Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 2:31:07 GMT
Reaganomics worked the first time, raising GDP, real wages, and number of jobs created, but you can only catch lightning in a bottle once. They haven't had the same effect since, "Trickle down" effect works, but only when there's growth. Under Reagan trade deficit grew in the 80s as did the debt, by leaps n bounds by Expanding the military by 400%.The greatest cue card reader of all-time spent more money than any tax-n-spend democrat ever did. Military jobs were added by spending money in the 80s. Fiscal conservative Reagan was not. I know the debt went up (probably cost HW a second term after Perot's harping about it) but there was enough expansion that it was a success in my mind. I wonder if the economy will ever be "back?" It stands to reason that after 15 years in the tank the normal ebb and flow of economic cycles will play out within the next five years.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 10, 2016 5:44:02 GMT
Well spending has been down since the 2011 agreement between Boehner and Obama. So maybe congress can start with the highway-infrastructure bill.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 10, 2016 10:17:44 GMT
Yes, but corporations will pay their share, the IRS will shrink in size, tax courts and lawyers will not use up precious tax money. The middle class will have more if the government is decreased in size. Next, go after the Education Department with a sun set date within ten years. Other cabinet positions as well. Now that will surely give the middle class money. It won't happen because both parties like bureaucracy especially the Democrats living around Washington DC.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 10, 2016 12:44:29 GMT
Geez!!! I stumble on this thread, when it's pretty much fanned out. Went back a few pages and read all of the posts. Great discussion.
Both of our countries have exactly the same governmental problems. The current "system' of governing is broke, and it's been broken by "all" the parties that most cling to....not those "other bastards". Government generally wants to keep things moving in the same direction, when it obviously, needs a major re-think. Anyone who feels otherwise is soon swallowed up by the party, ruined by it, or kicked out. Somehow, we have to get past that.
Read an intersting article a while back, and don't remember the numbers, but can get the point across. In 1980, there were around 40 major lobby groups in Washington. Now it's about 6500.
We didn't always have government the way we do know. Fundamentally, we needed it, only to accomplish those things we couldn't get done individually. It's morphed into an animal a long way from that. So far that between the deficit, and the power brokers, there's little left to do what society really intended government to be around for.
I'm one of the younger baby boomers, and it's real easy for me to see when things really went off the tracks. We can thank those driving the bus from the late 50's to the 80's, as those who created the problem, and those driving it from then to now...for keeping it going. History has always been littered with political mistakes, but we've now got them built into the system.tly In our generational pursuit of attempting to prove how much smarter we are, than those before us(a relatively new process we seem to feel is necessary) we've created a society of inconsistency and double speak. The Woodstock crowd protested everything, yet that same group has insistently...for their whole adult lives... screamed for more "rules' than any previous generation. There are just so many things out there, that don't make sense. Many have been pointed out here.
Some may argue that's always been the case. Maybe. But there's never been so many, who can easily poke holes.
A President isn't going to change that. The President is just an image. I've watched and read a lot regarding the upcoming cage match, and the image of Hillary, or Donald imo, isn't very appealing to the rest of the world. In fact, I don't think there is anything, either could do as President, that could possibly out do the damage they'll inflict leading up to the election.
In order for the system to keep working as is...there has to be 'order". We've created a society of disorder. Everybody is expecting to be heard...everybody is right, yet we have more "mustn't touch subjects" than we ever have. Unfortunately, up here... we're in worse shape that way.
The troops are getting restless, and The Donald is their image, despite a hilarious disconnect to their own realities. Hillary is more of what's already broken. Both are rooting their agenda's on the naivety of the general population. Making America Great "Again" requires swallowing the myth it actually "was". Hillary's notion it already "is", is even more laughable.
Whatever happens, I think we're on the bubble of huge change. The fact that Donald has absolutely rocked an organization as big and powerful as his party is a great step in my opinion. That's why I hope he wins. There's plenty of safegurds preventing him from changing too much too quick. In reality, there's enough safeguards preventing him, or anyone else from doing too much of anything. He is, an image of big change though, and that's what's needed imo.
