Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Signs of a Dying Empire
#21
(09-19-2017, 11:48 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-16-2017, 02:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'm tempted to see the debasement of currency as a symptom more than as a cause.

1. That people are living off the past, including the reputation of the currency from better times?

2. The overall fraudulence of the system?  Inflation can be a way of cheating workers and savers.

3. The extinction of thrift as people are unwilling or unable to save.

I am tempted to believe that inflation could work to destroy the thrift necessary for creating capital that might compete with extant firms by forming competitive businesses. People who cannot save are unable to establish collateral for starting a business of any kind. Thus is inflation the best friend of the monopolist and crony capitalist?

It's the dumbed down masses who are the real drivers of debt fueled commerce and dovish monetary policy. You start to tighten credit and go for hawkish monetary policy and they all squeal like stuck pigs.


Of course it is possible that consumers who identify themselves mostly by what they are capable of buying who are vulnerable to 'easy credit rip-offs' are at fault. This said, Big Business is pushing such stuff and the dealers who sell the stuff.

The office chair on which I sit has been showing signs of wear. So what do I do? Buy a new one? Not when my income is shaky. I went to a thrift store, bought a used blanket for about $4, and put it upon the seat. That's a good way to avoid spending about $106 dollars on a new office chair (sale price + tax).

When the 4T is fully underway and at its most dangerous time then the consumer economy collapses. The pipeline of cheap stuff from China gets cut off, and when an electronic gadget fails we will just have to do without or buy something used at a thrift shop. Maybe obsolete, like a TV with a CRT.

The wheelers-and-dealers want the masses to be uncritical consumers -- until they can no longer make and sell (or, as is they really do now, import and sell).

We'll likely be back to cash-and-carry in the next 1T. The word d--t may be in the same category with other words referring to elimination and fornication, but it will be close. Maybe if we handle this 4T well we will have set ourselves  up to solve many of the problems that we have as the result of bad behavior in the 3T that has persisted to today. Maybe it will harder to be elected if one avoided the war (Clinton, Dubya, Trump) than if one made at least some effort to serve.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#22
(09-18-2017, 10:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But some of the important rights are negative rights. The freedom to drive without expecting a grossly-incompetent driver (such as drunk or on drugs) implies that there is no right to drive while drunk or on drugs. Real incomes for working people were already much above what they were in 1927 by 1937 in part because of wage-and-hour laws that kept an employer from compelling one to choose between working uncompensated overtime or losing a job. Licensing requirements for driving a car may have kept some really-stupid people from driving a car. When you think about it, the average person first eligible to get a driver's license (at 16) is as intellectually-developed as a full adult with an IQ of 80. License plates? Those make it far easier for the police to track stolen cars and people using cars in the commission of crimes.

You obviously have more freedom earning $50K a year than by earning $10K a year, at the least in consumer choice. There is obviously far more consumer choice today than in 1927. The only clear negatives to life being better for most people relate to population growth; housing rent is much bigger as a share of income, and commutes are longer.

There is an expression, probably an old one, I see bantered about and one that I have come to accept as an axiom: Freedom is messy.  Still, I would gladly trade much of the bullshit, both corporate and especially government that we deal with today in exchange for freedom.  Government is nothing but force and not a force for "good", though I realize that some think that is is or should be.  There is also a saying about you're right to swing your fist ends at my nose and this is where things like drunk driving comes into play.  Freedom does not mean you have the "right" to operate a vehicle on a public thoroughfare while intoxicated on the basis that you're putting other people in danger who do not have any say, meaning ability to agree to it, in the matter.

The problem is that government is the idea that you can take a subset of individuals and bestow upon them super powers making them into rulers.  It is an absurd principle in that people can't grant upon others that which they don't possess themselves.   For that matter I do not believe that government should have police - agents of force who are paid through stolen funds taken under threat of violence (taxes) to enforce the edicts of the politicians.  The "legal" system has become a big business in and of itself and it needs to end.  What it has become is mostly a system designed to extort money out of the people in order to perpetuate itself while being wholly incapable and inadequate of dealing with "crime".  The system has excelled at one thing and that is creating a whole host of "crimes" that are nothing but "crimes" against the State and then demands tribute under the threat of violence in response.

