Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...
Trump is the establishment. You don't think he would use the office to further his business interests? He is a business man, not a president.
Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...
Trump is the establishment. You don't think he would use the office to further his business interests? He is a business man, not a president.
He's already been a part of the establishment. He has happily played that game from the money side for years. Of course he's not going to suddenly stop doing it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...
Trump is the establishment. You don't think he would use the office to further his business interests? He is a business man, not a president.
would any of his radical ideas get through both houses?
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
Lowering corporate taxes by 35% is a big part of the definition of perpetuating the will of corporations, no?
i believe he wants to lower it 20% from 35% to 15% ... either way - that's why I said he probably will serve the establishment ... in any case - ultimately, one has to ask if the status quo is acceptable ... my values dictate that answer is a firm no ... so, really - the only way to contribute to real change is to not continue this cycle of voting for the lesser of evils ...
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
Radical ideas... like being open to nuking Europe because if you've got 'em you may as well consider using 'em? I'm actually not quite sure what you're saying. That his radical ideas won't be possible in terms of international relations? Or domestic? Or neither? I think it depends on the radical idea.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.
i know we've talked about this before and really I don't think anyone knows for certain what he would do and what he would be able to get away with ... I just don't buy into the fear mongering also ...
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.
i know we've talked about this before and really I don't think anyone knows for certain what he would do and what he would be able to get away with ... I just don't buy into the fear mongering also ...
You could be right. He may be so unqualified to be commander in chief, that he delegates those responsibilities to his joint chiefs, his secy of state or someone. We don't know. But I'm not a fan of the unknown. It's just another reason not to vote for him. But I do think liberals everywhere should fear his SCOTUS nominees.
Forget about getting through houses. Trump will play shady backroom politics like there is no tomorrow. That's actually what I think more about when I think about the "establishment".
Domestically, there's not a ton he can do through executive order. The POTUS is very powerful as it relates to international policy. That's the real risk he represents and unfortunately, where he can cause the most damage.
But also not likely to make any inroads. The POTUS may seem like a 1 person position but it really isn't. It's one thing to talk shit at a rally - it's another to actually implement what he wants.
Do you mean not making inroads domestically? The big influence he can make in the States is the SCOTUS of course. And that will have ramifications that we feel for years.
inroads internationally ... I don't think he will get very far on any of his radical ideas ...
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
Well Marbury v Madison set those wheels in motion in the first 25 years of the Republic.
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.
i know we've talked about this before and really I don't think anyone knows for certain what he would do and what he would be able to get away with ... I just don't buy into the fear mongering also ...
You could be right. He may be so unqualified to be commander in chief, that he delegates those responsibilities to his joint chiefs, his secy of state or someone. We don't know. But I'm not a fan of the unknown. It's just another reason not to vote for him. But I do think liberals everywhere should fear his SCOTUS nominees.
Simply the fact that you're saying that no one has any clue what he'll do even though he's been saying what he'll do is more than enough reason not to vote for him.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.
I've noticed several attempts by Sanders, Obama, and the Clinton camp making attempts of getting more millennials to support her. Obama was even acting like a condescending prick today over the airwaves telling morning radio shows that if we don't vote for Clinton that we're basically voting for Trump. Huh. My non vote for Clinton or Trump equals ZERO points/vote for either of them. I'm not getting in the way of their two party election. The reality is that Clinton should be winning by 20 FUCKING POINTS against a racist piece of garbage like Donald Trump. That isn't my fault Obama, that's the DNC's fault for giving us such a terrible candidate. Oh wait, it's the GOP's fault and all those clinton haters who are spreading rumors/smearing her. Last I heard Obama was a Muslim, yet he was elected to a Christian nation.
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.
I've noticed several attempts by Sanders, Obama, and the Clinton camp making attempts of getting more millennials to support her. Obama was even acting like a condescending prick today over the airwaves telling morning radio shows that if we don't vote for Clinton that we're basically voting for Trump. Huh. My non vote for Clinton or Trump equals ZERO points/vote for either of them. I'm not getting in the way of their two party election. The reality is that Clinton should be winning by 20 FUCKING POINTS against a racist piece of garbage like Donald Trump. That isn't my fault Obama, that's the DNC's fault for giving us such a terrible candidate. Oh wait, it's the GOP's fault and all those clinton haters who are spreading rumors/smearing her. Last I heard Obama was a Muslim, yet he was elected to a Christian nation.
