice as to who they wanted to count as friends. It wasn't us.
Chris Lopes:
Believe what you will. I'm just saying that although Trump is 200% correct about Hillary's corruption (and as one of those who participated in the corruption, he's in a unique place to know), that doesn't mean voting for him is a good idea either. This election has become a Kobiashi Maru test, the ultimate no win scenario.
Actually it really isn't. There's a perfectly valid to reason to vote for Trump, even if you think he's terrible. And that is - you think hes' going to be terrible.
Denying Hillary is an obvious reason to vote for him. But if that's not enough we can look at him and measure how well we think he will do. Obviously if he was great and commited to Republicanism ideogically that would be prefect. But what if he's lousy?
That's still a good reason to vote for him
So, lets pretend its not Trump but Alan Grayson. A total blowhard who has as big a mouth as Trump. He's an embarrasment to dems so they try to muzzle him. But, if they wanted to destroy him woudn't the best course of action be not to muzzle him, let him shoot off at the mouth and not provide cover for him when he put his foot in his mouth?
All the Never Trumpers say Trump is going to be terrible, he's not a real Republican. blah, blah. But if all of that is true why would Republicans stick their neck out for him when he INEVITABLY put his foot in his mouth as president?
Supporting him and covering for him would require that he, in turn provide them with things like conservative judges. But, the argument goes, he wont do that. he's going to screw repubs on these things. Well ok then. That means Repubs let him walk into his own trap and dont bail him out when he falls in it, like they would any other Republican who was at least giving them what they want politically.
ANd people like Rubio and Cruz, who already hate Trump will make their careers as Republicans if Trump should govern like an a hole. Because they will be in the senate opposing him when he goes full Democrat. ANd saying "See? We told you he was going to do this! This is why you need to vote for us in four years. Because we are standing against Trump".
It would be a replay of the Tea Party vs the establishment only Trump woudl be making himself the Establishment by becoming president.
"Second, most of the ways the government interferes in people's life is at the local and state level."
This used to be true. Much less so now, because so much of the personal payoff is coming from the Feds (pensions, welfare/EBT, healthcare, higher ed funding, etc.) and at best being intermediated by the State, through funding or mandates. Plus the regulatory roles are being transferred wholesale to the Federal level.
I vote my conscience. If my conscience tells me neither one of these people should be allowed anywhere near the presidency, then I'm not going to vote for either one. You want to call that electoral masturbation, be my guest. To me there just isn't a measurable difference in the level of suck each candidate represents.
(cont) I'm thining of the movie Braveheart, where Wallace is going after Longshanks and kickig his ass militarily. but he's pissing off the nobles. So, Longshanks works out a deal with the nobles to betray Wallace. At a key moment Wallace is leading a charge with his men and he's counting on the nobles cavalry to back him up. And instead, the nobles take their cavalry and go home, leaving Wallace and his men to be slaughtered.
Thats what would happen to Trump if Trump tried screwing Republicans on things like judges, or the 2nd amendment. They already have a weak alliance where the base doesn't trust Trump. If he actively betrayed them, they are NOT going be forthcoming with any support.
And he's going to need it. Who's going to pass his legislation?
Further, as soon as he did betray Repubs, the grass roots is going to rise up and try to push out anyone in govt who claims to be a Republican who backed Trump when he sold out Repubs. People like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz would be the beneficiaries of this, so long as they don't follow Trump down the path. But why would they? That would be poltical suicide.
Therefore, the worse he is, the more he creates his own opposition in his base. If he dumped repubs and made the democrats his base instead, that would be EVEN MORE of an affont.
So think of Trump as a stop gap measure that denies HIllary a seat first and foremost.And he can either surprise eveyroen and be great for Repubs, in which case Repubs get what they want, or he can be terrible and Repubs can use the fact that he's terrible to build their chances to win in 4 years running against how Terrible Trump is.
This was full-throated populism. It is something no Republican candidate for president has tried in a long, long time. Win or lose, Trump is going to do something very important for the Republican Party- he is going to show it how to enlarge itself. Whether or not the party learns the lesson is still an open question.
@n.n.
"There is no conflict to resolve."
How do you get a smaller, leaner federal government when big majorities of the voting public want a big federal government that does stuff like a forced pension scheme, a single-payer healthcare, and a giant global military apparatus?
It's Nationalism, stupid.
Our pols have always sold out influence among American bidders. But Billary are letting theGlobalists bid on it too.
I wonder how many people will cringe at Trump's calculated use of "America First"?
I expect that only a tiny minority of American history buffs will care. The people who might have a real memory of "America First" are in their eighties.
But "America First" was a dubious chapter in national history. They were the isolationists of the 1930's, wanting very much to keep the United States out of Europe as the storm clouds of war gathered.
"America First" disbanded in the week after December 7, 1941.
J. Farmer:
The two most popular things the government does are Social Security and Medicare. How do you square that goal with...