Chronic dissatisfaction is the price of progress. This hemisphere has never been more dissatisfied. Despite prospering beneath a waterfall of invention and improvement and innovation, our political agenda's are trudging along the same tracks they did decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 10, 2016 13:12:55 GMT
Geez!!! I stumble on this thread, when it's pretty much fanned out. Went back a few pages and read all of the posts. Great discussion. Both of our countries have exactly the same governmental problems. The current "system' of governing is broke, and it's been broken by "all" the parties that most cling to....not those "other bastards". Government generally wants to keep things moving in the same direction, when it obviously, needs a major re-think. Anyone who feels otherwise is soon swallowed up by the party, ruined by it, or kicked out. Somehow, we have to get past that. Read an intersting article a while back, and don't remember the numbers, but can get the point across. In 1980, there were around 40 major lobby groups in Washington. Now it's about 6500. We didn't always have government the way we do know. Fundamentally, we needed it, only to accomplish those things we couldn't get done individually. It's morphed into an animal a long way from that. So far that between the deficit, and the power brokers, there's little left to do what society really intended government to be around for. I'm one of the younger baby boomers, and it's real easy for me to see when things really went off the tracks. We can thank those driving the bus from the late 50's to the 80's, as those who created the problem, and those driving it from then to now...for keeping it going. History has always been littered with political mistakes, but we've now got them built into the system.tly In our generational pursuit of attempting to prove how much smarter we are, than those before us(a relatively new process we seem to feel is necessary) we've created a society of inconsistency and double speak. The Woodstock crowd protested everything, yet that same group has insistently...for their whole adult lives... screamed for more "rules' than any previous generation. There are just so many things out there, that don't make sense. Many have been pointed out here. Some may argue that's always been the case. Maybe. But there's never been so many, who can easily poke holes. A President isn't going to change that. The President is just an image. I've watched and read a lot regarding the upcoming cage match, and the image of Hillary, or Donald imo, isn't very appealing to the rest of the world. In fact, I don't think there is anything, either could do as President, that could possibly out do the damage they'll inflict leading up to the election. In order for the system to keep working as is...there has to be 'order". We've created a society of disorder. Everybody is expecting to be heard...everybody is right, yet we have more "mustn't touch subjects" than we ever have. Unfortunately, up here... we're in worse shape that way. The troops are getting restless, and The Donald is their image, despite a hilarious disconnect to their own realities. Hillary is more of what's already broken. Both are rooting their agenda's on the naivety of the general population. Making America Great "Again" requires swallowing the myth it actually "was". Hillary's notion it already "is", is even more laughable. Whatever happens, I think we're on the bubble of huge change. The fact that Donald has absolutely rocked an organization as big and powerful as his party is a great step in my opinion. That's why I hope he wins. There's plenty of safegurds preventing him from changing too much too quick. In reality, there's enough safeguards preventing him, or anyone else from doing too much of anything. He is, an image of big change though, and that's what's needed imo. Chronic dissatisfaction is the price of progress. This hemisphere has never been more dissatisfied. Despite prospering beneath a waterfall of invention and improvement and innovation, our political agenda's are trudging along the same tracks they did decades ago. A president by his demeanor alone changes the world. A poor choice of words and the market tumbles. And yesterday's comment about the second amendment people taking care of Hillary was either disgusting or idiotic from either perspective of the comment. If it appears that Donald will be elected, we're certainly moving our 401k money out of the market and so won't a great many other people - and if elected he's almost certain to cause a financial crisis merely by stating the same rhetoric he already has about "playing with debt". The dollar is the most stable and dependable thing on the planet and if he so much as hints playing around with it, the world economy will suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 13:28:07 GMT
I would urge everyone, no matter what side you fall on, to just be the best fawkin American you can be come November. Do it for your family, do it for yourself, do it for your community. Why do anything else?
