politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
Source:
Personal Liberty
URL Source: http://personalliberty.com/will-a-t ... hange-anything-for-the-better/
Published: Mar 15, 2016
Author: Brandon Smith
Post Date: 2016-05-06 08:57:21 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 18552
Comments: 107
I want to start this analysis by stating that I fully understand the whirlwind of public interest in Donald Trump’s campaign. However, for those that don’t get it, let me break it down for you. A considerable portion of the American population considers themselves “conservative.” More than 38 percent of U.S. citizens, according to Gallup, hold conservative political and social views. Only 24 percent of the public considers themselves “liberal.” Now, I realize that the term “conservative” means different things to different people, so I would apply a simple rule to categorize them — a conservative is easiest to identify by his or her distaste for normally liberal ideological views. Beyond that, different factions of conservatives disagree on a whole host of issues. The goal of any conservative candidate that hopes to be publicly “popular,” whether he actually intends to follow through with his promises or not, is to appear to be all things to all factions; to avoid alienating one faction to appease another. After he is elected (or, after he is placed in the oval office by the powers that be), he may abandon any care for appeasing any of his constituents. Until then, he plays the game so that Americans can maintain faith in the system for at least one moment every four years. Trump’s popularity is predicated on the fact that past Republican candidates have done little to make friends with true conservatives and have not sought alliances with the factions of conservatism that have been growing in momentum and power the past two decades. In fact, the Republican candidates presented to the citizenry in recent memory have all had characteristics more akin to liberal Democrats than conservative stalwarts. Mitt Romney, for instance, was essentially a carbon copy of Barack Obama in terms of political policy and voting record, with only slightly greasier complexion and equally mysterious religious background. Election after election, conservative Americans have been offered one RINO (Republican In Name Only) candidate after another: politicians whose rhetoric sounds principled but whose record is littered with big government policies, constitutional violations, and a disregard for the intentions of the founding fathers. You cannot call yourself a “conservative” in America unless you respect the tenets of limited government, constitutional law, and a regard for the heritage of our founding principles. U.S. conservatives have not had a candidate sharing their views for a long time. Democrats may finally be experiencing a similar disenchantment with establishment candidates considering the surprising popularity of Bernie Sanders this election. The problem is, democrats are trapped in the big government mindset and are for the most part a lost cause. Their anti-establishment candidate is a self-categorized socialist, after all. The only hope for a constitutional small government candidate and a return our founding principles in politics rests in the hands of Republicans, being that third parties are quashed before they get a chance to put their foot in the door. So, you have most if not all Democratic candidates working for bigger more powerful government which leads to increased corruption and less liberty. You also have most Republicans working for bigger and more powerful government and less liberty. And you have few, if any, candidates that represent the majority of voters seeking limited constitutional government. Those of us in the liberty movement call this the “false left/right paradigm. It is the most insidious form of social control present in our nation and it makes a mockery of the election process. That is to say, elections are now nothing more than a way for international financiers and elites to keep the masses in line by allowing them to believe (falsely) that they have a “choice” and thus power to determine the future of our country. In fact, our choice is contrived and we have no political power whatsoever. The rest of America is finally starting to become aware of the false paradigm that liberty proponents have been warning about for generations. Is it any wonder that people are becoming fed up with the system? The genius of Donald Trump as an election figure is that he has little to no political history. He does not have an extensive legislative or voting record that we can look back on and determine where he stands. His political affiliations have been all over the place with him identifying as a Democrat at one time, Republican at other times, and even independent. Most of us cannot really judge his potential based on this. Hell, I was a registered Democrat early in my life, so how can I hold it against Trump? Beyond Trump’s rather disturbing past affiliation and friendship with the Clintons, he is otherwise a blank political slate. And as a blank slate, Trump can in fact present himself as all things to all people. The other ingenious aspect of the Trump campaign is really who he is running against — Hillary Clinton, a liberal candidate even more hated than Barack Obama. A candidate