As I've said in other threads, burn it down and lets return to a circa 1850 agrarian society; one that simply can't support "government" intrusion like we have today.  I would much rather have that and have true freedom than the conveniences of today.  As the album title of the Dead Kennedy's said in mockery: "give me convenience, or give me death" - it's become the AmeriKan motto.
Reply
#23
(09-19-2017, 03:23 PM)noway2 Wrote:
(09-18-2017, 10:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But some of the important rights are negative rights. The freedom to drive without expecting a grossly-incompetent driver (such as drunk or on drugs) implies that there is no right to drive while drunk or on drugs. Real incomes for working people were already much above what they were in 1927 by 1937 in part because of wage-and-hour laws that kept an employer from compelling one to choose between working uncompensated overtime or losing a job. Licensing requirements for driving a car may have kept some really-stupid people from driving a car. When you think about it, the average person first eligible to get a driver's license (at 16) is as intellectually-developed as a full adult with an IQ of 80. License plates? Those make it far easier for the police to track stolen cars and people using cars in the commission of crimes.

You obviously have more freedom earning $50K a year than by earning $10K a year, at the least in consumer choice. There is obviously far more consumer choice today than in 1927. The only clear negatives to life being better for most people relate to population growth; housing rent is much bigger as a share of income, and commutes are longer.

There is an expression, probably an old one, I see bantered about and one that I have come to accept as an axiom: Freedom is messy.  Still, I would gladly trade much of the bullshit, both corporate and especially government that we deal with today in exchange for freedom.  Government is nothing but force and not a force for "good", though I realize that some think that is is or should be.  There is also a saying about you're right to swing your fist ends at my nose and this is where things like drunk driving comes into play.  Freedom does not mean you have the "right" to operate a vehicle on a public thoroughfare while intoxicated on the basis that you're putting other people in danger who do not have any say, meaning ability to agree to it,  in the matter.

We obviously gave up some freedom to get more mobility, which explains the heavy regulation and taxation of automobiles and their fuels. When people relied heavily upon libraries for information accessible to anyone, we needed taxes to pay for them.  Is education a public good (because it improves the earning potential for us all and makes life safer) or a private good because it gives people earning power? K-12 education is free, but college education is expensive. You can learn what is necessary to be a retail clerk or restaurant worker (with a below-average income) clerk in K-12 education, but certainly not enough to be an accountant (who gets an above-average income). Much of the object6ive of a K-12 education is to make one a suitable citizen, which means that one can cast a vote. Considering who got elected in 2016, maybe K-12 education isn't adequate for certain demographics. 

Quote:The problem is that government is the idea that you can take a subset of individuals and bestow upon them super powers making them into rulers.  It is an absurd principle in that people can't grant upon others that which they don't possess themselves.   For that matter I do not believe that government should have police - agents of force who are paid through stolen funds taken under threat of violence (taxes) to enforce the edicts of the politicians.  The "legal" system has become a big business in and of itself and it needs to end.  What it has become is mostly a system designed to extort money out of the people in order to perpetuate itself while being wholly incapable and inadequate of dealing with "crime".  The system has excelled at one thing and that is creating a whole host of "crimes" that are nothing but "crimes" against the State and then demands tribute under the threat of violence in response.


Ineffective police or corrupt police make life easy for gangsters. I want people busted for driving stolen cars. Without adequate police and fire protection, crime happens and houses burn down that otherwise wouldn't. Insurance is a cost of upkeep of a house and of a car -- if people are to buy those on mortgages or other loans. Without adequate police, we end up with private enforcers beholden to the richest person around.