There is no conflict to resolve. The issue is a reconciliation of imperatives while mitigating individual and institutional corruption. The solution beings with establishment of a suitable religious/moral philosophy, it extends to include contributory entitlements (e.g. insurance) as a "smoothing function", with public assistance or charitable services as fallback measures. There are other considerations that should and will drive policy, including placement of succeeding generations.
How do you get a smaller, leaner federal government when big majorities
This may be a hard problem, especially with generational, doctrinal changes in our culture. This may be a hard problem because of technological advancements, international relations, etc.
How would you approach solving it?
America First sounds similar to Deutschland Uber Alles.
Unknown said... [hush][hide comment]
America First sounds similar to Deutschland Uber Alles.
6/22/16, 6:08 PM
Man, THAT is Dumb.
Nationalist policies, [class] diversity, "final solution" (i.e. mass abortion), and clinical cannibalism, too.
"America First sounds similar to Deutschland Uber Alles."
That was very popular at the time, and it was in fact a liberal anthem, opposed to the conservative, imperial leagues of emperors and such of the early 19th century. It was a student song.
Post WWI it was adopted as the national anthem by the Social-Democratic government, being considered a "left" tune. The Nazis adapted it to their purposes mainly because they had to, having become so popular.
Meanings and politics mutate.
As always, preaching to the choir ie does Althouse and her con legions seriously think Sander's supporters would waste their time listening to Trump?
But they may stay home soooo keep hope alive!
As always, preaching to the choir ie does Althouse and her con legions seriously think Sander's supporters would waste their time listening to Trump?
Actually, I know several Sanders supporters who say they might vote for Trump if Hillary gets the nomination [some are still hoping she will be indicted and ineligible to run]. I don't know where all the Hillary supporters are but I never meet any [other than my sister]. Even my mother supports Trump.
Bernie voters say: "All we are saying is give Trump a chance."
mockturtle, thanks for the anecdotal minutiae.
My cousin said before the 2012 election she didn't know anyone who was voting for Obama, but he still easily won Ohio. Go figure!
Chuck said....I wonder how many people will cringe at Trump's calculated use of "America First"?
Trump is the first one say this in a long time. The Obama era was marked with "This or that group first." Trump rejoins the broken factions by using a collective "America" instead of divisive language. Really, Hillary would do the same if she could but she can't because she is determined to run a third Obama term.
Didn't every con think Romney would surely win? All the bravado, until the election results stated rolling in. I'll never forget the look of incredulity on Carl Rove's face, he was so sure Romney was a shoe in. Their polling said so afterall.
shiloh said...mockturtle, thanks for the anecdotal minutiae.
I know Hillary voters but they're all women.
I know where I'd like to put a 'shoe in'
I know many Sanders supporters, every one of them loathes Trump.
I'm sure you do Sugartits.
shiloh,
Of course your cousin didn't know any Obama voters. The people she knew were most likely still alive.
@n.n.:
How would you approach solving it?
I don't. Pointing out a problem does not obligate me to propose a solution. And remember I've stated repeatedly my belief that "America is doomed." I'm not a huge fan of democracy, and the United States committed a double-blunder over the course of the 20th century: it became more ethnically diverse and it became more democratic. A deadly duo to be sure. I'm all for less money going to TANF and SNAP in favor of more cops and prisons. But let's not kid ourselves: the prospect of some small, pre-New Deal federal government is an absolute chimera.
Talk about anything but Hillary, that is the best strategy
Unknown@6:43,
BTW, The phrase is shoo-in. But don't worry, I'm sure Hillary's polling will show her a shoo-in as well.
I know many Sanders supporters, every one of them loathes Trump."
I supported Trump for the GOP nomination and Sanders for the Democratic. I don't loathe either of them, though I prefer Trump's policies to Sanders' (I'm pretty close to being a single-issue voter on immigration). I don't really give a shit if a president is a policy wonk or not; that's Congress' job. At least with Sanders and Trump you get the sense that there is not much distance traveled between their brains and their vocal chords. Everything that comes out of a Clinton or Jeb-like brain is detoured through the wash and rinse spin cycle before being deposited out of the mouth.
Perhaps J.Farmer, but what comes out of Sanders' brain via his mouth is far more intelligent than what comes out of Trump's, which routes first through his ass, then his brain, then lastly his mouth.
the average American has very little interaction with the federal government.
For some very constricting definition of 'interaction'
Hint: Did you listen to a weather forecast today?
The Trump speech was darn good. I watched it at Long Beach airport (which has been revamped and is an excellent small airport, much better than LAX).
Hammering Hillary is necessary, because she is the de facto leader of a party (Democrat) that seeks to hammer America.
If Trump continues to explain how Hillary and her ilk have caused so many problems domestically (illegal immigration, crony capitalism, systemic unemployment, hideous Obamacare), he may be able to stop the Liberal Clinton Juggernaut.
Trump wasn't my candidate in the primaries. But I'd like to see him continue the fight with more speeches like this.
Perhaps J.Farmer, but what comes out of Sanders' brain via his mouth is far more intelligent than what comes out of Mine, which routes first through my ass, then my brain, then lastly my mouth.