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 10, 2016 14:21:36 GMT
Geez!!! I stumble on this thread, when it's pretty much fanned out. Went back a few pages and read all of the posts. Great discussion. Both of our countries have exactly the same governmental problems. The current "system' of governing is broke, and it's been broken by "all" the parties that most cling to....not those "other bastards". Government generally wants to keep things moving in the same direction, when it obviously, needs a major re-think. Anyone who feels otherwise is soon swallowed up by the party, ruined by it, or kicked out. Somehow, we have to get past that. Read an intersting article a while back, and don't remember the numbers, but can get the point across. In 1980, there were around 40 major lobby groups in Washington. Now it's about 6500. We didn't always have government the way we do know. Fundamentally, we needed it, only to accomplish those things we couldn't get done individually. It's morphed into an animal a long way from that. So far that between the deficit, and the power brokers, there's little left to do what society really intended government to be around for. I'm one of the younger baby boomers, and it's real easy for me to see when things really went off the tracks. We can thank those driving the bus from the late 50's to the 80's, as those who created the problem, and those driving it from then to now...for keeping it going. History has always been littered with political mistakes, but we've now got them built into the system.tly In our generational pursuit of attempting to prove how much smarter we are, than those before us(a relatively new process we seem to feel is necessary) we've created a society of inconsistency and double speak. The Woodstock crowd protested everything, yet that same group has insistently...for their whole adult lives... screamed for more "rules' than any previous generation. There are just so many things out there, that don't make sense. Many have been pointed out here. Some may argue that's always been the case. Maybe. But there's never been so many, who can easily poke holes. A President isn't going to change that. The President is just an image. I've watched and read a lot regarding the upcoming cage match, and the image of Hillary, or Donald imo, isn't very appealing to the rest of the world. In fact, I don't think there is anything, either could do as President, that could possibly out do the damage they'll inflict leading up to the election. In order for the system to keep working as is...there has to be 'order". We've created a society of disorder. Everybody is expecting to be heard...everybody is right, yet we have more "mustn't touch subjects" than we ever have. Unfortunately, up here... we're in worse shape that way. The troops are getting restless, and The Donald is their image, despite a hilarious disconnect to their own realities. Hillary is more of what's already broken. Both are rooting their agenda's on the naivety of the general population. Making America Great "Again" requires swallowing the myth it actually "was". Hillary's notion it already "is", is even more laughable. Whatever happens, I think we're on the bubble of huge change. The fact that Donald has absolutely rocked an organization as big and powerful as his party is a great step in my opinion. That's why I hope he wins. There's plenty of safegurds preventing him from changing too much too quick. In reality, there's enough safeguards preventing him, or anyone else from doing too much of anything. He is, an image of big change though, and that's what's needed imo. Chronic dissatisfaction is the price of progress. This hemisphere has never been more dissatisfied. Despite prospering beneath a waterfall of invention and improvement and innovation, our political agenda's are trudging along the same tracks they did decades ago. A president by his demeanor alone changes the world. A poor choice of words and the market tumbles. And yesterday's comment about the second amendment people taking care of Hillary was either disgusting or idiotic from either perspective of the comment. If it appears that Donald will be elected, we're certainly moving our 401k money out of the market and so won't a great many other people - and if elected he's almost certain to cause a financial crisis merely by stating the same rhetoric he already has about "playing with debt". The dollar is the most stable and dependable thing on the planet and if he so much as hints playing around with it, the world economy will suffer. Agree somewhat badhab, I just don't think that "change' lasts very long. We just seem to react more hysterically, then things revert to the mean. Brexit comes to mind. Immediately after the votes were tallied, Britain lost it's AAA credit rating. The market went south. All Hell was breaking loose. A month later, share prices were better than they were before the vote. Retail sales have been fine, and UK industrial output grew.