Quote:As I've said in other threads, burn it down and lets return to a circa 1850 agrarian society; one that simply can't support "government" intrusion like we have today.  I would much rather have that and have true freedom than the conveniences of today.  As the album title of the Dead Kennedy's said in mockery: "give me convenience, or give me death" - it's become the AmeriKan motto.

Most of us would be serfs if such an economy were to re-appear.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#24
(09-19-2017, 05:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
Quote:As I've said in other threads, burn it down and lets return to a circa 1850 agrarian society; one that simply can't support "government" intrusion like we have today.  I would much rather have that and have true freedom than the conveniences of today.  As the album title of the Dead Kennedy's said in mockery: "give me convenience, or give me death" - it's become the AmeriKan motto.

Most of us would be serfs if such an economy were to re-appear.

Not in 1850.  Serfs could be kept in line when one nobleman with better nutrition and armor, and years of specialized combat training, could take on ten peasants and come out on top.  Firearms put an end to that.
Reply
#25
(09-19-2017, 09:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-19-2017, 05:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
Quote:As I've said in other threads, burn it down and lets return to a circa 1850 agrarian society; one that simply can't support "government" intrusion like we have today.  I would much rather have that and have true freedom than the conveniences of today.  As the album title of the Dead Kennedy's said in mockery: "give me convenience, or give me death" - it's become the AmeriKan motto.

Most of us would be serfs if such an economy were to re-appear.

Not in 1850.  Serfs could be kept in line when one nobleman with better nutrition and armor, and years of specialized combat training, could take on ten peasants and come out on top.  Firearms put an end to that.

Warren, you forget, PBR here desires the "common man" to not own firearms. 

With a unarmed or disarmed population it is far easier to enslave them.  But that is really an argument for the individual right to bear arms, not that PBR would ever admit that.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#26
(09-19-2017, 09:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Warren, you forget, PBR here desires the "common man" to not own firearms. 

With a unarmed or disarmed population it is far easier to enslave them.  But that is really an argument for the individual right to bear arms, not that PBR would ever admit that.

Perhaps I just haven't been here long enough to see him make an argument on that issue.
Reply
#27
(09-19-2017, 09:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-19-2017, 09:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Warren, you forget, PBR here desires the "common man" to not own firearms. 

With a unarmed or disarmed population it is far easier to enslave them.  But that is really an argument for the individual right to bear arms, not that PBR would ever admit that.

Perhaps I just haven't been here long enough to see him make an argument on that issue.

I've not seen him make that argument on this forum but on the old one, the 2A was regularly discussed.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#28
(09-19-2017, 09:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-19-2017, 09:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-19-2017, 05:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
Quote:As I've said in other threads, burn it down and lets return to a circa 1850 agrarian society; one that simply can't support "government" intrusion like we have today.  I would much rather have that and have true freedom than the conveniences of today.  As the album title of the Dead Kennedy's said in mockery: "give me convenience, or give me death" - it's become the AmeriKan motto.

Most of us would be serfs if such an economy were to re-appear.

Not in 1850.  Serfs could be kept in line when one nobleman with better nutrition and armor, and years of specialized combat training, could take on ten peasants and come out on top.  Firearms put an end to that.

Warren, you forget, PBR here desires the "common man" to not own firearms.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were awash in privately-owned firearms.  In Nazi Germany, Nazis were strongly urged to own firearms as a sort of civic duty. In the Soviet Union, the Soviet system was lenient about firearms for anyone not in bad standing with the Communist Party

Private ownership of firearms was practically illegal in Britain under arch-conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Go figure whether firearms are vital to personal freedom. Where I live, firearms do me some good for culling the deer herds. I have been in two car-deer collisions. In one case the deer struck my car.

Quote:With a unarmed or disarmed population it is far easier to enslave them.  But that is really an argument for the individual right to bear arms, not that PBR would ever admit that.

A country in danger of a foreign takeover will wisely make the ownership of firearms practically a civic duty.

Sport hunters, the people whose ownership of firearms is least objectionable to me, are not the 'gun problem'.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#29
(09-20-2017, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A country in danger of a foreign takeover will wisely make the ownership of firearms practically a civic duty.