FIFY
doc brown hadn't even figured out how to break up the banks, and believes in ridiculous notions like the invasion of guatemala, yes I think he meant the coup, but he didn't phrase it that way,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/22/boeing-s-man-pushed-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-and-now-the-company-is-selling-25-billion-worth-of-planes-to-tehran.html
Fact Check: Trump's Speech On Clinton Annotated
Unfortunately for Mr.Trump his facts are in fact, not factual.
You wouldn't know a fact check if bit you on your (fat) ass.
Lots of them were rated true, did you think because it was NPR that they would not be?
@Unknown:
"Perhaps J.Farmer, but what comes out of Sanders' brain via his mouth is far more intelligent than what comes out of Trump's, which routes first through his ass, then his brain, then lastly his mouth."
Wait, first through his ass and then his brain? How can a thought originate in the ass?
Obviously not a biology major here, folks.
MadisonMan,
Truly! Or visit a physician. Or start a business. Or fill out a 1040 and all the schedules thereto. Or even volunteer to host an exchange student. Etc. Etc.
Just because you don't actually meet a federal bureaucrat doesn't mean you are NOT interacting with the federal government. The feds have coopted us all to work for them. Collect their information. Conform to their regulations. They only come out from behind the curtain to deal with those whose data collection and/or regulatory compliance displeases them.
@CWJ:
"The feds have coopted us all to work for them. Collect their information. Conform to their regulations. They only come out from behind the curtain to deal with those whose data collection and/or regulatory compliance displeases them."
I repeat: the two government things that people support by large majorities (at least over 70%) are Social Security and Medicare. Most people do not make enough money to even pay federal income tax, let alone be concerned with the many variants of 1040. Most people can name more Kardashians than they can Supreme Court Justices.
"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.” -- P.J. O'Rourke
Well, maybe not "most people" pay no federal income tax. More like half of Americans pay no...
I don't know what person or group of people wrote that speech for Trump, but whoever it was deserves a big, big raise.
My guess is a lot of input from Corey Lewandowski. His "firing" was a PR stunt. Probably Roger Stone's idea. (the other guy he "fired")
that sounds likely, it's better to be an outside adviser, stone likely recruited manafort anyways,
"he was so sure Romney was a shoe in."
No, that was Khrushchev.
I spent the plane ride reading Charles Murray's "By the People," which is about civil disobedience.
It was written before Trump. I hope Trump talks to him.
He confirmed among other things, the absolute corruption of Hastert and DeLay.
He recommends Schwiezer's "Throw Them All Out."
It makes me wonder why we care about the House.
Nice to see the tornadoes today did not get the Hillary trolls. We got out of Chicago and hour before hell broke loose.
"Well, maybe not "most people" pay no federal income tax. More like half of Americans pay no..."
Most Americans do pay Federal income tax. Or rather, all of them do, some only indirectly.
- There is no reasonable way to separate Social Security and other payroll taxes from income taxes. Its all one pot, all applied to a collective set of liabilities, and the benefits paid from the collections/accumulated credit certainly don't correspond directly to payments made to retirees or other beneficiaries.
- Tax burdens on those who do pay taxes are compensated for in prices for goods and services. Much of income taxation is passed on effectively through higher price levels.
These matters are seldom raised.
@Michael K:
I've tried to read everything Murray has published [despite multiple attempts, I can never get through Human Accomplishment]. By the People was a good, smart read. But it reminded me of a funny quip P.J. O'Rourke (to now invoke his name twice) made about when Adam Smith makes an attempt at policy monkery in the latter pages of The Wealth of Nations: it sucks. Murray will be the first to tell you that he's never been good at offering solutions to problems as he is describing problems. There's been a general decline in institutional trust across the board and not just with government agencies. I think there are much bigger forces at play than simple disgust and distrust with the government.
@buwaya:
"Most Americans do pay Federal income tax. Or rather, all of them do, some only indirectly."
Yes, sure, that's just like saying the employee pays all of the payroll tax because the employer simply takes their 7.65% and deducts from what would otherwise be wages. But "federal income tax" has a specific meaning and "payroll taxes" has a specific meaning, and that's the manner in which we are using the terms. I'm all for tax simplification, but the fact of the matter is that a substantial portion of Americans (around half) do not pay income taxes. Payroll taxes, yes; property taxes, yes; consumption taxes, yes. But not the federal income tax.
Put together a candidate or a political party running on abolishing Social Security or Medicare, I'll bet every dollar in my account they go nowhere. I'm very sympathetic to a smaller, less regulatory state. You and I are probably closer to each other's side than you perhaps realize. But there's the rub. There are about 180,000,000 Americans who really disagree with you. That's kind of the roadblock I am talking about.
Unknown announced...Fact Check: Trump's Speech On Clinton Annotated
Unfortunately for Mr.Trump his facts are in fact, not factual.
Pretty weak sauce Unknown. I do get a sense of Hillary support vs. impartiality from the different annotators.