Exactly. When we don't contribute to the 2 party system race, it's a non vote, neither for or against either of the two favored ones. But the whole point thing is strictly a media tool; take the media and its daily polls away and it really doesn't matter. Don't you wonder about the pure function of points and points? It's for pure drama, and to get the public pissed off and to encourage a specific outcome, a specific forecast to keep the public entranced and to make the public think their vote actually counts. We've seen what the popular vote does, and fails a country, after 2000.
Tonifig8 - remember my comment the other day about Johnson not being that impressive and Weld knowing a lot more than him? Well look at what happened on Hardball tonight. This is quite embarrassing and again, Weld bailed him out.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday had a message for the "Bernie-or-bust" voters: vote based on the issues, not "personality."
"People have got to get beyond personality, and they've got to take a hard look at the issues that impact the lives of middle-class and working-class people," Sanders told ABC News. "That's what this campaign is really about."
The Vermont senator touted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's stances on education, environment and campaign finance, contrasting her views with those of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
"I think if you look at the issues — whether it is making public colleges and universities tuition free, dealing agressively with climate change, raising the minimum wage, overturning this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision," Sanders said.
"On all of those issues and many more, Hillary Clinton's positions are far, far, far superior to Donald Trump."
Sanders said he plans to do everything he can to ensure Trump does not become the next president of the U.S.
The Vermont senator has given similar advice to the Democratic nominee in the past.
Earlier this month, Sanders said Clinton needs to "get away from all of this personality stuff" and start talking about the real issues facing the country.
"The American people do not agree with Trump," he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday had a message for the "Bernie-or-bust" voters: vote based on the issues, not "personality."
"People have got to get beyond personality, and they've got to take a hard look at the issues that impact the lives of middle-class and working-class people," Sanders told ABC News. "That's what this campaign is really about."
The Vermont senator touted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's stances on education, environment and campaign finance, contrasting her views with those of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
"I think if you look at the issues — whether it is making public colleges and universities tuition free, dealing agressively with climate change, raising the minimum wage, overturning this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision," Sanders said.
"On all of those issues and many more, Hillary Clinton's positions are far, far, far superior to Donald Trump."
Sanders said he plans to do everything he can to ensure Trump does not become the next president of the U.S.
The Vermont senator has given similar advice to the Democratic nominee in the past.
Earlier this month, Sanders said Clinton needs to "get away from all of this personality stuff" and start talking about the real issues facing the country.
"The American people do not agree with Trump," he said.
Sounds right to me although I wish Bernie had included the others who impacted by all this. The one's who never get to vote-- the elephants, whales, seals, lions, rhinoceros, etc. times millions.. Which is why I'm voting for Stein. She talks about real issues. The others just do the old dance the one's who, as George said above, represent the owners. Not too hard to figure that one out.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Tonifig8 - remember my comment the other day about Johnson not being that impressive and Weld knowing a lot more than him? Well look at what happened on Hardball tonight. This is quite embarrassing and again, Weld bailed him out.
I do remember the comments you had made and your reasoning. It's embarrassing for sure. Mathews is tough, he has a pressing personality and seems to always be speaking over his guest, usually by the time the interviewee is done trying to answer a question Matthews is already hitting them with another aggressive move. He knows how to set people up, for sure. Not making any excuses for GJ. That should have been an easy one for him to answer, but then again he's a libertarian and an isolationist so it probably doesn't matter. haha
Are you suggesting that these third party candidates aren't qualified to be President because of failed moments like this? I would say Clinton is probably the most informed/experienced candidate when it comes to complex detailed world affairs. That being said it doesn't make her right on foreign policy. I would say Trump is probably the least informed of all the candidates in all the history of American. Yet he still has a real chance of winning. Crazy shit. The world is getting smaller and many of these big country's are attempting to better position themselves against us. We're going to need a strong leader.
Tonifig8 - remember my comment the other day about Johnson not being that impressive and Weld knowing a lot more than him? Well look at what happened on Hardball tonight. This is quite embarrassing and again, Weld bailed him out.
I do remember the comments you had made and your reasoning. It's embarrassing for sure. Mathews is tough, he has a pressing personality and seems to always be speaking over his guest, usually by the time the interviewee is done trying to answer a question Matthews is already hitting them with another aggressive move. He knows how to set people up, for sure. Not making any excuses for GJ. That should have been an easy one for him to answer, but then again he's a libertarian and an isolationist so it probably doesn't matter. haha
Are you suggesting that these third party candidates aren't qualified to be President because of failed moments like this? I would say Clinton is probably the most informed/experienced candidate when it comes to complex detailed world affairs. That being said it doesn't make her right on foreign policy. I would say Trump is probably the least informed of all the candidates in all the history of American. Yet he still has a real chance of winning. Crazy shit. The world is getting smaller and many of these big country's are attempting to better position themselves against us. We're going to need a strong leader.
