From an article in NewsMax magazine. “Trump Reconsideed”
“In November, a Pew Research Center report entitled, “How Americans View their Government”, included the startling revelation that nearly two thirds of Americans, regardless of party, believed the outcome of the election would leave them worse off regardless of who won the election.”
I doubt that. We will be worse off if Hillary wins, or if the Republican, like GW Bush, go along with the rulings of the previous president. The problem with Bush was that he didn’t undo Clinton’s policies.
One reason for that is he allowed Clintonites to remain in key positions. Bush wanted to be a good guy and get along
That is not leadership..
The article is about populism. It points out how populism hasn’t produced a president since Andrew Jackson. It mentions Ross Perot, but doesn’t say how he gave us Bill Clinton.
Now Ben Carson, there is a guy who knows what he wants and he wants America to be a strong tool for God’s purposes. Which is why he rids his campaign of questionable characters or those who do not support his policies and expects Cruz to do the same. He would do the same as President.
Populism started with Jackson, and the quality of presidents declined once the vote was given to men who didn’t own property. A one-question literacy test for voters (an algebra word problem) would help. It would completely decimate the Democrats and the Trump voters.
And to think, some still believe that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s and that the chemicals and equip. didn’t leave in truck convoys to Syria in the weeks prior to the US invasion. These ingredients didn’t magically appear, and ISIS didn’t produce them. Nor did they have the knowledge on how to weaponize them. I’m guessing they discovered the programs amidst their spoils in the cities that fell to them. They had access to all Syrian govt info and programs when they took over these cities.
And I’ll note that Kerry insisted he’d got them out of Syria.
“The nation’s top intelligence official confirmed Tuesday that the Islamic State has succeeded in making and deploying chemical agents in Iraq and Syria — calling it the first such attack by an extremist group in more than two decades.
The confirmation of mustard gas use came during Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he spoke to the Islamic State’s growing sophistication online and in the battlefield.
He did not elaborate on where and when the chemical attacks occurred, though there has been mounting evidence the terror group was experimenting with chemical weapons.
“[The Syrian government] has used chemicals against the opposition on multiple occasions since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. ISIL has also used toxic chemicals in Iraq and Syria, including the blister agent Sulfur mustard,” Clapper said.”
Interestingly, a friend who is against socialism, as we are, is beginning to think that Sanders would be the lesser of two evils against Trump. He says that a Republican congress is more likely to oppose Sanders’ spending than spending proposed by a Republican president, so his social programs would mostly be blocked or greatly reduced.
But he also likes that Sanders is less likely to get us involved in more “unwinnable wars without end”, is more likely to preserve civil liberties, & that he would rein in crony-capitalism.
Karen, Your friend’s analysis is not bad, but I wouldn’t be so optimistic.
Since Trump’s record and personality is so bizarre, you could predict almost any outcome from a Trump presidency and you might be right.
He might start World War III. He might give us Sanders’ single payer socialized medicine. I think he would swing to the left to gain popularity, would still be attacked from the Left (like LBJ), would start to pout, lose interest, and go play golf.
A Trump playing golf, like an Obama playing golf, is not aggressively communizing us.
Preserve civil liberties? Yeah, ‘cuz that’s what socialists are known for…. 🙄
He would rein in crony capitalism and replace it with an overbearing nanny govt. No thanks.
As for the war thing, well yeah, draft dodgers dodge right? Exactly what I’d expect from a coward like Sanders. 🙄
And really, when we have such an impotent Republican Congress, what’s to stop Sanders from ruling by decree/exec. order like our current WH occupant? It’s not like they’re doing much to block Obama’s agenda, so what makes anyone think it’d be any different with Sanders?
So if it comes down to Clinton, Sanders, Bloomberg or Trump. I’m taking the nut. No, not Sanders, he’s the commie nut. I mean the other nut.