With Hillary, Trump speaks truth to power; with Obama, Trump speaks truth to glower.
@buwaya:
"These matters are seldom raised."
When random people are quizzed on the three branches of government, somewhere around 60-65% get it wrong.
@chickelit:
"Pretty weak sauce Unknown. I do get a sense of Hillary support vs. impartiality from the different annotators."
Oh that "fact check" was beyond laughable. They annotated a remark he made about trade deals with the fact that his ties are made in China. What did that have to do with factual accuracy of the statement? It was also funny seeing NPR trying to defend outsourcing. Weren't promises to stop sending jobs overseas big planks in Gore's, Kerry's, and Obama's platforms? Funny I don't recall the NPR giving us a helpful annotation on automation at the time.
Blogger rhhardin said...
Everybody is a special interest. Cronyism is what you want to eliminate, not special interests.
Cronyism screws over millions of people of billions of dollars to make a thousandth of that for themselves. It's not even zero sum.
It's a guy stealing your $500 stereo and selling it for $10.
6/22/16, 5:11 PM
And I just saw on netshit TV how Sanders could cost, OMG, $1.3 million US in "extra" SS protection by staying in the race until the convention, meaning "what a waste!" dumbfuck Democratics have been trained to respond to on cue. Many will. Trump knows this and uses them (cues and people both sans limits created to stop --his--form of decency) too. As any destined winner in the stakes present must, indeed of coursely we all acknowledge post-admirably.
The same bullcunty fuckshit game as "pork earmarks are only one tenth of one hundredth of Federal outlays, so like duh you guys seriously who cares but innumerate dumb dumbs" while not disclosing the TRILLION dollar deficits per each recent POTUS term. As if the pork was the cause of TRILLIONS in debt because it all went to cronies like Solyndra and Pigford Settlement Cuntworshipping legislation.
These old fucks pawning my stereo for $10 because they paid shit and I paid (they don't give a Christ whether it is $5, $50, or $5000) $500 are allowed because of certain other comforts which when taken away will leave many naked amazed and crying anyone had a swimsuit to begin with.
J. Farmer,
I fail to see why you singled out my comment to repeat your earlier comment. What's your point. I suggest you reread my whole comment again for comprehension and not cherry pick only one example.
My comment had nothing to do with popularity, and both social security and Medicare depend upon citizen employers and the self employed doing the data and tax collection for the feds. They personally get involved only when they disagree.
I also read Throw Them All Out and highly recommend it. It should dispel any illusions you might have about our 'public servants' of both parties.
I recommend everybody read that "fact check" for a laugh, a lot of them are "so's your mother" type responses, really. Read it.
When the Ponzi runs out, look for SS popularity to diminish. Hard choices will be made, and the longer we put them off, the harder they will be.
@CWJ:
I fail to see why you singled out my comment to repeat your earlier comment. I suggest you reread my whole comment again for comprehension and not cherry pick only one example.
You're comment was piggybacking off of MadisonMan's comment about my description of the average person having little interaction wit the federal government. That's not the same thing as not being directly affected by. In fact, your remark about coming out "from behind the curtain" reinforces the notion that for a large chunk of Americans, the federal government is simply a nonentity in their every day lives. And in the areas where the federal government does spend gigantic sums of money (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, and the military) they are quite popular among big majorities. So if you a smaller government is something you desire, and you happen to find yourself in a democratic republic, those tens of millions of voters standing in your way are going to have to be reckoned with.
"I know Hillary voters but they're all women."
I know Hillary voters but they're all middle-aged, middle-class women. Of course, the Brothers aren't very thick on the ground down here though that's changing as they flee Seattle housing prices. Homeless or Black In LC? Black folks in America face some hard choices.
" I think there are much bigger forces at play than simple disgust and distrust with the government."
Oh, I think government is a corrupt enterprise and I think I posted that some where. Maybe shiloh can find it.
Here it is.
I haven't changed my mind and that is why I look at Trump sort of like flushing a toilet,
Murray writes about why Germany and Japan had dynamic economies after the war. The Ruling Class was wiped out.
Check out the pic of Pelosi and SheClinton on Drudge, take a close look at their hands, and compare (they aren't far apart in age.)
SheC's is swollen to the point it looks like a 40 y.o's., and it looks as though there is something in her pocket (like an infusion bag?) I think there is something medically wrong with her that she is not disclosing. Michael K., would an infusion bag work laying in that position? And if so, would it make her hand swollen? Or could it be some sort of lymphedema? Besides lymph node removal (which I've had) what else would cause lympedema?
@Michael K:
Oh, I think government is a corrupt enterprise and I think I posted that some where.
