Grey Champions and the Election of 2016

[Kinser79]

As some of you may know some time ago on the old forum I said tat I believed that this 4T there would emerge two GC's.  It should be noted that by and large I view the GC itself as a title bestowed after the fact.  In any event it seems that we do indeed have two, and one will likely be the nominee for the GOP this go round.

I am speaking of His Imperial Highness, His Glorious Majesty Donald J. Trump (AKA Daddy).  What have we seen so far from him?

1.  An unexpected groundswell of support not only from likely GOP voters but from new voters.

2.  An inablity to be pinned down by the Establishment politicians or the MSM at all.  And not for a lack of trying either.

3.  Implementation of new strategies and tactics politically that disrupt the Establishment.

4.  Most importantly a clear and consistent message coming from the Jacksonian tradition.

As such I'm creating this poll (and hopefully it will work).

The question is:  Is Donald Trump the GC we've been looking for?  If so would you vote for him?

---

As the first vote, I not only think that Trump is the GC, but I will also be voting for him. Granted since Shillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee I'd vote for a potted plant if the GOP rant that too.

[Bob Butler 54]

First, I'd agree that the best tool for identifying a GC is 20 20 hindsight.

It also depends on what one understands the GC to be.  I'm more concerned with the values aspect of turning theory than most.  Thus, I look for someone who best personifies the values that can resolve the crisis issues.  Samples might include Lincoln for Union and against slavery while FDR aligned the government to help the working man, and made the US a superpower to deter the expansion of tyrannical autocratic powers.

So, what are the great issues facing us this crisis?

1. Domestic division of wealth and power.  The GOP has been the party of the wealthy, and I haven't seen that Trump intends to change this.  This makes him seem more part of the problem than part of the answer.
   
2. Dysfunctional democracy.  The New Deal focus on using government to aid the working man has been diminished by the Reagan push for small government that doesn't interfere with big business.  This is in many ways the same as 1, above.  Trump is attracting the Reagan believers rather than diminishing the influence of the Reagan memes.  Again, he's part of the problem.
   
3. Foreign division of wealth and power leading to immigration problems.  Trump's solution, make the poor countries build walls to protect the wealthy countries, isn't real.
   
4. Foreign dysfunctional democracy.  We have failed states in the Middle East and autocratic regimes pushing to use military force to create economic advantage.  I haven't seen much in the way of a real solution from Trump here, let alone Trump personifying the values necessary for solution.  Hey, he's Putin's pal.
   
5. Global Warming might get an honorable mention, but it isn't clear this is going to be an issue resolved in this crisis period.
   

So color me dubious.  I'd ask what the crisis problems are, and who looks like they might represent the values necessary to solve the problems.  I know my identification of the problems won't be the same as others, but that's what I'd look for in a GC.

Now, I know in the past you have looked for Trump as president as he is most apt to provoke a communist revolution.  I see this as unlikely, though more likely than Trump as a true GC.

[Kinser79]

(05-05-2016, 07:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: First, I'd agree that the best tool for identifying a GC is 20 20 hindsight.

It also depends on what one understands the GC to be.  I'm more concerned with the values aspect of turning theory than most.  Thus, I look for someone who best personifies the values that can resolve the crisis issues.  Samples might include Lincoln for Union and against slavery while FDR aligned the government to help the working man, and made the US a superpower to deter the expansion of tyrannical autocratic powers.

So, what are the great issues facing us this crisis?

1. Domestic division of wealth and power.  The GOP has been the party of the wealthy, and I haven't seen that Trump intends to change this.  This makes him seem more part of the problem than part of the answer.
   
2. Dysfunctional democracy.  The New Deal focus on using government to aid the working man has been diminished by the Reagan push for small government that doesn't interfere with big business.  This is in many ways the same as 1, above.  Trump is attracting the Reagan believers rather than diminishing the influence of the Reagan memes.  Again, he's part of the problem.
   
3. Foreign division of wealth and power leading to immigration problems.  Trump's solution, make the poor countries build walls to protect the wealthy countries, isn't real.
   
4. Foreign dysfunctional democracy.  We have failed states in the Middle East and autocratic regimes pushing to use military force to create economic advantage.  I haven't seen much in the way of a real solution from Trump here, let alone Trump personifying the values necessary for solution.  Hey, he's Putin's pal.
   
5. Global Warming might get an honorable mention, but it isn't clear this is going to be an issue resolved in this crisis period.
   

So color me dubious.  I'd ask what the crisis problems are, and who looks like they might represent the values necessary to solve the problems.  I know my identification of the problems won't be the same as others, but that's what I'd look for in a GC.

Now, I know in the past you have looked for Trump as president as he is most apt to provoke a communist revolution.  I see this as unlikely, though more likely than Trump as a true GC.

It will take a while to figure out how to use the quoting function here.  So bear with me if the post seems disjointed.

I would say that over all the Grey Champion is a title given, after the fact, to the leader or leaders of a 4T who implement the new strategy on which the success or failure of the 4T depends.

Quote:

1. Domestic division of wealth and power.  The GOP has been the party of the wealthy, and I haven't seen that Trump intends to change this.  This makes him seem more part of the problem than part of the answer.
   

I don't think that that aspect of the GOP can be changed.  The wealthy have been a sub-set of the GOP base since the Guilded Age, and so long as the GOP continues that will likely remain the case.  That being said, I will say that breaking with the Washington Consensus around so-called free trade, globalism, and massive importation of cheap labor is the very thing that Trump opposes.  This is just one of the angles of attack used by the GOP Establishment against Daddy.

Quote:Dysfunctional democracy.  The New Deal focus on using government to aid the working man has been diminished by the Reagan push for small government that doesn't interfere with big business.  This is in many ways the same as 1, above.  Trump is attracting the Reagan believers rather than diminishing the influence of the Reagan memes.  Again, he's part of the problem.

Actually if you listen to Trump he has called for such things as universal health care, greater investments in education and infrastructure.  All planks he shares with none other than Bernie Sanders.  Granted, the reasons behind his support of pretty much the same thing as Sanders is different.  It would be ludicrous to think otherwise, but it is there.

As for the dysfunctional democracy aspect the only solution is either a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United, or a constitutional convention.  I'd support either.  As for Daddy himself, I've heard over and over among Trump circles (where I've been spending more time since Shillary is going to be anointed the Dem Nominee) one refrain over and over...that is unlike everyone else (except perhaps Sanders) he simply can't be bought.

Quote:

1. Foreign division of wealth and power leading to immigration problems.  Trump's solution, make the poor countries build walls to protect the wealthy countries, isn't real.
   

