05-14-2016, 05:44 PM
(05-14-2016, 04:49 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: I hope you're correct, and my brain is cautiously telling me that you will be correct. The Clintons have always cared about political power more than ideology, though, and I can live with a GC Hillary as long as it's a version of her that pulls her further left.
If we are to use past behavior as an indication of future behavior HRC will swing right as soon as Sanders is disposed of. And she still wouldn't be the GC anyway, the Whig GC is already known--Bernie Sanders. I expect that should she swing left during the remainder of the Democratic Primaries (which is unlikely) she will immediately swing back to the right for the General.
Quote:I didn't think I'd find anything else that could compete with the unholy triumvirate of Indian Removal, killing the Bank of the US and starting the spoils system, but you just managed to find it. Awesome line!
I think the problem of the US Bank was making it an issue during his presidency. Martin Van Buren would have likely signed the charter, but the Whigs decided to make it an issue with Jackson--who hated them--and that was a political blunder. As for the Indian Removal, that was a matter of Congress making a law and the President enforcing it. If there is any blame to be had for that, lay it at the feet of the Western Congressmen of the time.
As for John C. Calhoun, nullification is a destructive ideology. Being that the US is a Federal Republic of States, states cannot just ignore laws passed by Congress particularly when those laws are in conformity to the powers granted to Congress of which taxation is one such power. And this is coming from someone who is a strong supporter of the idea of Federalism and letting the States handle all those things not specifically delegated to the Federal Government.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out ofUN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of