No, no...I didn't mean to dispute that at all. The government is run by and large by elite interests for elite interests. Humanity has struggled with this problem for most of civilizational history. I just mean that confidence in all institutions, not just government, has been declining over the past several decades. If anything, I think Murray focuses the lens to narrowly on simply government. But I had little to disagree with in the first half of Murray's book. It was the second half that I found a bit wanting.
well erhard was responsible for the german miracle, deming for the japanese,
J. Farmer,
Then take it up with MadisonMan. I was just agreeing with him on the word "interacted" and could care less about who he was quoting. I had no idea and could care less that it was you. You seem to go as much out of your way to get into an extended discussion as those who argue with you. I wasn't looking for an argument with you nor am I interested in one now. Get over yourself.
@CWJ:
"You seem to go as much out of your way to get into an extended discussion as those who argue with you. I wasn't looking for an argument with you nor am I interested in one now. Get over yourself."
I didn't consider it an argument, and I apologize if I misconstrued you commenting on the discussion as wanting to be involved in the discussion. I don't really see anything to "get over," except perhaps your prickliness.
It has been at least thirty years since the Democrats cared about anything but winning. They have built a coalition of parasites, thieves, chiselers, hustlers, Communists and traitors, and they have been confronted by "conservatives" like Romney, who are happy to lose, as long as they can claim they kept to the moral high ground. Now Donald Trump is going to beat the ground with Hillary Clinton like the reeking sack of rotten meat she is, until the bag breaks open and the truth lies stinking in the sunlight.
I wouldnt credit Deming as much as all that.
Every major Japanese industry was present and improving greatly prior to WW2. The main thing was access to the US market, that jump started Japanese and German industry.
I am interested in Japanese cameras of the prewar and early postwar of which I have a certain collection. Their postwar products and market went to world class quality standards without much influence from Deming - Nikon and Canon for instance had world class products coming out prior to Demings Hakone lectures, and the same is true for other industries.
If you get a chance, which you may not as they are very collectible, find a 1950s Nikon rangefinder, the definitive model coming out in 1951. These are beauties.
The seeds were also visible prewar.
Deming found a very receptive audience because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, a way to improve their reputation in order to sell in the US market.
Wait - Trump is one of the "big donors" so is he admitting to manipulating our economy to keep wages down? That all we need from our next President - a conspiracy theorist with a gigantic ego and on the lookout for black helicopters. The man obviously has no concepts as to how or what makes the economy run.
Seriously, do adults think this way?
“Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault.”
“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”
“I went to an Ivy League school. I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words.”
“I had an uncle, went to MIT, who is a top professor. Dr. John Trump. A genius. It’s in my blood. I’m smart. Great marks. Like really smart.”
“I’m gonna take care of everybody,”
“I will give you everything. I will give you what you’ve been looking for for 50 years. I’m the only one.”
The engineer running the Trump Train left the tracks a long time ago.
Wow, Jupiter! Why not tell us how you REALLY feel about Hillary! LOL!!! :-D
"Michael K., would an infusion bag work laying in that position? And if so, would it make her hand swollen? Or could it be some sort of lymphedema? Besides lymph node removal (which I've had) what else would cause lympedema?"
I Looked but could not get the photo big enough to tell. I think she is ill and the head thing is suspicious to me. Maybe she had a drunken fall. She could have been picking her nose (Oh Oh, Miriam fainted ) and got a septic cavernous sinus thrombosis.
Hard to tell. She is bobbing her head less recently so that may just be a mannerism.
Dunno. I think her "health" depends on how the FBI probe goes.
America is why the world was kinda more okay after The Americans Who Kicked The Nazi Nip Guido fuck's ass' did so despite current argument's in parallel (wish I knew Latin for in parallel 'cause I'da fucking used it write there yonder) to Islam's monsters.
Radical means require Buckley solutions.
Never cede nor forgo any right as an American.
If you gotta serve America as a spy and write bestselling spy novels, well, then, by God, that is what you do/did/are.
There is no limit, and nobody ever said there was concerning the greatness at Buckley's heart.
@buwaya puti:
Good comments on Japan that I would second. Also, for those interested the topic, Yanis Varoufakis' The Global Minotaur does a pretty decent job recounting post-WWII global economic history.
well there is a certain degree of that, but managing the conversion from war to commerce, using the old zaibatsu framework, did have an impact,
J. Farmer:
There is no obligation. Only a query in context.
For my part, I have stated a goal: reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives, with the caveat that corruption of individuals and institutions must be mitigated.
To that end, I favor the normalization or promotion of certain policies for individuals and institutions. The separation of the public and private sphere is not the critical issue, other than noting monopoly power, especially unchecked authority, and its history of condoning and promoting corruption.
For example, my opposition to government-centric programs focuses on consolidation, stagnation, and corruption. I do support universal health care in principle, but I favor reaching that goal through economic revitalization, individual development, and market arbitration.
As for the impending doom of our society or civilization... maybe. There are certainly multiple paths that would lead to our end in the short or long-term. Let's wait and see how the people vote. I am not such a cynic of human nature that I will condemn the majority of men and women. Although, the "good American", or go along to get along (or exemption) variety, is a concern.
david7134 said...