I think the line about making Mexico pay for the wall is a throw-away.  Would we seriously want the Mexicans building our border wall?  Sounds like an invitation to sabotage.  That being said having been to Mexico quite recently  (how the BF and I got roped into being chaperones on a school trip escapes me--maybe it is we both speak fluent Spanish [although be it with Cuban accent in my case, because I learned it from Cubans]) I can say that Mexico while being poorer than the US is clearly a low level 1st world country these days.

That being said the division of wealth and power internationally is the result of and a consequence of the Washington Consensus and their push for so-called free trade.  The very thing that Trump is campaigning against.

Quote:Foreign dysfunctional democracy.  We have failed states in the Middle East and autocratic regimes pushing to use military force to create economic advantage.  I haven't seen much in the way of a real solution from Trump here, let alone Trump personifying the values necessary for solution.  Hey, he's Putin's pal.

I agree that many states in the Middle East are failed.  It should also be remembered that the push to break them to start with (Seriously Iraq was a hell hole but it wasn't a failed state under Saddam) came from the Neo-Cons of which Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest. 

From Daddy we have heard on the foreign affairs front that he wishes to re-negotiate our alliances, go to Europe sometime they really do resent the US Military Presence there and as a consequence the US in general.  The pull back from the hundreds of bases that cost a fortune to defend not our homeland, but the homelands of other people, many of which openly resent us.

As for Putin, the simple fact is Russia is a major country, one with a nuclear arsenal, and enough oil and gas to cut off Europe at anytime freezing them out in the winter or making them swelter in the summer.  The simple fact is that poking a bear is generally not a good idea--especially not for a bunch of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine which is to Russia what Texas is to the US.

His lines on foreign affairs stretch back to the 1980s.  He's been consistent, trade with everyone, defend the country, and don't go looking for trouble.  Someone else had the same view of foreign affairs too...his name was George Washington.

Quote:Global Warming might get an honorable mention, but it isn't clear this is going to be an issue resolved in this crisis period.

I think climate change (the more current and more scientifically accurate term) is a major issue this 4T but I don't think it will be addressed.  Honestly I don't think even if a crash program of Thorium reactors and solar and wind power was implemented much could be done to stop it.  Too much carbon has already been put up into the atmosphere and without some sort of new fantastic technology it will take several centuries at least for the planet to scrub the CO2 out itself and that is if we stopped burning everything today.  That cake is already baked I'm afraid.

[Odin]

On the old forum Kinser mentioned that Trump represents the Jacksonian tradition. I think on the flip side Sanders is a GC figure for both the working class Left-Populist tradition, which included movements like the old Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, and the educated middle class Progressive tradition. I can definitely see a lot of Minnesota's great Farmer-Labor governor Floyd Olson, who famously said that the "present form of government can go straight to Hell", in Bernie's movement.

[Kinser79]

Actually Odin, I would agree.  I've also called Sanders the GC of the Whig tradition.  Unfortunately the Democratic party has seen fit to make it nearly impossible for him to win the nomination.  It is telling though that if you look at the states Clinton won, they were all states (except perhaps FL) that the Democrat wasn't going to win anyway.

[Odin]

(05-05-2016, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is telling though that if you look at the states Clinton won, they were all states (except perhaps FL) that the Democrat wasn't going to win anyway.

It's more that she won states with significant racial minority populations, mainly because the party establishment's ties of patronage and influence to leaders of minority communities.

[Kinser79]

(05-06-2016, 01:07 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-05-2016, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is telling though that if you look at the states Clinton won, they were all states (except perhaps FL) that the Democrat wasn't going to win anyway.

It's more that she won states with significant racial minority populations, mainly because the party establishment's ties of patronage and influence to leaders of minority communities.

It is hardly surprising at all really.  Close to 90% of Blacks in particular (Latinos are a tad more fickle) vote consistently for the Democrat.  Part of that is inertia, which is a crucial element in voting patterns.  That said, polls are indicating that Trump has doubled the number of votes for him by Blacks and Latinos in the primary in comparison to other GOP candidates in this election and previous elections.

I would say that Daddy as at least some appeal to the Naturally Conservative minded both in the GOP and outside that party.  As I am.  Being both in FL and a Registered Democrat I had only Clinton or Sanders as an option.  Given the choice between Trump or Sanders, Sanders wins for me.  However, in the General Election the choice is going to be Clinton or Trump and Daddy clearly wins there.

As I said I would vote for a potted plant if it ran against Hillary.  I don't like her, as I've said before it is visceral, though I do have a rational basis for not liking her (mainly she's part of the problem).  And my not liking her stretches back to when she was First Lady.

[pbrower2a]

(05-05-2016, 06:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As some of you may know some time ago on the old forum I said tat I believed that this 4T there would emerge two GC's.  It should be noted that by and large I view the GC itself as a title bestowed after the fact.  In any event it seems that we do indeed have two, and one will likely be the nominee for the GOP this go round.

I am speaking of His Imperial Highness, His Glorious Majesty Donald J. Trump (AKA Daddy).  What have we seen so far from him?

1.  An unexpected groundswell of support not only from likely GOP voters but from new voters.

2.  An inablity to be pinned down by the Establishment politicians or the MSM at all.  And not for a lack of trying either.

3.  Implementation of new strategies and tactics politically that disrupt the Establishment.

4.  Most importantly a clear and consistent message coming from the Jacksonian tradition.

As such I'm creating this poll (and hopefully it will work).

The question is:  Is Donald Trump the GC we've been looking for?  If so would you vote for him?

---

As the first vote, I not only think that Trump is the GC, but I will also be voting for him.  Granted since (Hillary) Clinton will be the Democratic nominee I'd vote for a potted plant if the GOP rant that too.

The problems with Donald Trump as a potential Grey Champion

1. He's likely to lose  more of the usual Republican voters than gain new ones. Whether those traditional Republican voters vote for a Third Party nominee or vote for Hillary Clinton as a seemingly-safe alternative implies that he will not get the chance to be a Grey Champion.

2. The mainstream media dislike him. The fellow has made enemies at FoX Propaganda Channel.

3. He may be off the wall in his political pronouncements, but nothing indicates that he is anything other than a rapacious plutocrat with a bloated ego. He may be all over the board making promises that contradict each other, but I expect him to choose to honor his own class before he does anything for the working classes. 

4. We had our analogue to Andrew Jackson... in Ronald Reagan for changing the style of the Presidency for the time until the Crisis Era. Both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama operate in the shadow of Ronald Reagan, the most transformative President since FDR.

5. Donald Trump appeals most strongly to a shrinking demographic: straight, Anglo, under-educated, white, rural Christians.

6. He is the most blatantly anti-feminist candidate for the Presidential nomination of the two main Parties or of anyone who has had a chance to put a strong showing on a Third-Party or Independent run since... you tell me. I remember when feminism was a weak presence in American life.