Plus, Trump seems to be the only one Republicans seem capable of standing up to. They’d just lay down and roll over for a Dem, so at least with Trump maybe they can manage to stand up to him once in a while.
And actually, my tongue is not as far in my cheek as you would expect when I say all this.
AJ: Preserve civil liberties? Yeah, ‘cuz that’s what socialists are known for… LOL
Saw one conservative poster suggest that Clinton is finished after tonight (noting specifically that “honesty and trustworthiness” were the most important issues cited by Dems for choosing which candidate to vote for tonight).
Bernie’s honest but downright frightening.
Hillary is dishonest and frightening in other ways.
My sense is that Bernie adopted that label to lay claim to being a “real” Democrat (a criticism that Hillary has leveled at him for his “Independent” status for so long).
But from what I heard him say tonight, he’s pretty full-on socialist. I know the party has moved left with Obama, but sheesh. I remember when McGovern was considered radical.
I have a hard time imagining how many mainstream (even basically liberal) Dems (assuming they still exist) would be OK with Bernie as the party’s nominee.
Very little. The latter simply uses the democratic process to dictate all aspects of your life to limit your liberties and freedom, pick who will be the winners and losers, instead of just brute force. It’s a kinder, gentler, more bureaucratic version. For now. But it won’t stay or end that way. It never does. After all, it’s still socialism.
Wandering Views 
Another Tuesday, another primary.
And on it goes.
LikeLike
From an article in NewsMax magazine. “Trump Reconsideed”
“In November, a Pew Research Center report entitled, “How Americans View their Government”, included the startling revelation that nearly two thirds of Americans, regardless of party, believed the outcome of the election would leave them worse off regardless of who won the election.”
I doubt that. We will be worse off if Hillary wins, or if the Republican, like GW Bush, go along with the rulings of the previous president. The problem with Bush was that he didn’t undo Clinton’s policies.
One reason for that is he allowed Clintonites to remain in key positions. Bush wanted to be a good guy and get along
That is not leadership..
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article is about populism. It points out how populism hasn’t produced a president since Andrew Jackson. It mentions Ross Perot, but doesn’t say how he gave us Bill Clinton.
LikeLike
Now Ben Carson, there is a guy who knows what he wants and he wants America to be a strong tool for God’s purposes. Which is why he rids his campaign of questionable characters or those who do not support his policies and expects Cruz to do the same. He would do the same as President.
LikeLike
Populism started with Jackson, and the quality of presidents declined once the vote was given to men who didn’t own property. A one-question literacy test for voters (an algebra word problem) would help. It would completely decimate the Democrats and the Trump voters.
LikeLike
But with the Federal Government owning so much of Idaho and so many other states, we the people all own property.
LikeLike
So much for red lines huh?
And to think, some still believe that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s and that the chemicals and equip. didn’t leave in truck convoys to Syria in the weeks prior to the US invasion. These ingredients didn’t magically appear, and ISIS didn’t produce them. Nor did they have the knowledge on how to weaponize them. I’m guessing they discovered the programs amidst their spoils in the cities that fell to them. They had access to all Syrian govt info and programs when they took over these cities.
And I’ll note that Kerry insisted he’d got them out of Syria.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/09/top-intel-official-confirms-isis-made-used-chemical-weapons.html
“The nation’s top intelligence official confirmed Tuesday that the Islamic State has succeeded in making and deploying chemical agents in Iraq and Syria — calling it the first such attack by an extremist group in more than two decades.
The confirmation of mustard gas use came during Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he spoke to the Islamic State’s growing sophistication online and in the battlefield.
He did not elaborate on where and when the chemical attacks occurred, though there has been mounting evidence the terror group was experimenting with chemical weapons.
“[The Syrian government] has used chemicals against the opposition on multiple occasions since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. ISIL has also used toxic chemicals in Iraq and Syria, including the blister agent Sulfur mustard,” Clapper said.”
LikeLike
So if forced to choose, do we vote for the communist or the nut?