If Donald wins, the smart move may be to move your 401 k money alright, but the timing may be to do it just before the election, then put it right back while everyone is screaming Armageddon.
As much as we're told to believe the world hangs on every phrase politicians spew...it doesn't play out that way.
And yes...yesterdays comment was disgusting and stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 14:27:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 10, 2016 15:36:01 GMT
Another DNC staffer killed. Seth Rich this time. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but logic and stats tell me this is well beyond the likelihood of coincidence. Doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence, just that it's off the scale of probability and the conspiracy folks are all over it. This latest murder is being attributed to the "fact" that Rich was part of feeding WikiLeaks the stuff that forced Deb Schultz to resign as DNC chair.
Julian Assangehole is trying to take Hellary down. More leaks to come I'm sure. The Bernie supporters and lots of millennial independents seem to buy into the notion that the hag and the DNC are evil and will stop at nothing to put Hitlary in office. The leaked emails give their position some cred. They'll buy anything after that. So the youth vote is slowly shifting away from Clinton. I don't know how many are swinging all the way over to Trump, though. Maybe they'll vote for the libertarians or just write in "Bernie" with a little peace sign dotting the i.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 15:58:25 GMT
Another DNC staffer killed. Seth Rich this time. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but logic and stats tell me this is well beyond the likelihood of coincidence. Doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence, just that it's off the scale of probability and the conspiracy folks are all over it. This latest murder is being attributed to the "fact" that Rich was part of feeding WikiLeaks the stuff that forced Deb Schultz to resign as DNC chair. Julian Assangehole is trying to take Hellary down. More leaks to come I'm sure. ***The Bernie supporters and lots of millennial independents seem to buy into the notion that the hag and the DNC are evil and will stop at nothing to put Hitlary in office.*** The leaked emails give their position some cred. They'll buy anything after that. So the youth vote is slowly shifting away from Clinton. I don't know how many are swinging all the way over to Trump, though. Maybe they'll vote for the libertarians or just write in "Bernie" with a little peace sign dotting the i. That's right...fucking nobody wants Hillary. Her nomination is a lifetime achievement award delayed from 2008. The DNC keeps passing around this potato and nobody wants it. Also worth mentioning that Obama has fractured the DNC by making a similar organization he's devoted to, forget what it's called, so the DNC is an unabashed Clinton apparatus.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 10, 2016 16:03:07 GMT
Interesting that there seems to be more clamoring for former Massachusetts Gov. Weld to jump into the race. Totally unrealistic, I think, but interesting.
You have to wonder if the libertarians had a more compelling candidate than Gary Johnson, would it become a viable option for many voters? There definitely seems to be a majority that dislikes both Trump and Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 10, 2016 16:15:51 GMT
Another DNC staffer killed. Seth Rich this time. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but logic and stats tell me this is well beyond the likelihood of coincidence. Doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence, just that it's off the scale of probability and the conspiracy folks are all over it. This latest murder is being attributed to the "fact" that Rich was part of feeding WikiLeaks the stuff that forced Deb Schultz to resign as DNC chair. Julian Assangehole is trying to take Hellary down. More leaks to come I'm sure. ***The Bernie supporters and lots of millennial independents seem to buy into the notion that the hag and the DNC are evil and will stop at nothing to put Hitlary in office.