He has taken pointless jabs at Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly. I've heard his type, the sort who alternates between possessive sentimentality (as in buying the biggest and most expensive card and big flower arrangements for his wife and his mother for Mother's Day) and taking verbal swats at "bi***es". (I have called someone a bitch, but she barks and had potential at one time to bear puppies).  Some women fall for men like that. Most women despise that.  

7. He has violated a taboo unlikely to be undone in America fast enough -- the taboo against political violence. Do you excuse his staffers beating up hecklers? Do you excuse him for promoting violence against opponents?

He loses this time.

[Kinser79]

(05-07-2016, 12:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The problems with Donald Trump as a potential Grey Champion

1. He's likely to lose  more of the usual Republican voters than gain new ones. Whether those traditional Republican voters vote for a Third Party nominee or vote for Hillary Clinton as a seemingly-safe alternative implies that he will not get the chance to be a Grey Champion.

Strange, winning so many states, such as winning Connecticut and Alabama (which almost never happens in GOP primaries) would indicate that he has some chance of being president.

Quote:2. The mainstream media dislike him. The fellow has made enemies at FoX Propaganda Channel.

Where in S&H did they say that the GC had to be liked by the Press of the day, or for that matter even be taken seriously?  Given Hawthorn's description of the GC from which the concept is derived, it isn't whether the GC is popular, or even listened to, it is that he harkens back to some older wisdom that has since been forgotten, remembered only by an "impossibly old" person.

Quote:3. He may be off the wall in his political pronouncements, but nothing indicates that he is anything other than a rapacious plutocrat with a bloated ego. He may be all over the board making promises that contradict each other, but I expect him to choose to honor his own class before he does anything for the working classes.

Odd the last GC we had, FDR was a Patrician.  People can indeed be class traitors.  I don't think Trump has any loyalty to his class, if he did he wouldn't be as hated by the Establishment as he is...because he'd be one of them.

Quote:4. We had our analogue to Andrew Jackson... in Ronald Reagan for changing the style of the Presidency for the time until the Crisis Era. Both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama operate in the shadow of Ronald Reagan, the most transformative President since FDR.

You misunderstand what I mean by being of the Jacksonian tradition.  What I mean is that he is, or at least appears to be, one of the common people--the great democrat as it were.  If you've not forgotten your history you'd know that Jackson scandalized Washington by having common working people at the inaugural balls and acted on his most well behaved days like a Western (yes Tennessee was the west in those days) Planter, and on his worst like an uncouth hick.

Ronald Reagan was a smooth talking actor who looked good on TV, he was transformative in style, but not so much in substance as the moves he made were preceeded by similar moves by the conservative Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Quote:5. Donald Trump appeals most strongly to a shrinking demographic: straight, Anglo, under-educated, white, rural Christians.

He also appeals to other whites, females (his unfavorables are lower than Hillary's believe it or not), and those groups that do not typically vote republican in the open primary states have broken for him in record numbers.

Quote:6. He is the most blatantly anti-feminist candidate for the Presidential nomination of the two main Parties or of anyone who has had a chance to put a strong showing on a Third-Party or Independent run since... you tell me. I remember when feminism was a weak presence in American life.

Saying he is anti-feminist is essentially the same as saying he is anti-sexist since feminism these days is little more than a lesbianic cult of blue haired, disgusting trolls who want to complain about men spreading their legs to accommodate their genitalia.  I'm also going to assume that Daddy is anti-cancer and anti-raw sewage being pumped into his back yard.

If we condsider that the problems arising out of 2Ts lead to those solved in 4Ts then I expect a backlash against much of the insanity foisted upon the US in the name of political correctness, sensitivity and other forms of cultish SJW mumbo-jumbo.

Quote:He has taken pointless jabs at Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly. I've heard his type, the sort who alternates between possessive sentimentality (as in buying the biggest and most expensive card and big flower arrangements for his wife and his mother for Mother's Day) and taking verbal swats at "bi***es". (I have called someone a bitch, but she barks and had potential at one time to bear puppies).  Some women fall for men like that. Most women despise that.

Translation:  Trump apparently loves the women in his family, but doesn't care much for female political opponents or MSM News Models who try to score empty points.  Got it.

Quote:7. He has violated a taboo unlikely to be undone in America fast enough -- the taboo against political violence. Do you excuse his staffers beating up hecklers? Do you excuse him for promoting violence against opponents?

All indications show that the violence was initiated by the black lives matters people, which is not surprising since it is a black supremacist organization the leader of which is on public record as saying he wants to kill all white people.  As someone who has a white boyfriend and son that is my boyfriend and kid that asshole is talking about wanting to kill.  Needless to say my opinion of that group is negative.

Quote:He loses this time.

I highly doubt that.  Apart from losing to an incumbent president no person who has lost the primaries has been later elected president.

[pbrower2a]

(05-07-2016, 04:48 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-07-2016, 12:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The problems with Donald Trump as a potential Grey Champion

1. He's likely to lose  more of the usual Republican voters than gain new ones. Whether those traditional Republican voters vote for a Third Party nominee or vote for Hillary Clinton as a seemingly-safe alternative implies that he will not get the chance to be a Grey Champion.

Strange, winning so many states, such as winning Connecticut and Alabama (which almost never happens in GOP primaries) would indicate that he has some chance of being president.

He has a chance -- but so did Alf Landon, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.

Quote:

Quote:2. The mainstream media dislike him. The fellow has made enemies at FoX Propaganda Channel.

Where in S&H did they say that the GC had to be liked by the Press of the day, or for that matter even be taken seriously?  Given Hawthorn's description of the GC from which the concept is derived, it isn't whether the GC is popular, or even listened to, it is that he harkens back to some older wisdom that has since been forgotten, remembered only by an "impossibly old" person.

To be sure, many in the contemporary ripped FDR... Donald Trump is not FDR.

More coherent in speech than Sarah Palin (which isn't much of an achievement). Of course I expect Rachel Maddow to rip him to pieces.

Quote:

Quote:3. He may be off the wall in his political pronouncements, but nothing indicates that he is anything other than a rapacious plutocrat with a bloated ego. He may be all over the board making promises that contradict each other, but I expect him to choose to honor his own class before he does anything for the working classes.

Odd the last GC we had, FDR was a Patrician.  People can indeed be class traitors.  I don't think Trump has any loyalty to his class, if he did he wouldn't be as hated by the Establishment as he is...because he'd be one of them.

FDR saved the system. Donald Trump is likely to create enemies where they are not now.

Quote:4. We had our analogue to Andrew Jackson... in Ronald Reagan for changing the style of the Presidency for the time until the Crisis Era. Both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama operate in the shadow of Ronald Reagan, the most transformative President since FDR.

