Yeah, I think Jie screens new members, but the style of his posts seem very familiar somehow, I just can't put my finger on it. I'm probably way off the mark, but I can definitely remember someone else who was posting in a similar fashion somewhere before.
You can lead a man to reason, but you cannot make him think.
I didn't really think to associate political incorrectness with the founding fathers. But I feel compelled to say that there is a difference between standing up to the politically correct crowd and being an abrasive prick. Besides, it was a different time back then. And Trump would not fit in with them since they, despite having some large differences of opinion amongst themselves, had much more knowledge about political philosophy than Trump does.
There is no doubt that his refusal to accept donations from corporations is good. Sanders is doing the same. But I'm not sure that makes him immune to Wall Street's influence. Additionally, there is no way Trump can be considered a true free market supporter. Again, he supports imposing tariffs on China and Mexico - not that this is a bad idea necessarily, it would raise prices of consumer goods but at the same time may scare companies into returning to America - it could go either way. He has supported bailouts in the past, including the banks (although on this one, he did question why it wasn't a loan) and the automobile industry. Rand Paul would be the closest thing on the ballot to free market & free trade ideology.
At the end, I'd find myself comparing him to a fascist before comparing him to the founding fathers because he is an opportunist who knows how to attract the media. He's flip flopped many times. Before, he didn't seem to have much of an issue with the Clintons and liberals. Then he got attention as a conservative with Fox News. Now, he's doing his best to attract all the disillusioned voters who don't really care about ideology but just want someone who is not a politician. Funny, because I think Trump is a brilliant politician who knows how to appeal to the nationalism and rising anger.
And Palin endorsing him, while he stands smiling in the background, shows the opportunist he is. The lady is mad. But he doesn't mind appealing to the crazies. He thrives on it.
What I respect about Sanders is that he just don't show off the fact that he isn't funded by corporations. He also calls for campaign finance reform and the breaking up of banks. Separating investment banks from commercial banks. He actually calls for legislation that will stop the corruption rather than just tell everyone he's immune. That being said, his odds of winning the democratic nomination are small and his odds of getting such legislation passed through congress is far smaller. I don't know much about Corbyn but they do seem similar.
I think Hillary will beat Trump by a landslide unless a huge scandal comes out but Clinton seemingly does quite alright when brushing scandals off her shoulders. The reason Trump will lose is because many of his own party don't like him and the Republican party committed political suicide when they chose to combine conservatism with the dying social values of the older generation. I do have some respect for conservatism as an economic ideology, but cannot stand their marriage with christian fundamentalism, anti science views, etc. As the older generation goes out and the newer one walks in, their base will become smaller and smaller.
I'm slap bang where Gandhi is on the left libertarian side....
....but I also know in real life you can make virtually any system work providing there's no, or limited, corruption. A benevolent dictator that's looks after the people and ensures the smooth running of society is not necessarily a bad thing after all. It wouldn't be my choosing because I know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but hey, nothing and no system is perfect and every system finds it's own level over time.
Trump is a shrewd, political chancer and street fighter with honed instincts, he will pretty much say and do anything to appeal to a core tea-bagger section. He'll play any card he sees fit be it fear, race, whatever. But is savvy enough to reach a wider audience and tweak a few nipples and turn them on.
But all the noise and bullshit permeates into the moderate subconscious (left and right) mind and gets remembered.
If you listen to Trump when he is being a moderate he's actually pretty sensible with things to say (which surprised me at first) – which is exactly how he would have to be if he ever got near big office. The Trump you see now is not the Trump you'd end up with by a long way.
Now who's the stronger, more pig headed, arrogant, egotistical character: Trump or Sanders?
Who's the more likely to fold like a deck of cards, under pressure when persistently, bullied, confronted and lent on - I mean lobbied, by the Wall Street cartel, military industrial complex and CFR?
I'd like to say Trump but I don't believe it for a minute - I would be a natural Sanders voter all day, every day (as I am a Corbyn supporter in principle). But Corbyn has already run into the same iron walls that Sanders will run into. Sanders is extremely progressive to the point of being 'un-American' in many eyes. Kennedy was ultimately shot in the head because he wanted to upset the establishment status quo and nothing has changed post 911, if anything it's got worse.
Post by michaelangelo on Jan 29, 2016 19:15:41 GMT
Well, I won't say more about Trump for now. The first caucus is on Monday and after the next couple of weeks, the situation will become much clearer. I personally think that if Trump wins the republican nomination, he loses the general election by a landslide unless Clinton wins the democrat nomination and also happens to have a big scandal right in the middle of her campaign. But only time will tell.
In all fairness, Iowa is the most evangelical state I can think of. Ted Cruz was perfect for them and I suspect Trump could still do well if this loss doesn't deal him a big blow image-wise
Clinton has won, but they have split the delegates evenly I believe. I still think Clinton's odds are far more favorable. Iowa was almost a must-win for Sanders because of the media attention he'd have gotten from such an upset. It will still be an uphill battle.