*** The leaked emails give their position some cred. They'll buy anything after that. So the youth vote is slowly shifting away from Clinton. I don't know how many are swinging all the way over to Trump, though. Maybe they'll vote for the libertarians or just write in "Bernie" with a little peace sign dotting the i. That's right...fucking nobody wants Hillary. Her nomination is a lifetime achievement award delayed from 2008. The DNC keeps passing around this potato and nobody wants it. Also worth mentioning that Obama has fractured the DNC by making a similar organization he's devoted to, forget what it's called, so the DNC is an unabashed Clinton apparatus. Hillary gets the status quo vote, or the "devil you know" choice, which seems to be compelling right now. It's become very trendy to be anti-status quo, but when that choice means Donald Trump is in charge, I think most people reluctantly stick with status quo. Hillary as president will most likely be a lot like Bill as president, and she'll slide to the center during her term most likely. Like you say, she is so, very beatable though. It's almost inconceivable, and sadly comical, that the other side has chosen somebody even less appealing to voters. I really can't remember a time when a presidential candidate has had a double-digit lead in most polls, leading up to an election, and has absolutely no enthusiasm around her campaign at all. These are strange times.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 10, 2016 16:16:23 GMT
Interesting that there seems to be more clamoring for former Massachusetts Gov. Weld to jump into the race. Totally unrealistic, I think, but interesting. You have to wonder if the libertarians had a more compelling candidate than Gary Johnson, would it become a viable option for many voters? There definitely seems to be a majority that dislikes both Trump and Clinton. Weld is Gary Johnson's VP on the Libertarian ticket. They should get a fair share of WASP votes from NY and Mass These 2 are interesting...they are polling almost well enough to get on the stage for the debates which is 15%. They think they'll be running at 20% or more in the polls prior to the election. They are then hoping that many voters will be so disgusted with Clinton and trump by then that when in the voting booth they'll think, "Hey, these 2 can't possibly be worse than the crook or the blowhard". No, I don't think they'll win but the Libertarian vote will be waaay higher than in previous elections. Presented with better options I don't think they'd do much better than in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 10, 2016 16:20:20 GMT
Interesting that there seems to be more clamoring for former Massachusetts Gov. Weld to jump into the race. Totally unrealistic, I think, but interesting. You have to wonder if the libertarians had a more compelling candidate than Gary Johnson, would it become a viable option for many voters? There definitely seems to be a majority that dislikes both Trump and Clinton. Weld is Gary Johnson's VP on the Libertarian ticket. They should get a fair share of WASP votes from NY and Mass These 2 are interesting...they are polling almost well enough to get on the stage for the debates which is 15%. They think they'll be running at 20% or more in the polls prior to the election. They are then hoping that many voters will be so disgusted with Clinton and trump by then that when in the voting booth they'll think, "Hey, these 2 can't possibly be worse than the crook or the blowhard". No, I don't think they'll win but the Libertarian vote will be waaay higher than in previous elections. Presented with better options I don't think they'd do much better than in 2012. Yes, and it seemed to me that Susan Collins, for one, was pretty directly suggesting that they should flip-flop the ticket. I agree, by the way. Weld has better credentials than Gary Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Aug 10, 2016 16:41:47 GMT
Weld is Gary Johnson's VP on the Libertarian ticket. They should get a fair share of WASP votes from NY and Mass These 2 are interesting...they are polling almost well enough to get on the stage for the debates which is 15%. They think they'll be running at 20% or more in the polls prior to the election. They are then hoping that many voters will be so disgusted with Clinton and trump by then that when in the voting booth they'll think, "Hey, these 2 can't possibly be worse than the crook or the blowhard". No, I don't think they'll win but the Libertarian vote will be waaay higher than in previous elections. Presented with better options I don't think they'd do much better than in 2012. Yes, and it seemed to me that Susan Collins, for one, was pretty directly suggesting that they should flip-flop the ticket. I agree, by the way. Weld has better credentials than Gary Johnson. Ah, I missed that comment by Collins. Yeah, not a bad idea...He's definitely more compelling to listen to than Johnson.
Edit: If they do make it to the debate stage, Johnson should come down with the fake flu and let Weld step in. Bill is much better than Johnson in that situation and there'd be a much better chance of a post-debate bump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 16:43:46 GMT
That's right...fucking nobody wants Hillary. Her nomination is a lifetime achievement award delayed from 2008. The DNC keeps passing around this potato and nobody wants it. Also worth mentioning that Obama has fractured the DNC by making a similar organization he's devoted to, forget what it's called, so the DNC is an unabashed Clinton apparatus. Hillary gets the status quo vote, or the "devil you know" choice, which seems to be compelling right now. It's become very trendy to be anti-status quo, but when that choice means Donald Trump is in charge, I think most people reluctantly stick with status quo. Hillary as president will most likely be a lot like Bill as president, and she'll slide to the center during her term most likely. Like you say, she is so, very beatable though. It's almost inconceivable, and sadly comical, that the other side has chosen somebody even less appealing to voters. I really can't remember a time when a presidential candidate has had a double-digit lead in most polls, leading up to an election, and has absolutely no enthusiasm around her campaign at all. These are strange times. I thought about Gary Johnson until the DNC leaks and then the nail in the coffin was his profile in The New Yorker. As a governor, he vetoed almost 1100 bills from a Democratic State Senate. He's too divisive, and he's also a pot head, and pointedly mentions he gets high "no more than 3.5 a week." That's personal info that should be kept private.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 10, 2016 20:19:03 GMT
Hillary gets the status quo vote, or the "devil you know" choice, which seems to be compelling right now. It's become very trendy to be anti-status quo, but when that choice means Donald Trump is in charge, I think most people reluctantly stick with status quo. Hillary as president will most likely be a lot like Bill as president, and she'll slide to the center during her term most likely. Like you say, she is so, very beatable though. It's almost inconceivable, and sadly comical, that the other side has chosen somebody even less appealing to voters. I really can't remember a time when a presidential candidate has had a double-digit lead in most polls, leading up to an election, and has absolutely no enthusiasm around her campaign at all. These are strange times. I thought about Gary Johnson until the DNC leaks and then the nail in the coffin was his profile in The New Yorker. As a governor, he vetoed almost 1100 bills from a Democratic State Senate. He's too divisive, and he's also a pot head, and pointedly mentions he gets high "no more than 3.5 a week." That's personal info that should be kept private. He's a libertarian. Why judge his personal choice to share his fondness for the leafy greens?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 10, 2016 20:30:07 GMT
Yes, and it seemed to me that Susan Collins, for one, was pretty directly suggesting that they should flip-flop the ticket. I agree, by the way. Weld has better credentials than Gary Johnson. Ah, I missed that comment by Collins. Yeah, not a bad idea...He's definitely more compelling to listen to than Johnson.
Edit: If they do make it to the debate stage, Johnson should come down with the fake flu and let Weld step in. Bill is much better than Johnson in that situation and there'd be a much better chance of a post-debate bump.
What a collection of monkey-see, monkey-do bullshit. Libertarians are just imitating the major parties in wanting to elect someone in their party other than their nominee! If I was an odds-maker in Vegas, I would short the odds that someone other than Trump will be on the ballot come November, and I might offer the same for Hillary and the Dems, and now the Libertarians so you could bet the trifecta. Trump is going to hit a point where he, or his staff, or Ivanka, or the little voice in his head says: "you can't win this; it's rigged; it's not worth it; you should quit rather than lose" and he'll walk away and cite the unfair media, the RNC and establishment, the media and DWS doing more rigging than the entire crew of a tall ship. Alternatively, another Republican will run as an independent and Trump will quit in time for the RNC to back the independent as a Republican. Hillary could get indicted. Some scandal could be out there. Who knows? This could be Bernie vs. Mitt for all the marbles. Ryan v Booker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 21:06:56 GMT
I thought about Gary Johnson until the DNC leaks and then the nail in the coffin was his profile in The New Yorker. As a governor, he vetoed almost 1100 bills from a Democratic State Senate. He's too divisive, and he's also a pot head, and pointedly mentions he gets high "no more than 3.5 a week." That's personal info that should be kept private. He's a libertarian. Why judge his personal choice to share his fondness for the leafy greens? Because you have to draw the line somewhere...saying, "weed? Yeah. I smoke about 3.5 times a week" is a really flippant way to answer that question. I also went to collegs at UVM (Groovy UV) so I've seen some of these things.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Aug 10, 2016 21:10:37 GMT