Quote:You misunderstand what I mean by being of the Jacksonian tradition.  What I mean is that he is, or at least appears to be, one of the common people--the great democrat as it were.  If you've not forgotten your history you'd know that Jackson scandalized Washington by having common working people at the inaugural balls and acted on his most well behaved days like a Western (yes Tennessee was the west in those days) Planter, and on his worst like an uncouth hick.

Ronald Reagan was a smooth talking actor who looked good on TV, he was transformative in style, but not so much in substance as the moves he made were preceded by similar moves by the conservative Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan went further than Jimmy Carter. Carter was an anomaly, arguably the weakest campaigner to have ever won the White House -- probably because Nixon soiled the Presidency and Gerald Ford had no idea of how to campaign for re-election.

Quote:

Quote:5. Donald Trump appeals most strongly to a shrinking demographic: straight, Anglo, under-educated, white, rural Christians.

He also appeals to other whites, females (his unfavorables are lower than Hillary's believe it or not), and those groups that do not typically vote republican in the open primary states have broken for him in record numbers.

Some want to create havoc in the Republican nomination, and Donald Trump looks like a joke to me.

Quote:

Quote:6. He is the most blatantly anti-feminist candidate for the Presidential nomination of the two main Parties or of anyone who has had a chance to put a strong showing on a Third-Party or Independent run since... you tell me. I remember when feminism was a weak presence in American life.

Saying he is anti-feminist is essentially the same as saying he is anti-sexist since feminism these days is little more than a lesbianic cult of blue haired, disgusting trolls who want to complain about men spreading their legs to accommodate their genitalia.  I'm also going to assume that Daddy is anti-cancer and anti-raw sewage being pumped into his back yard.

If we condsider that the problems arising out of 2Ts lead to those solved in 4Ts then I expect a backlash against much of the insanity foisted upon the US in the name of political correctness, sensitivity and other forms of cultish SJW mumbo-jumbo.[/quote]

I have fully cast off "political correctness" (ironically a Commie formulation). To be sure, female chauvinism is just as nasty as male chauvinism.

Quote:

Quote:He has taken pointless jabs at Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly. I've heard his type, the sort who alternates between possessive sentimentality (as in buying the biggest and most expensive card and big flower arrangements for his wife and his mother for Mother's Day) and taking verbal swats at "bi***es". (I have called someone a bitch, but she barks and had potential at one time to bear puppies).  Some women fall for men like that. Most women despise that.

Translation:  Trump apparently loves the women in his family, but doesn't care much for female political opponents or MSM News Models who try to score empty points.  Got it.

In other words, Donald Trump is tolerable to his wife and daughters to the extent that they can get away from him for marvelous exercises in consumer indulgence. Got it.  Few men can give their wives or daughters that escape if they are as nasty as Donald Trump.

Quote:

Quote:7. He has violated a taboo unlikely to be undone in America fast enough -- the taboo against political violence. Do you excuse his staffers beating up hecklers? Do you excuse him for promoting violence against opponents?

All indications show that the violence was initiated by the black lives matters people, which is not surprising since it is a black supremacist organization the leader of which is on public record as saying he wants to kill all white people.  As someone who has a white boyfriend and son that is my boyfriend and kid that asshole is talking about wanting to kill.  Needless to say my opinion of that group is negative.

So repress crime without reckless brutality and crass bigotry.

Quote:

Quote:He loses this time.

I highly doubt that.  Apart from losing to an incumbent president no person who has lost the primaries has been later elected president.

The last President to have no experience in elective office was Dwight Eisenhower. Donald Trump is not Dwight Eisenhower.

[Danilynn]

(05-05-2016, 06:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As the first vote, I not only think that Trump is the GC, but I will also be voting for him. Granted since Shillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee I'd vote for a potted plant if the GOP rant that too.

this. a million times, this!

[Kinser79]

(05-07-2016, 10:27 AM)Danilynn Wrote:

(05-05-2016, 06:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As the first vote, I not only think that Trump is the GC, but I will also be voting for him. Granted since Shillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee I'd vote for a potted plant if the GOP rant that too.

this. a million times, this!

And the fact he's going to totally realign the GOP is a bonus. But seriously I'd vote GOP even if Jeb won the nomination, and for the record I hate Jeb.

---

(05-07-2016, 09:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: He has a chance -- but so did Alf Landon, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.

He has more of a chance than any of those did.  He defeated all of the GOP field which included smooth opporators like Cruz, and Jeb Bush.  He did it by making them dig their own graves, jumping into that grave, and then covering themselves over with dirt.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ath-trump/

Read that.  Yes I know it is Breitbart so it might make you feel all icky but if you want to play real politics you have to occasionally go into the weeds, and pick off ticks.

Quote:To be sure, many in the contemporary ripped FDR... Donald Trump is not FDR.

Of course he's not.  Neither is Shillary, she isn't even that horse-faced, bucktoothed Ellenor.

Quote:More coherent in speech than Sarah Palin (which isn't much of an achievement). Of course I expect Rachel Maddow to rip him to pieces.

She's had a year to rip him to pieces.  Hasn't yet.

Quote:FDR saved the system. Donald Trump is likely to create enemies where they are not now.

FDR saved the system by pissing off his own class.  Daddy's existence pisses off that class.  I think we can and should have those people as enemies.

As for external forces that decide to become our enemies because America decides to stop being a nation of cucks...well fuck them.  I'd much rather see him make a deal with Putin.  We can get all the oil we need from Russia and the Arabs can chuck rocks at jews and each other for all I care.  Why deal with barbarians when you don't have to?

Quote:Ronald Reagan went further than Jimmy Carter. Carter was an anomaly, arguably the weakest campaigner to have ever won the White House -- probably because Nixon soiled the Presidency and Gerald Ford had no idea of how to campaign for re-election.

Still does not make Reagan the GC for the Jacksonian tradition.  The man simply doesn't fit the mold as you would know if you understood that I mean Jacksonian in political substance.

Quote:Some want to create havoc in the Republican nomination, and Donald Trump looks like a joke to me.

If that was his goal, then he's already succeeded.  Of course then again the GOP has tried twice with "serious politicans" and lost both times.  Granted against Hillary just about any Republican can win, her unfavorables are that strong, and they have a quarter century experience frustrating her.  The only joke I'm seeing is how riddicoulsly easy it will be for Daddy to defeat her.  Unlike the other GOP candidates, he had to convince people he is completely nuts, not that he isn't completely nuts.

We will see after the Convention that he'll swing hard to the middle on social issues (The man is a NEW YORKER), maintain his course on cultural issues (which is different than worrying about whose genitals go where), and present a foreign affairs vision in tune with the times:  Screw the rest of the world America First.

But it is good to know you're in stage one.  You'll catch up to stage 3 probably in July.  Shillary is already there and it will sink her.