with a potentially serious criminal record and a penchant for an outright communistic world view. Those of us who have been in the writing field for a long time and have dabbled in fiction know that in order to create a fantastic hero, you must first put even more work into creating a fantastic villain. The hero is nothing without the villain. The outright horror inherent in the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is like adding jet fuel to the Trump campaign. Donald Trump appears to be the perfect antithesis to Hillary Clinton. He is loud and boisterous and a bit obnoxious. He trash talks and says whatever he wants to the torment of liberals. He stomps on the throats of the political correctness police and doesn’t care if they call him a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. And, Americans love it. They can’t get enough of it. Conservatives are so tired of cultural Marxism, leftist domination of media, forced immigration policies and the protection of illegal immigration, paying for social entitlement programs, etc., that they are ready to explode. They are, in fact, ready to go to war. I would even dare to say that a Clinton presidency would lead directly to guaranteed outright civil war. This is not an exaggeration. So, the real question is, is Trump a reflection of the frustration and defiance of the conservative population, or, is he a clever ruse by the establishment to co-opt and placate the conservative population before we rebel? Again, without much political background to examine, Trump is a mystery. If Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment candidate, then here are some of the actions he would have to pursue in order to prove it: I’m sure that readers can think of many other potential actions that would help to prove beyond a doubt that Donald Trump is the kind of anti-establishment firebrand he presents himself to be. If Trump does take such measures during his presidency, then he may be a president worth supporting, or even fighting for. If he pursues few or none of these measures, however, we can be relatively certain he is just another establishment puppet playing his part in the false left/right paradigm leading America toward oblivion. Whatever Trump is, his popularity does indicate a rising tide of discontent within the U.S. The insane circus atmosphere of election 2016 is no coincidence; it is a perfect representation of the overflowing tensions that permeate our culture and are leading to potential earth shattering conflict. Keep in mind that America’s economic situation was already decided back in 2008 and will only become worse as we move into the election season. Whatever tensions we see now will only multiply as financial crisis becomes more apparent to the masses. The idea that a Trump presidency will change much of anything is a rather farfetched one in my view. Trump’s popularity only suggests that people are seeking alternatives. The damage to America has for the most part already been done, and there will be no avoiding the consequences. That said, how we rebuild can still be determined. No political leader including Trump will ever be able to heal the American system or the American psyche, but the efforts of millions of independent and liberty minded Americans can. We have a long and terrible struggle ahead of us, but to look at it from an “optimistic” perspective, at least Americans are becoming sick of the status quo. That is a start. — Brandon Smith
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-66) not displayed.
.
.
.
#67. To: paraclete (#65)
I'm not sure what your point is. Water is reclaimed constantly. The water you flush down the toilet is reclaimed the next time you drink from the faucet. Water is used in EVERY industrial process. There are floods and droughts and over abundances and lack of water always. So if you are suggesting some ideal society, I'd like to hear what you think it is. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
It does get exhausting repeating the same facts over and over again to you Paultards … if for no other reason, because facts shouldn’t have to be repeated. In the real world, where you Paultards do not live to face reality … facts are bulletproof, adhered to by any and all and denied only by the those wretched, unbalanced Paultards who have long since been marginalized by society. Donald Trump’s nomination is assured because he is getting more GOP primary votes than anyone in history. Where do you see any lack of enthusiasm in that?
Good grief, How many times do I have to post it before it sinks in? “Trump’s circle now includes such mainstream warmongers as Rudolph Giuliani, Chris Christie, Richard Haass (current president of the Council on Foreign Relations), and Senator Jeff Sessions. Trump has even identified John Bolton, an Iraq War architect and close ally of the neocons, as a ‘go to’ expert for advice on national security.” You Trumpettes have been neo-conned. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Trump will never be President. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You prefer Hillary? You also said he would never get the nomination. I think you even said he probably wouldn't qualify for the debates. I think you also said he would never get more then 20 percent. The I think you said he would never get 30 percent. Correct me if I am incorrect.
We should go to war against Muslims. Wipe them out.
You quote is a bunch of bullshit made up in an attempt to bias thinking and promote an anti-Trump agenda. Trumps has named none of the individuals you listed to be his foreign policy advisors. Here are the people Trump has named as his foreign policy advisors: George Papadopoulos: Hudson Institute / London Center of International Law Practice Joseph Keith Kellogg: Army 1967-2003 / Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority 2003-2004 Joseph Schmitz: Managing Director (WDC), Freeh Group International / CEO, Joseph E. Schmitz, PLLC / Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel, The Prince Group / Inspector General of the Department of Defense Walid Phares: Mitt Romney 2012 presidential / Fox News, Middle East and terrorism expert You need to stop with the disinformation … it is not working.
Then make a bet right now you lying bag of shit. If Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, YOU STOP POSTING ON LF. If Trump loses, I'll stop posting. Deal? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You remind me of badeye sometimes.
I remember the ID... but not his idiology.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Deal? Really? Do you consider your egoistic remarcks? Who cares if you post or not? I only care about you because of your old job as an elementary school crosswalk guard. We need people like you to hold up a RED sign saying, "STOP."
Buck, you really should not to engaging in a battle of wits against GrandIsland since you are such an unarmed opponent.
lol Good to have u back. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
OK, explain "unarmed" ... please help ... I certainly don't want to be held up by the kanary klub klan this evening.
Buck, you always need all the "help" you can get. In your case, unarmed = brain dead.
tater ... are you reminiscing in your old age?
The Electoral Vote map is not looking too good for Trump. Clinton 236 Clinton 236 Anyone can change this map to represent anything they want to by usling the following link: Customize your map by changing one or more states; return here to share it. It shows desperation when you have to manufacture information. Shame on you ...
tater ... you should have thought of that issue years ago when your best pal used the wrong link over on LP.
I think you also said he would never get more then 20 percent. The I think you said he would never get 30 percent. I never made any such claims. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You prefer Hillary? False dichotomy. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You're insane. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Not to worry - on a good day, GrandSphincter is a half-wit. The rest of the time he's as intelligent as lint. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Florida is Trumps. Virginia is Trumps. Arizona is Trumps. Pennsylvania is Trumps. New Hamshire is Trumps. Michigan is Trumps. Wisconsin is Trumps. Your map is liberal fantasy land.
I stand corrected.
Muslims are by definition evil.
The solution to that is for you to quit lying, Lying Tater. The map contains real data, not something that Gatlin pulled out of yukon's a$$ !!! There is a lot to worry about. Some of these authoritarians simply and litterally "suck" for a police state.
is that an new definition for republic
This might give you great understanding and dispel your myths. Australia ~23 million California ~39 million Texas ~27 million Canada ~36 million From the National Archives of Australia Only 6.55 percent of the land is arable. 90% of Australians live within 50 Km of the coast. A quarter of the land has been disignated useless. http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/print/?ID=19050 Learning content partnership This learning content – description and educational value statement – co-created by National Digital Learning Resource Network and National Archives of Australia.
I take no notice of an opinion from the 1920's, their reality was that they were in the middle of a rabbit and prickly pear plague that had devastated agricultural lands, irrigation was largely unknown and modern farming practices non existant. There is a reason why there are large populations on the coast, it is called the great dividing range, this confined early settlement to the coastal fringe as it was a real barrier both to migration and commerce. In your nation the settlement followed the railways, here the railways followed settlement but to say ariable land is confined to 50 km from the coast is rediculous, this is looking at land through european eyes, Some of the best farming land anywhere is found to the west of that range today Australian production of wheat is 26,000,000 tons at the time your information was formulated it was about 2,000,000 tons. Just one of the many statistics showing spetacular growth in commodity production of foodstuffs. How do you think we achieved this in 5% of the continent? what is more, there is spectacular growth in productivity with the workforce falling to 365,000. If australian agricultural land is so useless why do you think the chinese want to buy large tracts of it? When you search the net you should search for up to date opinion not just articles that support your point of view
You are a funny little Aussie, but I linked and quoted a 21st Century study from National Archives of Australia. That would have been be obvious to you if you had actually read it. I can take no notice of your prejudged opinions is conflict with an actual study created by the National Digital Learning Resource Network and National Archives of Australia 2007-2010. As quoted previously: I did and I found such from the National Archives of Australia from 2010. When you decide to blather your personal prejudged opinions, you should at least read what you are responding to.
The original map was produced by a geographer in the 1920s.. What you have here is an opinion piece that seeks to link two factors that are not linked in the 21st century. That information like this exists provides a highly biased view of what this nation is and can achieve. It is no wonder people elsewhere are illinformed regarding this land. You do not need "quality agricultural land" to develop agriculture and land use does not need to be restricted to pastoral persuits just because the place doesn't look like Europe, we are not a land of shepards and cattle herders population no longer needs to be centred on agricultural land, if this were so your populations in the americas could not be sustained any more than ours could here. That we have not developed centres of population inland like your Chicago is a fact that we do not have large inland bodies of water and large waterways facilitating inland commerce, we have to rely on road transport over somewhat difficult terrain west of the divide To help you understand my perspective you are speaking to a person who established a vineyard, farmed sheep and who spent a lot of time understanding what could and could not be done. During my studies I have seen that map in a text on pastures What part of the word archive do you not understand?
What sort of bullshit is that? The study is from 2010. Give it up. You did not read it. Displayed is a "map modelled on the early 20th-century work of Professor Griffith Taylor of the University of Sydney, who argued that cultivation and settlement should not spread into certain tropical and desert regions in Australia." In the history of mankind, about 90% of the land of Australia has remained uninhabited, or extremely scarcely inhabited by aborigines.
please don't post propaganda. Beginning in the eighteenth century, land in Australia was progressively occupied by European settlers who displaced the indigenous inhabitants. It is true that the indigenous inhabitants had a small ecological footprint but they did range over the entire continent so how it can be said that 90% was unoccupied is beyond me, even the deserts had inhabitants. The view you put forward is the terra nullius view promolgated by the british as a justification for taking over the land, and is no longer considered valid in Australia although it was considered valid in the early twentieth century Today, the whole continent is inhabited but the very arid lands are sparcely populated. If one takes the surface area occupied by a single individual and extrapolates it, it is possible to say that the area of the Earth is largely uninhabited but this denies that there are people just about everywhere, except antartica. What I have said to you is that the map was of early twentieth century origin. It is not representative of agricultural use today. It is part of the material contained in an archive and is only of historical interest and is about as relevant as a map of terra Australis incognita. There may be some correlation in the distribution of population in a general sense in as much as the large population centres are coastal, this does not point to an absense of habitation inland
You must be getting really desperate. What I said was: Today, the whole continent is inhabited? By what? From the National Digital Learning Resource Network and National Archives of Australia, 2010 Only 6.55 percent of the land is arable. 90% of Australians live within 50 Km of the coast. A quarter of the land has been disignated useless.
We seem to be back where we started, tell me how much of your country has been designated useless? over 50% of this country is involved in agricultural production, in the US the statistic is 44%. As the countries are of equivalent size we could draw all sorts of inferences from that, most of them wrong. The Sinai was once designated useless. as we both know it is a desert
I would spell it out for you but I seem to have misplaced my English-to-Dumbass dictionary.
ah that explians it you have been using the wrong dictionary
Only in the USA, doesn't affect me but you have a good time
#68. To: hondo68, GrandIsland (#63)
Low energy Donald has an enthusiasm gap.
#69. To: Gatlin (#66)
Where are the “neocon establishment warmonger advisers” of which you speak?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#70. To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#68)
Donald Trump’s nomination is assured because he is getting more GOP primary votes than anyone in history.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#71. To: Deckard (#70)
Trump will never be President.
#72. To: Deckard (#69)
#73. To: Deckard (#69)
“Trump’s circle now includes such mainstream warmongers as Rudolph Giuliani, Chris Christie, Richard Haass (current president of the Council on Foreign Relations), and Senator Jeff Sessions. Trump has even identified John Bolton, an Iraq War architect and close ally of the neocons, as a ‘go to’ expert for advice on national security.”
Carter Page: No previous experience.
#74. To: Deckard (#70)
Trump will never be President.
#75. To: GrandIsland (#74)
#76. To: A K A Stone (#75)
#77. To: GrandIsland (#74)
If Trump loses, I'll stop posting.
#78. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#77)
#79. To: Gatlin (#78)
Buck, you really should not to engaging in a battle of wits against GrandIsland since you are such an unarmed opponent.
#80. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland, yukon (#78)
you really should not to engaging in a battle of wits against GrandIsland since you are such an unarmed opponent.
#81. To: buckeroo. GrandIsland (#80)
OK, explain "unarmed" ... please help ...
#82. To: Gatlin (#81)
#83. To: A K A Stone, Deckard, *2016 The Likely Suspects* (#71)
Trump 16 
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#84. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#83)
The Electoral Vote map is not looking too good for Trump.
Trump 16
#85. To: Gatlin, hondo68, A K A Stone (#84)
Shame on you ...
#86. To: A K A Stone (#71)
I think you even said he probably wouldn't qualify for the debates.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#87. To: A K A Stone (#71)
Trump will never be President.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#88. To: A K A Stone (#72)
(Edited)
We should go to war against Muslims. Wipe them out.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#89. To: buckeroo (#80)
a battle of wits against GrandIsland
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#90. To: hondo68 (#83)
#91. To: Deckard (#86)
I never made any such claims.
#92. To: Deckard (#88)
We should go to war against Muslims. Wipe them out. You're insane.
#93. To: Gatlin, all lies, all the time, Lying Canaries, buckeroo, Deckard (#84)
It shows desperation when you have to manufacture information.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#94. To: Deckard (#89)
Not to worry ...
#95. To: Deckard (#87)
False dichotomy.
#96. To: paraclete (#52)
This might give you great understanding and dispell the myths
Educational value
#97. To: nolu chan (#96)
(Edited)
#98. To: paraclete (#97)
I take no notice of an opinion from the 1920's, their reality was that they were in the middle of a rabbit and prickly pear plague that had devastated agricultural lands, irrigation was largely unknown and modern farming practices non existant.
Educational value
When you search the net you should search for up to date opinion not just articles that support your point of view
#99. To: nolu chan (#98)
(Edited)
shows that the distribution of Australia's population closely followed the distribution of quality agricultural and pastoral land – little has changed in this regard at the beginning of the 21st century.
#100. To: paraclete (#99)
The original map was produced by a geographer in the 1920s.
shows that the distribution of Australia's population closely followed the distribution of quality agricultural and pastoral land – little has changed in this regard at the beginning of the 21st century
#101. To: nolu chan (#100)
(Edited)
In the history of mankind, about 90% of the land of Australia has remained uninhabited, or extremely scarcely inhabited by aborigines.
#102. To: paraclete (#101)
please don't post propaganda. Beginning in the eighteenth century, land in Australia was progressively occupied by European settlers who displaced the indigenous inhabitants. It is true that the indigenous inhabitants had a small ecological footprint but they did range over the entire continent so how it can be said that 90% was unoccupied is beyond me, even the deserts had inhabitants.
In the history of mankind, about 90% of the land of Australia has remained uninhabited, or extremely scarcely inhabited by aborigines.
#103. To: nolu chan (#102)
(Edited)
#104. To: paraclete (#103)
#105. To: nolu chan (#104)
#106. To: paraclete (#105)
#107. To: nolu chan (#106)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]