Trump is as qualified to be president as the trash that is present there now. In fact, he is super qualified. I have never seen a candidate more qualified for the position than Trump, certainly not any Clinton or Bush and Obama is only qualified for janitor. As to Hillary, why isn't she in jail?? If any one else was in her shoes, they would be wearing orange by now.
The old straw man trick, "Trump is as qualified as . . ." doesn't make him qualified to be president and your limited worldview doesn't make you qualified to judge him "more qualified" than anyone.
As for wearing orange, Donnie wears orange makeup every day.
Notice what the Dems are reduced to. They can't defend Hillary -- she is indefensible. They can't accentuate her good points -- she has none. She is venal, vicious, criminal, corrupt, dishonest, repulsive, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, senile, and did I mention corrupt. Corrupt. She should be segregated from the normal prisoners, who have some chance of rehabilitation. Her supporters are reduced to arguing that, like most people, she is female. Vote for Hillary, she doesn't have a dick! Except that given what we know about her veracity, she probably got one sewn on back in the 90s.
So, that leaves attacking her opponent. In which pursuit they are eloquent. But hardly convincing. Trump will probably make an ineffectual President. No one supposes that Hillary and her gang of wreckers will be ineffectual.
@n.n.:
"There is no obligation. Only a query in context."
Apologies, I did not mean for that sentence to sound like a direct rebuke to anything you had said or asked. I was just freely admitting that I see no solution to the problem. As I confirmed cynic, criticisms I levied are often answered with queries like, "So what's your plan? What's your answer to the problem?" I think I may have a bit of a hair trigger when that question pops up.
As I said before, I am sympathetic to a leaner federal state, but it seems to me that we are now in a society where big majorities of the population want the government to do stuff (e.g. wealth redistribution, regulation of commerce, healthcare, etc.). I just don't see how you get from here to there.
Jupiter said...
Notice what the Dems are reduced to. They can't defend Hillary -- she is indefensible. They can't accentuate her good points -- she has none. She is venal, vicious, criminal, corrupt, dishonest, repulsive, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, senile, and did I mention corrupt. Corrupt. She should be segregated from the normal prisoners, who have some chance of rehabilitation. Her supporters are reduced to arguing that, like most people, she is female. Vote for Hillary, she doesn't have a dick! Except that given what we know about her veracity, she probably got one sewn on back in the 90s.
So, that leaves attacking her opponent. In which pursuit they are eloquent. But hardly convincing. Trump will probably make an ineffectual President. No one supposes that Hillary and her gang of wreckers will be ineffectual.
6/22/16, 10:02 PM"
You forgot to mention that she is also a traitor. And now that we are on the subject why ignore the obvious: so is Obama. This all happened on his watch. So what did the president know and when did he know it. And speaking of comparisons AG Loretta Lynch is morphing into AG John Mitchell. If only Hillary had Nixon's ethics and integrity but that is a bar too high for her.
J. Farmer:
Offer the people a viable alternative. I think an "America First" policy is sound in principle. The population of each nation needs to be responsible for the development of human and natural resources in its jurisdiction. There should be right of immigration (i.e. foreign relations) that are complementary to the native (by legal association, not geographical origin) population. Unfortunately, that is not possible as long [class] diversity, special rights, abortion rites, etc. are public policy.
That said, I am not offering a solution. I am not in a position to offer solutions. I don't think either of us pretend that we are. It's possible, but unlikely, that we may influence people and through them other people until a consensus is reached. It's possible that consensus could override the foreign and domestic interests that are hostile to our nations and principles. It's more likely that our participation on this board is personally cathartic.
Anyway, whatever the reasons for an avowed cynic to continue participating, why not bet on the chaos that orders our universe and personal lives. What bet would you place? What outcome would you prefer? What criteria orders your choices?
@n.n.:
I am pretty much an ethno-nationalist. This country was built from an Anglo-Protestant cultural core. Over the course of the 20th century, that core fell apart and gave way to multiculturalism and the cult of diversity. Similarly, we became more democratic following the early 20th century progressive movement. I don't know how to put the genie back in the bottle.
I am pretty in the middle on the left-right political spectrum. I am broadly sympathetic to libertarian arguments and positions, but I don't think they're very reasonable political goals. Personally, I live a fairly decadent, self-destructivel lifestyle that I would never have the gaul to hold up any kind of example for people to follow. I am all for drugging and sexing and rocking and rolling, I just don't think you should have kids, because the modern welfare state pretty much exists to clean up the mess people make when they shit out a bunch of kids that they don't have the financial, emotional, or intellectual resources to take care. My preferred solutions would probably be too close to eugenics to be palpable in the modern age. I could ramble on like this endlessly (maybe it feels like I already have!), but I think you get the gist.
Toonces the Cat was a pretty good driver, though he sometimes made errors. He was a fictitious cat, but so are the dog and cat in the who's-gonna-drive-the-family-car scenario outlined above. It's not a family car by the way; it is a highly aggressive state entity that is populated by millions of people relentlessly working to increase their and its power, at the cost and burden of those not within it or who are not clients of it.
http://www.catster.com/lifestyle/feline-funnies-8-snl-sketches-starring-cats
Chuck, re your description of old usage of "America First," did you notice that the Germans are running (and controlling) Europe out of what's left of a country that saw lots of action in both big wars there? They are complete ninnies now, though, who stand by while their chancellor's invited guests rape their women. So there's that.