Quote:I have fully cast off "political correctness" (ironically a Commie formulation). To be sure, female chauvinism is just as nasty as male chauvinism.

It is hardly ironic at all, The SJWs arose out of the New Left of the 1960s, well those segments that didn't go Neo-Con.  And the New Left came from the Old Left.  The current version is the inbred retarded cousin of much that came before, all of it arising from the Missionary Awakening in the last Mega-Awakening.  Which reminds me since we have a nice new empty forum now--I should write up that thread I talked about.  I won't have to worry about repeating the words of others.

Quote:In other words, Donald Trump is tolerable to his wife and daughters to the extent that they can get away from him for marvelous exercises in consumer indulgence. Got it.  Few men can give their wives or daughters that escape if they are as nasty as Donald Trump.

Considering women never marry or date down, like men frequently do, I can only take it then that your comment is that you are jealous that Daddy can, should he choose to, do just that.  That said I doubt his wives or his daughters are over-indulgent.  I've seen how they dress, they aren't tacky people and some indulgence is fine, but too much is just plain gauche

Quote:So repress crime without reckless brutality and crass bigotry.

Individuals have the natural right of self-defense.  That said, having been to Trump events down here the security is really good.  Hecklers are removed, just like they are for Hillary, or Sanders, or any other candidate.  That being said any and all violence has always been started by Daddy's detractors.  I don't think he really has control over whether they decide to act stupidly or not.

Quote:The last President to have no experience in elective office was Dwight Eisenhower. Donald Trump is not Dwight Eisenhower.

No he is not, but Eisenhower proves that having held elective office isn't a requirement to win an election.  Given that we've had a long string of politicians for the past 60 years perhaps it is time for someone who is not a politician.

[pbrower2a]

1. We liberals are trying to understand his strengths.

2. Donald Trump is getting hit hard in the political arena. The negative ads practically write themselves.

3. Donald Trump has gotten sleazy endorsements, and he has been slow to reject them.

4. There are far too many low-information voters for my comfort. They elected Dubya twice.

5. As the states that Donald Trump needs for election drift away from him, we liberals are going to quit punching him.

[Kinser79]

(05-07-2016, 06:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. We liberals are trying to understand his strengths.

I'm not sure liberals can understand his strengths. I fully expect him to unsystimatically thrash Shillary just like he did with Jeb and Cruz. Mostly because he's not playing by the playbook.

Quote:2. Donald Trump is getting hit hard in the political arena. The negative ads practically write themselves.

Cruz flooded PA, IN and several other states with negative ads against Daddy. He won both by huge margins. If there was real dirt on him he'd have been smeared by now. The Establishment GOP hates him as much as you guys do.

Quote:3. Donald Trump has gotten sleazy endorsements, and he has been slow to reject them.

So what? At least he doesn't need to buy a nascar jacket to show everyone what corporations have bought him. A pitty that isn't a requirement. You know what...Keep Citizens United, constitutional amendment Politicians must display the logos of the corporations that are sponsoring them for truth in advertising. Can't wait to see Shillary with her Goldman Sachs jacket.

Quote:4. There are far too many low-information voters for my comfort. They elected Dubya twice.

And here I thought Democrats were for the "common man". The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Quote:5. As the states that Donald Trump needs for election drift away from him, we liberals are going to quit punching him.

Ohio is baked in as is PA. He's got the south, and the #Nevertrump people and the Mormons will tow the line or they will find themselves in the hostile camp. Shillary will never be president. No one who has lost their party's nomination to someone other than an incumbent president has ever later become president. That is a hard truth for you to swallow but she'll get safe blue states but he's going to pick up the purple ones.

[TnT]

(05-07-2016, 01:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Of course he's not.  Neither is Shillary, she isn't even that horse-faced, bucktoothed Ellenor.

Kinser, that's a low blow.  Below you. Eleanor was a good woman.

[Kinser79]

(05-07-2016, 08:36 PM)TnT Wrote:

(05-07-2016, 01:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Of course he's not.  Neither is Shillary, she isn't even that horse-faced, bucktoothed Ellenor.

Kinser, that's a low blow.  Below you. Eleanor was a good woman.

What exactly makes her "good"? It is like saying any old doddery liberal is automatically nice to me.

Back in the 1990s they trotted out Shillary as if she was supposed to be the next Ellenor Roosevelt. She couldn't even manage to be the President's eyes and ears--not that bill was confined to a wheelchair. And let us not forget that at the time Ellenor Roosevelt was reviled by many and beloved by only some.

When it comes to insulting Shillary there is no blow too low. Sometimes I have a dig a hole to do it.

[pbrower2a]

(05-07-2016, 07:11 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-07-2016, 06:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. We liberals are trying to understand his strengths.

I'm not sure liberals can understand his strengths.  I fully expect him to unsystimatically thrash Shillary just like he did with Jeb and Cruz.  Mostly because he's not playing by the playbook.

Appealing to anger and ignorance, but only those of white people? Just look at his abysmal approval ratings.

Quote:2. Donald Trump is getting hit hard in the political arena. The negative ads practically write themselves.

Cruz flooded PA, IN and several other states with negative ads against Daddy.  He won both by huge margins.  If there was real dirt on him he'd have been smeared by now.  The Establishment GOP hates him as much as you guys do.

Primaries and the general election work under very different rules.

Quote:3. Donald Trump has gotten sleazy endorsements, and he has been slow to reject them.

So what?  At least he doesn't need to buy a nascar jacket to show everyone what corporations have bought him.  A pitty that isn't a requirement.  You know what...Keep Citizens United, constitutional amendment Politicians must display the logos of the corporations that are sponsoring them for truth in advertising.  Can't wait to see Shillary with her Goldman Sachs jacket.

So who gets to sport "Peabody Coal", associated with the coal gangster Don Blankenship?

Quote:4. There are far too many low-information voters for my comfort.  They elected Dubya twice.

And here I thought Democrats were for the "common man".  The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

It's also a declining constituency.

Quote:5. As the states that Donald Trump needs for election drift away from him, we liberals are going to quit punching him.

Ohio is baked in as is PA.  He's got the south, and the #Nevertrump people and the Mormons will tow the line or they will find themselves in the hostile camp.  Shillary will never be president.  No one who has lost their party's nomination to someone other than an incumbent president has ever later become president.  That is a hard truth for you to swallow but she'll get safe blue states but he's going to pick up the purple ones.

Face it. Because we have never had a female President we will never have one. We never elected a handicapped President before FDR, so he had no chance of being elected. Just like we were never going to have a Catholic President until JFK was elected. Or like we had absolutely no chance to ever elect someone black.