I am saying Johnson is not all that qualified as he is a neophyte on foreign affairs. He really struggles with it. Woodrow Wilson was an isolationist, but I'm sure he could name Neville Chamberlain and Kaiser Wilhelm as foreign leaders pretty quickly. Throw that in with his extreme positions on economics (anti-reg, anti-min wage, pro flat tax) and it is completely perplexing to me how an educated liberal could consider voting for him. I'm not saying that because he is a third party member he is automatically unqualified. Hell, TR ran as the Bull Moose candidate after he had already been president. He was qualified.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.
As a millennial born in 92 I can say that I was huge on the Sanders train during the primary, along with a good chunk of my friends. Now I realize there are 4 choices. Johnson does not have anything going for him other than social issues, his economic and environmental views rule him out. The green party is too ridiculous and "hands off". Then we're left with Trump and Clinton and I know which one would make a better president. Some of my friends are either not sure if they want to vote or possibly going with a 3rd party as more of a "stick it to the man" type of vote, but really neither of the 3rd party options are great. Most of the millennials I am friends with are leaning with the best candidate for the job, even though we originally hated that choice.
All Bernie had to do was accept the green party and stein invitation to replace her on the ticket and we would have seen him in the debates tonight as I'm certain he would have garnered 15% support. He could have continued his revolution but instead he endorses Hilliary. What more could the guy ask for after getting cheated in Dem primary?
You don't wonder if he was pressured to endorse her? An ultimatum placed? He did a 180 on his supporters. It doesn't make sense.
I don't wonder and I don't call it pressured, I would say threatened. Not necessarily physical harm which I wouldn't rule out but threatened politically and his career. I'm sure he will get some figure head position in Hillary's administration after she wins He prob did agree in advance, as a condition to being allowed to run as a Dem, to take his beating and go home but all agreements are off when they cheated him. Look Bernie knew full well what he was getting himself into, he chose to run as a Dem, which is understandable given how uneven the playing field is, although I think that was his first mistake, if he truly sought the presidency.
The reason is simple, Bernie is smart enough to know that going 3rd party would have literally guaranteed a Trump Presidency.
Logical...3rd parties run so someone else doesn't win. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, when one candidate would be such an unmitigated disaster, and the other somehow still struggles to get votes, yes, being a third party candidate to take votes from Clinton is a morally reprehensible decision. It's equally morally reprehensible in my eyes for the Republicans to have permitted Trump with as much support as they did.
fear politics!?
people do not know what they do not know ... a trump presidency can be hypothesized but no one really knows what it would look like ... continuing to run with establishment candidates that perpetuate the will of corporations is the crux of the problem ... I don't know if trump will serve that same establishment, probably but at the end of the day - there is nothing to say he would be any more of a disaster than say rob ford was in toronto ...
like colin kaepernick said ... voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil ...
I've said this before and I stand by it. The "right" candidate, even if he or she succeeds at getting to the Oval Office, will not succeed as a President when simultaneously fighting the adversity of party politics in House and Senate, a mainstream media with allegiance to one party or another, and a nation that responds more to brute strength than to logic and pragmatism. It will ultimately be more damaging to the Movement for the Right Candidate (MRC, TM) to have someone fail in that jurisdiction due to entering office with poor support, than to suffer the frustration of waiting to go through grassroots efforts to penetrate the House, Senate, mainstream media (via mainstream interests) to reach the end goal of support. Sorry about the run-ons.
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
i don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but you have to start somewhere ... voting in someone who will continue to support wall street and the military industrial complex just doesn't fly for me ... obviously, you and I don't have a vote but if I had one - getting fear mongered into voting for someone I don't want also is a failure of democracy ...
I hate to say it, but democracy has clearly failed based on the fact that these discussions are taking place on this forum. I think we're in agreement as to the direction the US needs to take, we only disagree on the approach. I think that a President with the ideals that the rest of the levels of government doesn't yet share, is a President who is destined to be unsupported (and therefore ineffective), and scapegoated for all that is wrong with America throughout his or her tenure. In my opinion, the baseline of idealism needs to be propped up across the board prior to a President who possesses that mentality.
i've had many discussions with a good friend about this ... democracy has failed and it doesn't work when the electorate are ignorant ...
and to your point about a lame duck president ... i say that the only way to change is for it the system to be blown up ... and the only way it will blow up is if it is exposed for all its faults ... what better way then a 3rd party candidate who wants to enact some policy that benefits the majority and then explain why it failed (the system) ... continuing to elect the same people who support economic imperialistic wars abroad and wall street fraud achieves only 1 thing ... more of the same ...