What do storm clouds over Europe (that were gathering since '38 or '39 or, rather, in and since the 1910s) have to do with events in the Pacific Ocean on December 7, 1941, involving the Japanese Empire, that the US Navy and federal government were utterly unready for? Could linking these just be yet another progressive sleight-of-hand?
@Jupiter
You left out alcoholic stroke victim.
tim in vermont said...
When the Ponzi runs out, look for SS popularity to diminish. Hard choices will be made, and the longer we put them off, the harder they will be.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you suggesting that the responsible thing to do is to stop running Social Security as a Ponzi scheme? The Paul Ryan Republicans would like to reform it. Ryan has taken a lot of political heat, and serious political risk, to propose reforms.
And Donald Trump has rejected them all out of hand.
Trump, alone among Republicans, would continue the Ponzi scheme.
Chuck, Calm the fuck down.
It is unfair to Ponzi to label social security as a Ponzi Scheme. All investors in Ponzi Schemes do so willingly even if unwisely. Social Security is just generational theft, created by generations too stupid to have enough babies to support them through this artifice. Reforming such a despicable program is not honorable. Paul Ryan is just another dishonorable progressive Republican claiming he can better manage this awful ripoff of a coercive pension program. And, the returns suck.
Well Chuck, He is not my guy, but between him and Hillary is a no-brainer.
Paul Ryan sold us out on Obamacare. He is nothing more than the new chief tax collector for the welfare state.
The old straw man trick, "Trump is as qualified as . . ." doesn't make him qualified to be president and your limited worldview doesn't make you qualified to judge him "more qualified" than anyone. - gadfly
LO Fucking L. Come on gadfly, tell us about Hillary's qualifications. Share with us! Extol her high character! Explain to us why she had to take that $100K from one of Arkansas's biggest polluters and then somehow lose all of the financial records, that we can all be sure would have shown her to be on the up and up. Tell us why invading Libya and Syria were good ideas at the time! Explain to us why she had to delete 30 thousands emails that were in fact federal records. Why it wasn't Nixonian paranoia that made her keep her own private server, but just good old concern for the well being of the USA!
Explain to us why she had to be the Democratic nominee, ahead of all other Democrats, as the DNC leak has shown us. Explain to us why winning the "invisible primary" was enough to make you fall in line behind her!
I can tell you why, it's very simple. The color of the uniforms.
Wait - Trump is one of the "big donors" so is he admitting to manipulating our economy to keep wages down? Aside from the fact that this is sort of a nonsensical, scatterbrained sentence, I can only say that it is refreshing to see Democrats finally openly defending the fact that their party politics are decided by a small set of people during what is known as the invisible primary. It is quite clear that their only problem with Citizen's United was that CU attacked Hillary.
A partial statement by commenter Unknown: ". . . but what comes out of Sanders' brain via his mouth is far more intelligent than what comes out of Trump's, . . . ."
In which Sanders demonstrates no basic understanding of the value and risk differences between a secured (mortgage) loan to an employed homeowner and an unsecured loan to an unemployed and partially educated possibly unemployable student (to applause): “In my view, if you can refinance your home today for 2, 3 percent, why the hell are we paying 8 or 10 percent interest rates on student debt?” [NB: who's this "we" Kimosabe?]
As Trump does high finance with ease, in contrast with the [ahem] uninformed thinking above, this might be marked as one of the exceptional cases to the assertion by commenter Unknown.
BBC Fact Check of Trump's speech
Unkown should read it. Though it is still heavily biased towards Hillary. For instance the writer never gets around to explaining why it was a good thing for Hillary to support violent regime change in Syria, and the military overthrow of Qadaffy with US forces. For some reason, he just runs out of gas there.
Among the three, Sanders, as a person, is the most authentic. Let's give him that. He also appears to have crawled out of a 1970 time capsule. His diagnosis of our problems reflects a grotesque misunderstanding of current facts on the ground, and it is not surprising, given this, that his proposed solutions make no sense. A permanent Bernie Democratic faction would be even wackier than the Republicans' outlier groups.
I think that Sanders supporters can make a difference. Rather than hold their noses and vote for either one of these guys, they can vote Green. If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they become eligible for matching funds the next election. There would be an actual change to the two party system. Same with the Libertarians. Weld was not a bad governor of Mass when I lived there.
Well, in regards to SS AND Medicare, there are a couple things that could be done. The Obama Administration greatly loosened up eligibility to SS disability and the like in order to partially hide the depth of the Obama Recession. Tighten it back up, and elimnate people who are faking or really shouldn't qualify, and you should be able to save a bit. And the Medicare fraud rate is still well above private insurance. But, that can be said about much of what Obama has done in office - much of his additional trillion dollars a year in spending has gone to looser enforced and more generous social welfare programs.