Some rules are relevant; some aren't. We have never had a President born in the Mountain Time Zone; we have never had a President born in Michigan; we have never elected a non-Christian President; we have never elected a Hispanic, Asian-American, Polish-American, Scandinavian-American, or Italian-American President. James Buchanan was so awful that we will never vote for a President from Pennsylvania again.

 

[Kinser79]

(05-08-2016, 12:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Appealing to anger and ignorance, but only those of white people? Just look at his abysmal approval ratings.

I don't care about any polls except those people will be voting in in November.  It is May, the election is in November.  An eternity in politics.

Quote:Primaries and the general election work under very different rules.

But people do not.  If the negative attack ads didn't work in the primaries, they won't work in the general either.  Besides that there is the female factor too.  Hillary goes negative, she will be percieved as being "bitchy", which further increases her negatives (of which she has plenty).  Not to mention it opens her up for attack ads and unlike Daddy, Shillary has some real dirt.

Quote:So who gets to sport "Peabody Coal", associated with the coal gangster Don Blankenship?

I  know facts are not your strong point, but Don Blankenship is the CEO of Massey Energy.  Peabody Coal (which doesn't need quotations because that is the actual name of the company) does not employ Blankenship. Futhermore Peabody has undergone Chapter 11.  I don't think they are in a position to donate to anyone's political campaign until after their debts have been cleared.  Kinda how Chapter 11 works.

Quote:It's also a declining constituency.

The white aspects of it, perhaps.  However, working people are going to be the majority for a long long time, and they are going to be those very "low information voters" that the Democratic Elites mock.

See the thing is, and I know you wouldn't understand this because it requires actually thinking rather than regurgitating a handful of talking points you may have memorized, is that Trump's success is due because he's outside of the Establishment.  It is the same appeal that Sanders had.  Both parties are hated, the Democrats for their elitism and neo-puritanicalism and selling out the common man, the GOP for their servile adherence to the whims of the ultra-rich.

Of all people it was Noam Chomsky that predicted the rise of someone like Trump.  Unfortunately he expected that someone like him would fit the crook mold--and Trump is no crook.  

Quote:Face it. Because we have never had a female President we will never have one. We never elected a handicapped President before FDR, so he had no chance of being elected.  Just like we were never going to have a Catholic President until JFK was elected. Or like we had absolutely no chance to ever elect someone black.

I know that for Liberals these days everything comes down to identity politics.  Do you really think that women will vote for Shillary because she has a vagina--even though every prescription she has comes directly from the very prescriptions that caused this mess?  Well I'm sure some women would--but we call those women morons.  Of course I would call anyone who thinks that voting the same people in that caused this mess, into office and expecting anything different are either stupid, or crazy and possibly both.

As for FDR, he actively hid his polio, or whatever he had--they're not sure it was polio now.  JFK said point blank that he wasn't going to take direction from the Pope (what some people--who weren't going to vote for him anyway--feared) and he didn't.  As for Obama...well I didn't vote for him because he was black, maybe you did probably some of your latent racism since we know that is the equivalent to original sin (or at least for white people who happen to be liberals, and cuckservatives to a lesser extent).  I voted for him because he didn't pick Sarah Palin as his VP. 

Seriously McCain lost me after picking her.  I vetted her before he did apparently because I knew she was unqualified just by googling her minutes after the announcement.  I'll give McCain a pass on being overly harsh on that, it was a failure of his staff really.  I'm not even sure he knows what the internet is.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your examples because they all fall under the same category.  Identity is not the basis of politics, never has been and never will be.  Try harder.

---

I think I'll let Milo explain.  I can't help myself he's cute, smart and he has the right politics.

[pbrower2a]

(05-08-2016, 03:38 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-08-2016, 12:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Appealing to anger and ignorance, but only those of white people? Just look at his abysmal approval ratings.

I don't care about any polls except those people will be voting in in November.  It is May, the election is in November.  An eternity in politics.

Quote:Primaries and the general election work under very different rules.

But people do not.  If the negative attack ads didn't work in the primaries, they won't work in the general either.  Besides that there is the female factor too.  Hillary goes negative, she will be percieved as being "bitchy", which further increases her negatives (of which she has plenty).  Not to mention it opens her up for attack ads and unlike Daddy, Hillary has some real dirt.

Political campaigns can be doomed early. Some are successful only under freakish circumstances (think of the US Senate race in Indiana in 2012. Strategy and perceptions of course matter. Sure, in theory a major-league baseball team that goes 5-26 at the start of its season has a theoretical chance to end up 95-67 and have a chance to win the World Series... but that is absurdly unlikely.

So does the curriculum vitae of the politician. There may be no stated requirements other than citizenship, residency, and age for the Presidency, but as a rule we find that certain patterns of prior achievement can lead to the Presidency and others in practice don't. In theory we can elect a skid-row bum as President. In practice we don't. A plutocrat with no experience in public office? At least Herbert Hoover had had a Cabinet post and had administered a relief project.

Donald Trump has been campaigning with stream-of-consciousness speeches laden with hollow bromides. He will be pinned down quickly.

Quote:So who gets to sport "Peabody Coal", associated with the coal gangster Don Blankenship?

I  know facts are not your strong point, but Don Blankenship is the CEO of Massey Energy.  Peabody Coal (which doesn't need quotations because that is the actual name of the company) does not employ Blankenship. Futhermore Peabody has undergone Chapter 11.  I don't think they are in a position to donate to anyone's political campaign until after their debts have been cleared.  Kinda how Chapter 11 works.

Correction noted. My goof.

Quote:It's also a declining constituency.

The white aspects of it, perhaps.  However, working people are going to be the majority for a long long time, and they are going to be those very "low information voters" that the Democratic Elites mock.

See the thing is, and I know you wouldn't understand this because it requires actually thinking rather than regurgitating a handful of talking points you may have memorized, is that Trump's success is due because he's outside of the Establishment.  It is the same appeal that Sanders had.  Both parties are hated, the Democrats for their elitism and neo-puritanicalism and selling out the common man, the GOP for their servile adherence to the whims of the ultra-rich.

Of all people it was Noam Chomsky that predicted the rise of someone like Trump.  Unfortunately he expected that someone like him would fit the crook mold--and Trump is no crook.  

I wouldn't disagree with Noam Chomsky on linguistics, but he has no authority on politics.

Countries in desperation often turn to demagogues. Donald Trump is a demagogue.

...I am surprised that you show no contempt for the political beliefs of poor white people. I could make the case that white Christians are less sophisticated than other demographic groups similar in formal education and vocational achievement in politics. Maybe they could long kiss up to reactionary elites with impunity because those elites have a heritage of tossing a few table scraps to them while giving the shaft to non-whites. Maybe they have no fear of being treated as pariahs. Maybe some white subcultures are simply thankful that the bad stuff happens to other people.