Can we talk about the millennial vote? Because I've posted several articles about it and that they're not voting for Clinton, and some discussion would be good.
As a millennial born in 92 I can say that I was huge on the Sanders train during the primary, along with a good chunk of my friends. Now I realize there are 4 choices. Johnson does not have anything going for him other than social issues, his economic and environmental views rule him out. The green party is too ridiculous and "hands off". Then we're left with Trump and Clinton and I know which one would make a better president. Some of my friends are either not sure if they want to vote or possibly going with a 3rd party as more of a "stick it to the man" type of vote, but really neither of the 3rd party options are great. Most of the millennials I am friends with are leaning with the best candidate for the job, even though we originally hated that choice.
"Stick it to the man" sounds great, but ultimately the choice is yours. I'm voting with my principles and values. They may not mean much in today's world, however they still represent something for me. I'm hoping that in the near future we go back to valuing honesty and good moral judgement.
Lastly if Trump is elected it wouldn't be your fault. The DNC has to do a better job of rigging general elections, not just primaries.
Comments
http://www.globalresearch.ca/donald-trump-the-anti-establishment-candidate-connections-to-wall-street-blackwater-and-the-cfr/5541846
A lot of this has to do with education about levels of government: how many more people were mobilized for the race to the Presidency compared to how many are mobilized in efforts to let the House and Senate truly represent the will of the People? My guess is many orders of magnitudes more.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I think the whole nature of SCOTUS just goes to show how weak the constitution really is - if partisan politics can dictate decisions at the highest court - it's fundamental principles are flawed ...
I'm actually not quite sure what you're saying. That his radical ideas won't be possible in terms of international relations? Or domestic? Or neither? I think it depends on the radical idea.
I disagree on international policy. He can get far. Congress controls the purse and that was intended to restrain the military, but the defense budget is so big now and then you get into the "support the troops" mantras, that it's just about impossible to de-fund. There are really very few constraints to the president's power outside of impeachment today. He can be an utter menace.
https://shadowproof.com/2016/09/19/protest-vote-liberal-establishment-frenzy/
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/gary-johnson-i-m-having-an-aleppo-moment-775321667757
"People have got to get beyond personality, and they've got to take a hard look at the issues that impact the lives of middle-class and working-class people," Sanders told ABC News.
"That's what this campaign is really about."
The Vermont senator touted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's stances on education, environment and campaign finance, contrasting her views with those of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump.
"I think if you look at the issues — whether it is making public colleges and universities tuition free, dealing agressively with climate change, raising the minimum wage, overturning this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision," Sanders said.
"On all of those issues and many more, Hillary Clinton's positions are far, far, far superior to Donald Trump."
Sanders said he plans to do everything he can to ensure Trump does not become the next president of the U.S.
The Vermont senator has given similar advice to the Democratic nominee in the past.
Earlier this month, Sanders said Clinton needs to "get away from all of this personality stuff" and start talking about the real issues facing the country.
"The American people do not agree with Trump," he said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298350-sanders-tells-bernie-or-bust-crew-to-get-beyond
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Are you suggesting that these third party candidates aren't qualified to be President because of failed moments like this? I would say Clinton is probably the most informed/experienced candidate when it comes to complex detailed world affairs. That being said it doesn't make her right on foreign policy. I would say Trump is probably the least informed of all the candidates in all the history of American. Yet he still has a real chance of winning. Crazy shit.
The world is getting smaller and many of these big country's are attempting to better position themselves against us. We're going to need a strong leader.
I'm not saying that because he is a third party member he is automatically unqualified. Hell, TR ran as the Bull Moose candidate after he had already been president. He was qualified.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
and to your point about a lame duck president ... i say that the only way to change is for it the system to be blown up ... and the only way it will blow up is if it is exposed for all its faults ... what better way then a 3rd party candidate who wants to enact some policy that benefits the majority and then explain why it failed (the system) ... continuing to elect the same people who support economic imperialistic wars abroad and wall street fraud achieves only 1 thing ... more of the same ...
Lastly if Trump is elected it wouldn't be your fault. The DNC has to do a better job of rigging general elections, not just primaries.