Sport hunters, the people whose ownership of firearms is least objectionable to me, are not the 'gun problem'.
The second amendment is not about sports or hunting, though it does include those things. 

My gun(s) have never jumped out of their containers, gone off, and shot anybody. Nor have they ever been used to commit an act of violence against another person.  They have destroyed some paper and pieces of wood, but that is about it and a couple of them will likely be used this fall in the harvesting of some deer, which we too have an over population of, and when that happens I will be thankful and respectful for the blessing of the natural bounty.

I also carry firearms for defense, in part because of the "gun problem" you refer to, but the problem isn't the "gun" it is the knuckle dragger behind it that wants to use it as a means to take what they want through violent acts.
Reply
#30
(09-19-2017, 09:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-19-2017, 09:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-19-2017, 05:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
Quote:As I've said in other threads, burn it down and lets return to a circa 1850 agrarian society; one that simply can't support "government" intrusion like we have today.  I would much rather have that and have true freedom than the conveniences of today.  As the album title of the Dead Kennedy's said in mockery: "give me convenience, or give me death" - it's become the AmeriKan motto.

Most of us would be serfs if such an economy were to re-appear.

Not in 1850.  Serfs could be kept in line when one nobleman with better nutrition and armor, and years of specialized combat training, could take on ten peasants and come out on top.  Firearms put an end to that.

Warren, you forget, PBR here desires the "common man" to not own firearms. 

With a unarmed or disarmed population it is far easier to enslave them.  But that is really an argument for the individual right to bear arms, not that PBR would ever admit that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah: guns are the great equalizer.  Of course, in a free-for-all economy, wealth always wins.  Your guns?  It's been tried.  What good is a gun when the rich and powerful can openly hire a professional army.  The Pinkerton Agency is a perfect example, having been formed in your ideal year of 1850.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#31
Speaking of conservatives -- the Party once associated with political and economic conservatism used to be for small-scale government and against debt. They thought competition adequate for economic justice. They believed in rational thought and expected it to overpower superstition and ignorance because of the advantages of objective learning. There would be room for big as well as small players in the economy. Now the last two 'conservative' Presidents stand for monopoly, debt as a generator of income and a promoter of consumerism, and heavy involvement of the government in private-public partnerships -- guaranteed profits to gougers with high costs for us all to bear.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#32
(09-20-2017, 05:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Speaking of conservatives -- the Party once associated with political and economic conservatism   used to be for small-scale government and against debt. They thought competition adequate for economic justice. They believed in rational thought and expected it to overpower superstition and ignorance because of the advantages of objective learning. There would be room for big as well as small players in the economy. Now the last two 'conservative' Presidents stand for monopoly, debt as a generator of income and a promoter of consumerism, and heavy involvement of the government in private-public partnerships -- guaranteed profits to gougers with high costs for us all to bear.

IOW, Republicans = Neocons + right wing Neo liberals + Wahoo evangelicals. Yeah, right give me that old time prosperity gospel.  What a drag , man. If you tithe like the preacher man speaketh , you too can get blessed by riches if you're [lucky,get blessed for being faithful enough.]  ... Pretty much like bingo, but getting a bingo may be a life time endeavor. Cool
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#33
(09-20-2017, 05:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Speaking of conservatives -- the Party once associated with political and economic conservatism   used to be for small-scale government and against debt. They thought competition adequate for economic justice. They believed in rational thought and expected it to overpower superstition and ignorance because of the advantages of objective learning. There would be room for big as well as small players in the economy. Now the last two 'conservative' Presidents stand for monopoly, debt as a generator of income and a promoter of consumerism, and heavy involvement of the government in private-public partnerships -- guaranteed profits to gougers with high costs for us all to bear.

The way you speak I'm pretty sure you're stuck in some sort of time warp where the Trump hostile take over of the GOP never happened.  Of course this could just be a canned response you've been dishing out since the 90s. Shy
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#34
(09-20-2017, 08:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 05:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Speaking of conservatives -- the Party once associated with political and economic conservatism   used to be for small-scale government and against debt. They thought competition adequate for economic justice. They believed in rational thought and expected it to overpower superstition and ignorance because of the advantages of objective learning. There would be room for big as well as small players in the economy. Now the last two 'conservative' Presidents stand for monopoly, debt as a generator of income and a promoter of consumerism, and heavy involvement of the government in private-public partnerships -- guaranteed profits to gougers with high costs for us all to bear.

The way you speak I'm pretty sure you're stuck in some sort of time warp where the Trump hostile take over of the GOP never happened.  Of course this could just be a canned response you've been dishing out since the 90s. Shy

Trump won an unexpected victory, is under investigation for collusion with an adversarial foreign power and has no governing philosophy I can discern.  In what way is that a dominant position in the long term?  That said, ,the Dems are splashing around and clueless, so we have no solid party at the moment.

Let's see how this plays out.  I doubt 2018 will be a tide-turning event, so it's all about 2020.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#35
(09-20-2017, 08:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 05:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Speaking of conservatives -- the Party once associated with political and economic conservatism   used to be for small-scale government and against debt. They thought competition adequate for economic justice. They believed in rational thought and expected it to overpower superstition and ignorance because of the advantages of objective learning. There would be room for big as well as small players in the economy. Now the last two 'conservative' Presidents stand for monopoly, debt as a generator of income and a promoter of consumerism, and heavy involvement of the government in private-public partnerships -- guaranteed profits to gougers with high costs for us all to bear.

The way you speak I'm pretty sure you're stuck in some sort of time warp where the Trump hostile take over of the GOP never happened.  Of course this could just be a canned response you've been dishing out since the 90s. Shy

Reality exists. The demagogue won, and he has showed himself behind an agenda that has the support of about 40% of the people. The now-dominant Party appeals to the worst in human nature -- mass vulgarity and superstition, and elite rapaciousness.

However inadequate, inconvenient, or unpopular it is, virtue merits cultivation. Surely you know the expression "pearls before swine"... we have marvelous technology and creative talent, and much of it is going to sordid ends.

Conservatives need to stand for something other than economic gain and mass folly (superstition, ignorance, and free-floating anger).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#36
(09-20-2017, 04:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah: guns are the great equalizer.  Of course, in a free-for-all economy, wealth always wins.  Your guns?  It's been tried.  What good is a gun when the rich and powerful can openly hire a professional army.  The Pinkerton Agency is a perfect example, having been formed in your ideal year of 1850.

One thing that I find interesting is the history of policing in the US.  In the North at least, the origins of government policing began with groups like the Pinkerton Agency.  Things have gotten so much better now that the politicians have an army funded with money stolen from the taxpayers to enforce their edicts, the will of The People be damned.  The "legal" system is this side of worthless when it comes to any semblance of dealing with actual "crime" committed against other people.  The only thing it excels at is extorting more money from The People when the do something horrific like drive at a velocity greater than that mandated by some stupid politician.
Reply
#37
(09-21-2017, 10:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Reality exists. The demagogue won, and he has showed himself behind an agenda that has the support of about 40% of the people. The now-dominant Party appeals to the worst in human nature -- mass vulgarity and superstition, and elite rapaciousness.

However inadequate, inconvenient, or unpopular it is, virtue merits cultivation. Surely you know the expression "pearls before swine"... we have marvelous technology and creative talent, and much of it is going to sordid ends.

Conservatives need to stand for something other than economic gain and mass folly (superstition, ignorance, and free-floating anger).

There is a very poor correlation between what a lot of "conservative" people believe, want, or stand for and what the so called "conservative" wing of the uni-party stand for.

I myself don't consider myself to be particularly "conservative".  I hate both the Repugs and the Dims equally.
Reply
#38
(09-22-2017, 03:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 04:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah: guns are the great equalizer.  Of course, in a free-for-all economy, wealth always wins.  Your guns?  It's been tried.  What good is a gun when the rich and powerful can openly hire a professional army.  The Pinkerton Agency is a perfect example, having been formed in your ideal year of 1850.

One thing that I find interesting is the history of policing in the US.  In the North at least, the origins of government policing began with groups like the Pinkerton Agency.  Things have gotten so much better now that the politicians have an army funded with money stolen from the taxpayers to enforce their edicts, the will of The People be damned.  The "legal" system is this side of worthless when it comes to any semblance of dealing with actual "crime" committed against other people.  The only thing it excels at is extorting more money from The People when the do something horrific like drive at a velocity greater than that mandated by some stupid politician.

Several points:
  1. The Pinkertons were never a "police force".  They were private muscle, pure and simple.  They were employed by the railroads, mining companies and industrialists to assure "labor peace" -- not exactly policing in any sense I recognize.
  2. The army is not in the business of policing at all, will of The People or not. Posse comitatus is strictly obeyed, at least by the military itself. The National Guard may be mobilized to serve law-and-order functions, but mostly by State government. In any case, they don't arrest people.
  3. Our criminal justice system focuses too much on convictions and punishment, and not enough on justice, so we actually agree (somewhat) on this.
  4. On the other hand, some laws are there because their absence made people scared or at least uncomfortable. You mention speeding, which is a prime example. Politicians respond to angry voters, hence those traffic laws.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#39
(09-22-2017, 03:28 PM)noway2 Wrote: There is a very poor correlation between what a lot of "conservative" people believe, want, or stand for and what the so called "conservative" wing of the uni-party stand for.

I myself don't consider myself to be particularly "conservative".  I hate both the Repugs and the Dims equally.

Ok, but do you have any preferred politicians or political organizations that you support or might in the future?  If not, then you are inconsequential.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#40
(09-21-2017, 09:28 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 08:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 05:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Speaking of conservatives -- the Party once associated with political and economic conservatism   used to be for small-scale government and against debt. They thought competition adequate for economic justice. They believed in rational thought and expected it to overpower superstition and ignorance because of the advantages of objective learning. There would be room for big as well as small players in the economy. Now the last two 'conservative' Presidents stand for monopoly, debt as a generator of income and a promoter of consumerism, and heavy involvement of the government in private-public partnerships -- guaranteed profits to gougers with high costs for us all to bear.

The way you speak I'm pretty sure you're stuck in some sort of time warp where the Trump hostile take over of the GOP never happened.  Of course this could just be a canned response you've been dishing out since the 90s. Shy

Trump won an unexpected victory, is under investigation for collusion with an adversarial foreign power and has no governing philosophy I can discern.  In what way is that a dominant position in the long term?  That said, ,the Dems are splashing around and clueless, so we have no solid party at the moment.

Let's see how this plays out.  I doubt 2018 will be a tide-turning event, so it's all about 2020.

1.  The only people who didn't expect Trump's victory were those who claimed he had no chance at winning.  I had been watching him since the mid 00's, and since 2000 since he explored running with the Reform Party of Ross Perot fame.  You know, people also said Reagan wouldn't ever be president either.  And as much as I don't care much for Reagan he has to be the one President worth a damn in my lifetime whose name isn't Donald John Trump.

2.  That investigation is going to yield nothing, and the other party always investigates a president of the opposite party for something.  Maybe you have short-term memory loss or something but there were plans afoot to investigate and impeach Bush II, and Obama, and Bill Clinton (who was impeached but nothing came of it).  Sounds like business as usual to me on that front.

3.  I you think he doesn't have a governing ideology then you've not been paying attention, or worse you've been swallowing whole all the nonsense that the lugenpresse puts out.  Trump is governed by two things:  American Civic Nationalism, pragmatism.

As for 2020 I expect him winning in a landslide unless he's murdered.  I'm far more concerned about the Deep State taking him out like they did with JFK.  Fortunately it isn't 1963 anymore and they are less free to act without it coming out thanks to our current level of technology.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)