The plain, simple truth is that the political order no longer is good to poor white people as it used to be. There is no longer patronage that might get someone a temporary job patching potholes for the county road commission.

A black or a Mexican-American may recognize that the old, reactionary, white-dominated power structure has never been and will never do them any good until the people affiliated with that power structure are off the scene and until people of whatever ethnicity become even-handed. An Asian-American might recognize the potential of becoming a pariah; successful minorities have been the most vulnerable to callow opportunists who offer to share the loot and opportunities with the angry majority.

Donald Trump may not be a crook in the sense that he has found ways to get graft while in public office, but he is a crony capitalist.

Quote:Face it. Because we have never had a female President we will never have one. We never elected a handicapped President before FDR, so he had no chance of being elected.  Just like we were never going to have a Catholic President until JFK was elected. Or like we had absolutely no chance to ever elect someone black.

I know that for Liberals these days everything comes down to identity politics.  Do you really think that women will vote for Shillary because she has a vagina

So does Sarah Palin, who has some glaring weaknesses as a political campaigner, most notably her suspect skills as a communicator.


--even though every prescription she has comes directly from the very prescriptions that caused this mess?  Well I'm sure some women would--but we call those women morons.  Of course I would call anyone who thinks that voting the same people in that caused this mess, into office and expecting anything different are either stupid, or crazy and possibly both.

What do you mean, got us into this mess? I put more fault on the Republican Party and those who pull the strings on Republican politicians.


As for FDR, he actively hid his polio, or whatever he had--they're not sure it was polio now.  JFK said point blank that he wasn't going to take direction from the Pope (what some people--who weren't going to vote for him anyway--feared) and he didn't.  As for Obama...well I didn't vote for him because he was black, maybe you did probably some of your latent racism since we know that is the equivalent to original sin (or at least for white people who happen to be liberals, and cuckservatives to a lesser extent).  I voted for him because he didn't pick Sarah Palin as his VP. 

We really needed a Sanders-like populist. Barack Obama may have erred on the side of conciliation, underestimating the viciousness of the opposition unprecedented in American political history. He may have expected Republicans to look out first for voters and cut deals. The paymasters of current GOP pols expect loyalty to them above any other loyalties.

Seriously McCain lost me after picking her.  I vetted her before he did apparently because I knew she was unqualified just by googling her minutes after the announcement.  I'll give McCain a pass on being overly harsh on that, it was a failure of his staff really.  I'm not even sure he knows what the internet is.

She gave one good speech... and after that she had practically no value as a campaigner. Just because she found a rapt audience in places she thought she was doing well with her 'Real America' shtick. The cameras were rolling and the microphones were open. Her 'Real America' speech went back to the closest city and then got spread nationwide -- to people that she thought that she could ridicule safely. One must assume that the cameras are rolling and that the microphones are rolling,

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your examples because they all fall under the same category.  Identity is not the basis of politics, never has been and never will be.  Try harder.

In recent years, identity politics has become paramount. That happens when compromise falls before ideology and the demands of donors. Democracy depends upon political figures and public administrators cutting deals instead of cutting throats. But what can I say of someone (this can be seen in Kinser's posts on the dying Fourth Turning forums) who has Josef Stalin as a hero.

...Even if Karl Marx has some relevance in analyzing sick societies, Marxism-Leninism in all forms is dead as an economic solution. 

---

I think I'll let Milo explain.  I can't help myself he's cute, smart and he has the right politics.

[Kinser79]

(05-08-2016, 08:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Political campaigns can be doomed early.

I don't think I said they couldn't be.  However, we have with Daddy a track record of people first underestimating him, then trying to ignore him, then trying to manipulate him or the narrative, then becoming frustrated with his existence and finally having a total melt down usually on national television.  Seriously you should read the article I posted earlier about how Trump is taking out his opponents.  Maybe if Hillary reads a couple Breitbart articles she might have a snow ball's chance on a hot Florida day, but I doubt it.

Also this:

http://www.theonion.com/article/will-be-...nerv-52002

Yes I get that The Onion is satire, but if there wasn't some truth to the article the satire would fall flat.  Kind of how satire works.

Quote:Some are successful only under freakish circumstances (think of the US Senate race in Indiana in 2012. Strategy and perceptions of course matter. Sure, in theory a major-league baseball team that goes 5-26 at the start of its season has a theoretical chance to end up 95-67 and have a chance to win the World Series... but that is absurdly unlikely.

This would imply that we are NOT under freakish conditions.  First we are definitely in a 4T, have been since at least 2008 though I'd argue that the Catalyst happened with Katrina.  Second we've had a disastrous Neo-Con GOP Presidency followed by an effectively impotent New Democratic Presidency (meaning that both party establishments are at best ineffective and at worst actively dangerous).  Furthermore even if one assumes that the 4T started in '08 we are 8 years past the start, the regeneracy should have happened before now.  I don't know about you but I'd say the weather is pretty freaky right now.

Quote:So does the curriculum vitae of the politician.

I think you have failed to notice that Trump is not a politician.  Neither was Eisenhower, nor was Grant and nor was Jackson.  Granted the other three were generals, but I have seen nothing that would preclude Trump on the basis of his "experience".  Though it should be interesting to note that HRC attacked Obama on the basis of his experience and STILL lost.

Quote:There may be no stated requirements other than citizenship, residency, and age for the Presidency, but as a rule we find that certain patterns of prior achievement can lead to the Presidency and others in practice don't.

I agree which is why I brought up the fact that unless one is running against an incumbent president in the Primaries (which usually spells doom for that incumbent) and loses that person's presidential aspirations are over.  As such HRC has a long row to hoe and I don't think she'll pull it off.  Mostly because someone is going to do something (probably the Meme Team) that's going to make her lose her shit on national TV.  Add that together with all the other negatives she has and she'll never be elected.

Quote:In theory we can elect a skid-row bum as President. In practice we don't. A plutocrat with no experience in public office? At least Herbert Hoover had had a Cabinet post and had administered a relief project.

Herbert Hoover was more than a Cabinet member when he ran.  He was also an establishment GOP candidate running at a time when the establishment hadn't been discredited.

Quote:Donald Trump has been campaigning with stream-of-consciousness speeches laden with hollow bromides. He will be pinned down quickly.

The MSM has had a year to do it, they have failed so far.  See my points about the failure of the MSM to pin him down above.  I don't feel like repeating myself, It's Mom's day and she demands sushi.

Quote:Correction noted. My goof.

No you don't get a pass.  If you're going to trot out a coal magnate like he is the devil incarnate you could at least do everyone of the courtesy of doing your homework first.

Quote:I wouldn't disagree with Noam Chomsky on linguistics, but he has no authority on politics.

Except when he agrees with you in which case he has super mega authority.