No.
Sanders supporters will be holding their noses and voting for Hillary. Voting Green Party would be giving the election to Trump. As Sanders just said yesterday, Trump must not win, no we won't let him win. Nice
Nice try, but no thanks Trump, we want nothing to do with you.
I know that you consider it your charter to uphold the will of the big donors in the "invisible primary," unknown, but nothing is going to change whatsoever with Ms Goldman Sachs in the White House, the Butcher of the Mediterranean.
Whatever we do, we must not allow the Green Party to gain a foothold in American politics! Hillary says so, and hundreds of millions of dollars in conflict of interest money can't be wrong!
What I would like to see come out of this election, the one salvageable thing, is a multi-party democracy. It's pretty clear that we aren't going to get the kind of sterling leadership the American people desire.
Blogger Chuck said...
But "America First" was a dubious chapter in national history. They were the isolationists of the 1930's, wanting very much to keep the United States out of Europe as the storm clouds of war gathered.
Dubious?
We had no dog in the European fight until December 11 (Not December 7). The American people knew this which is why 70-75% of them were against our involvement, even after Dec 7. Churchill and FDR lied and schemed to drag the US into the war. Things like US Navy first helping the RN sink German subs, providing air cover for Atlantic convoys, then FDR ordering US ships to "sink on sight" any German ships. Or occupying Iceland. Or providing ships and other arms and so on.
All while supposedly neutral.
We, the American people, had learned our lesson in WWI when Wilson and the other Roosevelt schemed and maneuvered us into that fiasco.
I suspect that for people who know some history, "America First" will resonate favorably.
I suspect that for people who do not know history "America first" will resonate favorably. Most people think we need to fix our problems at home before we try to help other people fix those.
Sometimes we are like the boyscout who spent 30 minutes helping an old lady across the street. "Why so long" asked the scoutmaster. "She didn't want to go"
So yeah. I know all about the America First movement of the 30s and early 40s' I still, even knowing what we know today, think they were right.
John Henry
"Ahhh, but" some will say "Germany declared war on us." Well, yes they did, on Dec 11, 1941. Here's why:
The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.
The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.
Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.
December 11, 1941.
RIBBENTROP
For more details of FDR and WC scheming to bring the US into the European war, see the correspondence between them from the period 39-41. Much of it is in WC's 8 volume History of WWII. All of it, I think, is readily available.
John Henry
Besides, Trump stinks on ice so bad that the election won't even be close. When will there be another time when we can get a seat for the minor parties like Green and Libertarian at the table?
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Future Senator John Blutarsky
Most of the Green voters will come from states that won't even be close. Maybe in Vermont Sanders voters could tip the election, but I doubt it. Trump is a hopeless cause, you have assured us of this daily.
We, the American people, had learned our lesson in WWI when Wilson and the other Roosevelt schemed and maneuvered us into that fiasco.
Wilson was so sure the US would never be party to another war, he let the military decline into woeful disrepair. The fact that we had to start from scratch, both in equipment and training, resulted in far more casualties than should have been the case. Whether or not the US should intervene in international disputes, our military needs to be kept at the highest state of preparedness.
@mockturtle:
"Wilson was so sure the US would never be party to another war, he let the military decline into woeful disrepair."
Huh? Wilson was out of office two years after the war's conclusion, hardly enough time for the military to fall into "woeful disrepair." The military was demobilized after the end of the First World War, which was customary in US military history. We did not begin to maintain a large standing force until the late 1940s.
J. Farmer:
Basing my opinion on recently read biographies of both Wilson and Pershing, I will stand by my post. Pershing had an uphill battle [literally] to build a viable military system after years of neglect.
"Wilson was so sure the US would never be party to another war,"
Him and every other US administration of the 20's-30's.
The most critical defect was in the defenses of the Philippines.
Roosevelt would not even release US Army reserve stocks of obsolete WWI weapons and ammo for the new Phil Army until 1941, and what was sent was mostly sent too late to get there. Prior to that they were on a purchase basis only, what little the Phil. Govt. could afford and what the US would let them have, and that's what they went to war with.
And we are talking of basic things like small arms ammunition, machineguns, automatic rifles, mortars, grenades (Phil Army had next to no hand grenades), howitzers. The Phil. Army was reduced to buying weapons the US Army didn't want, like "substitute-standard" British-pattern field guns and machineguns converted to US ammo, which had been replaced in US service even during WWI.
If the Phil. Army had been equipped even to the scale of US units of 1918...
I've always believed our policy should be: Pray for Peace but Prepare for War.
The UK's entry into WWI was one of the biggest catastrophic blunders of the 20th century. The US decision to enter the war a couple years later is a close runner up.
The US spent 10 years and killed a couple hundred thousand Filipinos in order to suppress an insurgency in the first decade of the 20th century.
John Henry;
I guess it is nice that the Trump candidacy makes somebody happy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा