[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better? I want to start this analysis by stating that I fully understand the whirlwind of public interest in Donald Trumps campaign. However, for those that dont 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. Trumps 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 Trumps 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 doesnt care if they call him a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. And, Americans love it. They cant 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: Im 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 Americas 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. Trumps 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 38.
#29. To: Deckard (#0)
Will the Paultards really stop crying or making excuses for their SIX PERCENT loser popularity?
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. Trump Picks Former Goldman Partner And Soros Employee As Finance Chairman Did Donald Trump Just Go Full Establishment? After digging a little deeper, it turns out Mnuchin has an even more surprising former employer: none other than democratic political financier, billionaire, and Hillary Clinton donor George Soros. In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama. Making matters even worse, it turns out that Mnuchin profited handsomely from the 2009 Wall Street bailouts. According to Mother Jones, after buying the bailed out IndyMac Bank for pennies on the dollar, Mnuchin and his partners, who named their new bank OneWest, ended up doing spectacularly well. They parlayed their $1.55 billion investment into a $3.4 billion payday. He was able to do this because taxpayers took on all the risks of the banks bad assets, costing taxpayers an estimated $13 billion in losses. All the while, the bank continued to foreclose on homeowners who were no longer able to make mortgage payments. These developments come only a few days after Trumps former opponents, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, dropped out of the race all but guaranteeing Donald the nomination. Trump also recently announced he will forgo the self-funding he has relied on so far in the primary, promising to raise $1 billion from supporters in conjunction with the Republican party in preparation for the general election. Further, Trump has begun to surround himself with neocon Republican establishment icons. As Dan Sanchez explains: Trumps 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. It appears Donald Trumps days as an anti-establishment outsider have come to a close now that hes gearing up for the general election (most likely) against Hillary Clinton another politician with ties to Goldman Sachs. It appears that regardless of who winds up winning the presidency in 2016, Goldman Sachs will remain the unbeatable incumbent.
Shut your OWS pie hole. Oh... and stick your Black Lives Matter billshit up your Jane Fonda ass too.
Oh... and stick your Black Lives Matter billshit up your Jane Fonda ass too. He isn't OWS or Black lives matter. You two have more in common then you think. In my opinion.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#38)
Deckard is considerably more liberal than me. He also has a skewed liberal view on personal responsibility. If someone could brainwash constitutional rights into Jane Fonda's brain... only adding that idiology to her already exsisting mindset... you'd have a Deckard.
I got nothing in common with that fascist prick. Other than the fact that we both think Budweiser sucks.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|