Quote:Countries in desperation often turn to demagogues. Donald Trump is a demagogue.

I've not claimed he wasn't.  That being said, unlike other demagogues he hasn't been filtered out of the process already (he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last you know), usually they are so that proves that there isn't any real dirt on him.

Quote:...I am surprised that you show no contempt for the political beliefs of poor white people.

Why should I?  My BF is white, and he is a public school teacher (and therefore poor--seriously teachers get paid shit for the bullshit they have to put up with, I certainly wouldn't do it even if they paid twice the going rate) and thus poor.  I don't hold his views in contempt because I don't hold him in contempt.

Furthermore, and I know that this is going to fry your little pea brain, poor white people are not a monolithic group. Poor white people have a constituency for every ideology under the sun from Communism to Nazism.  The same can be said for Blacks (we're not a monolithic group and furthermore not all of us are poor either).  What I do have contempt for is the GOP Establishment, the Dem Establishment because the former are servile incompetents and the latter are impotent morons, and the MSM which is a lying cesspool of filth.

Quote:I could make the case that white Christians are less sophisticated than other demographic groups similar in formal education and vocational achievement in politics. Maybe they could long kiss up to reactionary elites with impunity because those elites have a heritage of tossing a few table scraps to them while giving the shaft to non-whites. Maybe they have no fear of being treated as pariahs. Maybe some white subcultures are simply thankful that the bad stuff happens to other people.

If you plan on making a case like that I hope you have facts to back it up.  But I know you don't.

Quote:The plain, simple truth is that the political order no longer is good to poor white people as it used to be. There is no longer patronage that might get someone a temporary job patching potholes for the county road commission.

No the plain and simple truth is the political order is no longer good for anyone who isn't a Wall Street magnate.  White, Black, Brown, Pink with purple polka dots, can't decide which genitals to have...doesn't matter.  The Democrats have been bought, the Establishment GOP always was--so any establishment candidate is not good for poor people regardless their race.

Quote:A black or a Mexican-American may recognize that the old, reactionary, white-dominated power structure has never been and will never do them any good until the people affiliated with that power structure are off the scene and until people of whatever ethnicity become even-handed. An Asian-American might recognize the potential of becoming a pariah; successful minorities have been the most vulnerable to callow opportunists who offer to share the loot and opportunities with the angry majority.

They might if the threats to America presented by Daddy were internal threats.  If you listen to his rhetoric all of the threats are external.  Furthermore if one considers that Trump pisses off everyone in that power structure I see great appeal to Blacks, and Citizen Latinos as well as Legal Immigrants.

Quote:Donald Trump may not be a crook in the sense that he has found ways to get graft while in public office, but he is a crony capitalist.

An extraordinary claim, I hope you have extraordinary evidence to back it up.  Oh wait, you don't because if you did the Hillary people would have already run an attack ad by now.  That being said, Trump I assume has used loopholes, various accounting tricks and etc just like every other businessman does.  He didn't create the system but he's been very successful at working it.

Quote:So does Sarah Palin, who has some glaring weaknesses as a political campaigner, most notably her suspect skills as a communicator.

And yet, when the GOP ran her in the hopes of attracting the female vote (using the very identity politics originating with the left) it didn't work.  It didn't work not because of what she doesn't have between her legs, it didn't work because she was a blathering idiot.  Had she not been McCain would have been President for at least four years.

Quote:What do you mean, got us into this mess? I put more fault on the Republican Party and those who pull the strings on Republican politicians.

Bill Clinton is a Republican?  Lets see, she voted for war in Iraq, she voted for bank deregulation (yes in the final form), has never turned down voting for a free trade agreement--particularly those that hurt US Manufacturing (Michigan might have felt some pain from those) voted for the Patriot Act turning the US into a de facto police state, has bent over backwards to reward crooks and liars on Wall Street.  Then she turned around got the US involved in a debacle in Libya, wants to go to war in Syria (you know because Iraq and Afghanistan were so successful) and has been more than willing to push the Neo-Con agenda and the New Democrat agenda (which is basically old-school republicanism minus the Christian Right).

So yes.  Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Husband are part of the problem.  Voting in those that caused this mess to fix it is insane.

Quote:We really needed a Sanders-like populist.

I agree which is why I voted for Sanders in the primary.  Not that it did any good...should Daddy manage to flip the GOP expect me to change my affiliation.

Quote:Barack Obama may have erred on the side of conciliation, underestimating the viciousness of the opposition unprecedented in American political history. He may have expected Republicans to look out first for voters and cut deals. The paymasters of current GOP pols expect loyalty to them above any other loyalties.

Translation:  Obama is either a fool or a coward.

Obama had every opportunity to twist arms in Congress.  He could have come on TV and said "I want to do X, Y, and Z." and then forced the GOP to say no.  He didn't.  He tried to be conciliatory, he tried to placate them--it was seen as weakness and he did it long enough that he will be remembered as a weak president.  

Quote:She gave one good speech... and after that she had practically no value as a campaigner. Just because she found a rapt audience in places she thought she was doing well with her 'Real America' shtick. The cameras were rolling and the microphones were open. Her 'Real America' speech went back to the closest city and then got spread nationwide -- to people that she thought that she could ridicule safely. One must assume that the cameras are rolling and that the microphones are rolling,

I wouldn't even give her the one good speech.  After her announcement as VP candidate, I googled her, I was not impressed.  Funny thing is, the BF who is more instinctively conservative than I am said at the time "Governor of Alaska?  That's like the principle of a home school."  We really laughed when NicePeter of Youtube used that exact same line in ERB.  And no we were not in contact with him--he was an unknown at the time so I can't take credit other than "great minds think alike".

Quote:In recent years, identity politics has become paramount. That happens when compromise falls before ideology and the demands of donors. Democracy depends upon political figures and public administrators cutting deals instead of cutting throats. But what can I say of someone (this can be seen in Kinser's posts on the dying Fourth Turning forums) who has Josef Stalin as a hero.

...Even if Karl Marx has some relevance in analyzing sick societies, Marxism-Leninism in all forms is dead as an economic solution. 

Actually identity politics is not paramount, it is a sideshow.  It always has been and always will be.  Having a vagina won't put food in your belly.  Black Lives Matter won't bring greater parity with whites--it will result in black neighborhoods burnt to the ground by blacks themselves though.

As for Marxism-Leninism, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the economic forces that gave rise to it are passing away and as such a new ideology is necessary.  Note that the Class Struggle continues, it is just that it is transforming into a more atomized basis which is likely the result of the conditions of late capitalism and the development of the internet as a basis for global communication.

As such, while much of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is still very relevant, the left-right dynamic is breaking down and a new political order in the West is taking shape.  That order of course will be the division between cultural libertarians and cultural authoritarians.