I thought his contained, disciplined speech at the Detroit Economic Club earlier in the week was possibly an indication of a more consistent, focussed attack mode on Hillary Clinton in order to gouge out the generous, lingering fodder on her side instead of the daily scrambling to defend or explain one of his comments. That lasted, what, one day?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 10, 2016 21:17:28 GMT
I thought his contained, disciplined speech at the Detroit Economic Club earlier in the week was possibly an indication of a more consistent, focussed attack mode on Hillary Clinton in order to gouge out the generous, lingering fodder on her side instead of the daily scrambling to defend or explain one of his comments. That lasted, what, one day? I think he can't a) listen to his staff or b) have a competent staff or c) do well with prepared remarks. I don't think he likes being scripted or prescribed or told what to say, and that's got a lot to do with why he's not representing a policy platform in most of his public appearances other than his personal brand items like Trump Wall and Trump Ban on Muslims. If he gets into the stuff that is really policy, he's off his dime and if he's not comfortable he can't be TRUMP. No matter how vulnerable he might actually be as a result of his extempore remarks, he prefers that to the fear of vulnerability in being caught without the answers to follow up questions. The "which foot" question is a good example and might be one he thinks of when he makes the choices he makes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 0:00:21 GMT
I thought his contained, disciplined speech at the Detroit Economic Club earlier in the week was possibly an indication of a more consistent, focussed attack mode on Hillary Clinton in order to gouge out the generous, lingering fodder on her side instead of the daily scrambling to defend or explain one of his comments. That lasted, what, one day? He's like a kid that can't help putting his hand on a hot stove.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 11, 2016 0:56:02 GMT
The Clinton Foundation solicited arms deals for american military contracts. Some of those US companies pay zero taxes. It's sickening!
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 11, 2016 1:13:25 GMT
Labeling and stereo typing is just grand. The fact of the matter voting beyond the two parties is philosophy is beyond pragmatism. America Presidential democracy is based upon coalitions made prior to the elections. So if a write-in is made it is in protest to the coalitions formed. The electoral college makes the American political system unique, it is the only election that is nation wide. Parliamentary prime ministers are solely local. The media coverage is intense thus making any anomaly worth conversation after the election. So a large write-in campaign can influence public policy. Essentially the American political system is not broken but lacks a populist candidate.
The beaucracy seems to grow despite Keynesian or Monetary theories of the past 50-60 years. The only redeeming factor in sending a message to the bureaucracy is either a write-in vote to change the next coalition 4 years from now or to vote for one of the two party candidates. Outside of economic armageddon or war preparedness the bureaucracy is the greatest threat to the political system. Send of a message of change from the of from corporate/government to populist*. So to mock those write in candidates candidates is moot. The "I did not inhale crowd" is you and us. The social network crowd with wide communication levels reads support for other candidates other than Trump and Clinton as limiting. These individuals will inquire on the write-in popularity. They will want to read why the write-in was able to garner votes. Make them read something else other than the blandness of corporate/government speak. BTW parliamentary governments are good, look at England, yet then again look at Italy. The American system is lacking a directive, so think out of the box as used to be said. I am pretty sure the Orwellian political speak we now hear needs a spark of truth. Grow the economy not the bureaucracy, vote differently if you can. Just because Jimmy Carter was an outsider does not mean write-ins are throw away votes. Come to think of it Ronald Reagan was an outsider.
* Populist movements are witnessed in the election of Andrew Jackson and later through coalitions in the election of Progressives at the turn of the 19th century.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 2:12:27 GMT
The Clinton Foundation solicited arms deals for american military contracts. Some of those US companies pay zero taxes. It's sickening! You can always write your Congressman. I can't do anything about these companies...
|
|