LikeLike
Haha
On Twitter:
Say it’s Sanders, Trump & Bloomberg–a socialist vs two billionaires. The general election will be a 19th-century political cartoon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interestingly, a friend who is against socialism, as we are, is beginning to think that Sanders would be the lesser of two evils against Trump. He says that a Republican congress is more likely to oppose Sanders’ spending than spending proposed by a Republican president, so his social programs would mostly be blocked or greatly reduced.
But he also likes that Sanders is less likely to get us involved in more “unwinnable wars without end”, is more likely to preserve civil liberties, & that he would rein in crony-capitalism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karen, Your friend’s analysis is not bad, but I wouldn’t be so optimistic.
Since Trump’s record and personality is so bizarre, you could predict almost any outcome from a Trump presidency and you might be right.
He might start World War III. He might give us Sanders’ single payer socialized medicine. I think he would swing to the left to gain popularity, would still be attacked from the Left (like LBJ), would start to pout, lose interest, and go play golf.
A Trump playing golf, like an Obama playing golf, is not aggressively communizing us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. I finally heard the “full Bernie” on the radio driving home tonight. Scary and extreme stuff.
He really IS a socialist. Class warfare, conspiracy theories … Yikes.
Trump remains scary in his own right.
My head is exploding.
What have we wrought???????
🙄 😮 🙄 😮
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have probably kinda liked Bernie in my early 20s. Now he just sounds like a dangerous nutcase.
Oy.
What a mess.
LikeLike
Karen,
Preserve civil liberties? Yeah, ‘cuz that’s what socialists are known for…. 🙄
He would rein in crony capitalism and replace it with an overbearing nanny govt. No thanks.
As for the war thing, well yeah, draft dodgers dodge right? Exactly what I’d expect from a coward like Sanders. 🙄
And really, when we have such an impotent Republican Congress, what’s to stop Sanders from ruling by decree/exec. order like our current WH occupant? It’s not like they’re doing much to block Obama’s agenda, so what makes anyone think it’d be any different with Sanders?
So if it comes down to Clinton, Sanders, Bloomberg or Trump. I’m taking the nut. No, not Sanders, he’s the commie nut. I mean the other nut.
Plus, Trump seems to be the only one Republicans seem capable of standing up to. They’d just lay down and roll over for a Dem, so at least with Trump maybe they can manage to stand up to him once in a while.
And actually, my tongue is not as far in my cheek as you would expect when I say all this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ: Preserve civil liberties? Yeah, ‘cuz that’s what socialists are known for… LOL
Saw one conservative poster suggest that Clinton is finished after tonight (noting specifically that “honesty and trustworthiness” were the most important issues cited by Dems for choosing which candidate to vote for tonight).
Bernie’s honest but downright frightening.
Hillary is dishonest and frightening in other ways.
LikeLike
Clinton’s not “out,” but she’s taking a real beating and it’s not getting better for her.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what the difference is between a socialist & a Democratic socialist?
That reminds me of something I saw on Facebook – a photo of Trump saying, “I’m not a Fascist. I’m a Democratic Fascist.” Thought that was funny.
LikeLike
My sense is that Bernie adopted that label to lay claim to being a “real” Democrat (a criticism that Hillary has leveled at him for his “Independent” status for so long).
But from what I heard him say tonight, he’s pretty full-on socialist. I know the party has moved left with Obama, but sheesh. I remember when McGovern was considered radical.
I have a hard time imagining how many mainstream (even basically liberal) Dems (assuming they still exist) would be OK with Bernie as the party’s nominee.
LikeLike
OK, I’m going to have to escape into NCIS for a while. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karen,
Very little. The latter simply uses the democratic process to dictate all aspects of your life to limit your liberties and freedom, pick who will be the winners and losers, instead of just brute force. It’s a kinder, gentler, more bureaucratic version. For now. But it won’t stay or end that way. It never does. After all, it’s still socialism.
LikeLike