Printable View
I don't dispute that most Republican politicians, are also closet socialists, and/or perhaps quasi-fascists, aka crony-capitalists. I would dispute that a military is, by definition, a socialist program, however. Providing for the national defense is part of the U. S. Constitution, which I don't think that anyone would claim is a blueprint for a totalitarian socialist state.Quote:
Originally Posted by handjam
I made a post, then deleted it, in response to another post, by the OP about toilets being off topic. I posted something crude (apologies) about how the three remaining candidates may have someghing in common with a certain female hygenic device and therefore the disussion turning towards toilets may not be all that much off topic...
Anyway, it occurred to me that a former post I made about Trump's slogan 'Make America Great Again' and my claim that America is still great, and never stopped being great, therefore Trump's slogan is just more 'Hope and Change' may have missed a good point. And that is that America is still great, because America's greatness derives from it's principles, it's founding documents all of which have not changed. What has changed though are the people who have been entrusted to uphold the principles of America, both in and out of politics. It's reported that Franklin replied, in 1787, to a question about what form of government was created by the convention, "A republic, if you can keep it" he said. Franklin knew very well the history of republics and how they either prosper or fail. He knew that it takes a well educated, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to maintain a republic. So does America really need to be made great again? Or is it really more a want of great Americans that are needed to put America back on course and in line with it's founding principles that made it great, again? And which of the three candidates fit the bill (no pun intended) and are prepared to do that? Which one's have demonstrated the knowledge, ability and will to do so? Otherwise, down the "toilete" may be the only relevant topic remaining.
This is a fight that's been going on since before the Constitution was written. As you may recall, not everyone was in favor of adopting the Constitution. The group that opposed the Constitution were called the Anti-Federalists. They were men such as Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Mason, James Monroe and many others. They opposed it because they feared that a central government with too much power, would eventually, if not immediately, threaten the liberties of the individual, and the sovereignty of the states and municipalities. Even George Washington, himself a Federalist, foresaw the danger to liberty posed by a strong central government, when coupled with the rise of factionalism and the birth of political parties. He said, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Both of these things have come to pass. This is the way the Republic is lost. It is not wrested from the hands of warriors fighting to keep it, but rather given away freely by those that do not recognize its value.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
............ Attachment 236793
Not that one isn't worse than the other, but this is cute I thought.
Donald Trump was made by the media. They have given him unprecedented coverage and in effect free advertising. They have given him softball interviews and accepted his simplistic answers to questions. If they scrutinized his history just 25% as much as they have Clinton's he wouldn't be looking so good.
I grew up in NYC and Trump as a fellow in his 20s and 30s was a spoiled and worthless playboy who his father who was a ruthless businessman and a very mean guy didn't think enough of to leave the business too. The other brother was supposed to get it.
If the Media continues to let him get away Scott free then they will have handed the election to him because no one will know the real Trump.
On the other hand if all of his history is brought out and aired for the electorate to see and folks still vote for him out of some hope for change then they are doing the exact same thing the folks in Germany did when the elected Hitler. They ignored his background and bought into his rhetoric and the result...well.
I'm not saying Trump is Hitler but there are parallels in the techniques being used in his campaign.
Folks say the rich control the country and what are many now doing? They want to elect a super rich guy who wouldn't be where he is today unless he had all this money. If he wins he will have bought the Presidency.
Almost all of that could be said about every prior favored presidential front runner and subsequent president. It all boils down to a giant popularity contest.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Im not so sure he bought the nomination. He had a whole bunch of republicans running against him and many blowing a crap ton of money. Its seems to me the vote couldn't be bought or the party for that matter. The people shoved him down the republican bosses throats.
You know the old adage about 'thinking outside of the box.' Trump appealed to the people who feel as if their country has been hijacked by 'the ruling class' and I think it is that simple. I also think it is his genuine feelings .......... 'make America great again.'
There was another millionaire who won the presidency named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He instituted social security which saved many Americans from abject poverty in their old age, as it still does today.
OTOH, what member of congress is not a millionaire ? Any ? What does the average member of the Washington establishment know about struggling to make ends meet ? Not that Trump knows about that, but it just may be that he has a genuine concern for those less fortunate.
That is not actually true, actually it is the other way around they didn't make him, he used them..Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Nearly every single Media "Expert" said the same thing when they were accused the same way you just wrote..
"We had ZERO access to other Candidates when the season began, Hillary went so far as to actually "Rope them off" Bernie Bush, Cruz, Etc: Etc: turned down hundreds of Interview offers, Trump said "Yes" to them all"
It really was just that stupidly simple he said "Yes",,, once the media realized that their ratings were growing with Trump they kept asking him more and more ...
Next thing you know the story is reversed as you just wrote, when it really was that he just said "Yes" from the beginning...
+1, not only that. But they trashed him every chance they got, and they still are !Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Model featured in Trump 'hit piece' slams NY Times, says her story was 'spun' | Fox News
The pro politicians don't want him because he is not one of their own. As for his being 'qualified' .......... Bush 2 and Barack Hussain Obama were less qualified. Trump started with a bundle by inheritance, made more, lost it all, and came back to make it again on his own. The question is more about the core integrity, or lack thereof of the man. It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and I ain't talking about hillary or Harry Wally's brush ........ IOW ....... there is a long time until November.
