The Official Paracast Political Thread!

[Bob Watson]

Every major republican has fled trump except rush Limbaugh. Its over..the next president will be hillary Clinton. .

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Muadib]

Brought to you by The National Review, sponsored by such wonderful groups as the climate change denying morons that make up The Heritage Foundation.

They can totally be trusted to stick to the facts and provide a non biased opinion. LMFAO!

Face it, your candidate is going down in flames, he's outed himself as an orange faced buffoon even more so than he had previously. He's finished.

Get ready for at least 4 years of Hillary, maybe by then the GOP will be able to produce a candidate who literally isn't the scum of the Earth. People say Trumps not a politician, even though he's running for political office lol, but he's actually worse than a politician, he's a piece of garbage.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I say that both sides are gonna get the surprise of their lives, should Hillary win. And I can't wait.

 

[mike]

And again if the contest were actually between trump vs clinton some of the arguments might have merit.

We have the same issues here in australia. the current state leader here is the son of a former federal minister, when that starts to happen the people start to look more like members of a ruling "class" than elected representatives.

The US is no stranger to the dynamic the kennedys and bush's are examples.

The clintons will be another example if she wins, both a husband and a wife holding the top office. That speaks more to a ruling class than it does elected reps.

And public sentiment is turning against the established political ruling class.

The media and finance sector was saying the exact same thing about a no result for the brexit vote as they are about trumps chances. So we may yet be surprised in november.

As i said Trump isnt a candidate because he's smart/handsome/clever/nice to babies and small dogs....... Its because hes promising to be different to the long established order and its way of doing things.

If enough of the electorate want that promised change, the devil himself could get elected lol

 

[mike]

I say that both sides are gonna get the surprise of their lives, should Hillary win. And I can't wait.

Thats quite right too, the problems are too big for any person even a president to fix, if that were not true they would have been fixed already.
Neither candidate can fix the problems they claim they have solutions for.

Were Trump to win, he wont ever build that wall, and he wont fix the economy. For all their lofty plans to combat the various ills facing US society the old adage remains.
No plan survives contact with the enemy, a trusim that spans all aspects of life as this article points out

No Plan Survives Contact With Reality

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And again if the contest were actually between trump vs clinton some of the arguments might have merit.

We have the same issues here in australia. the current state leader here is the son of a former federal minister, when that starts to happen the people start to look more like members of a ruling "class" than elected representatives.

The US is no stranger to the dynamic the kennedys and bush's are examples.

The clintons will be another example if she wins, both a husband and a wife holding the top office. That speaks more to a ruling class than it does elected reps.

And public sentiment is turning against the established political ruling class.

The media and finance sector was saying the exact same thing about a no result for the brexit vote as they are about trumps chances. So we may yet be surprised in november.

As i said Trump isnt a candidate because he's smart/handsome/clever/nice to babies and small dogs....... Its because hes promising to be different to the long established order and its way of doing things.

If enough of the electorate want that promised change, the devil himself could get elected lol

But the Clintons aren't a dynasty in the way that the Bushes, with old money, or the Kennedys, were dynasties. Bush riches originally came from banking.

The Clintons grew up in modest circumstances and only began to earn reasonable amounts of money after Bill left the White House. While current incomes put them in the lower millionaire class — you cannot count the Clinton Foundation since they do not financially benefit from it — they aren't in the category of even a Mitt Romney.

Now if the election of Hillary Clinton eventually led Chelsea Clinton to a political career — which is certainly possible — the dynasty label would certainly apply, particularly if she were successful.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I say that both sides are gonna get the surprise of their lives, should Hillary win. And I can't wait.

Indeed think 1984 is bad more roller coaster rides and keep the masses attacking each other.

 

[mike]

But the Clintons aren't a dynasty in the way that the Bushes, with old money, or the Kennedys, were dynasties. Bush riches originally came from banking.

The Clintons grew up in modest circumstances and only began to earn reasonable amounts of money after Bill left the White House. While current incomes put them in the lower millionaire class — you cannot count the Clinton Foundation since they do not financially benefit from it — they aren't in the category of even a Mitt Romney.

Now if the election of Hillary Clinton eventually led Chelsea Clinton to a political career — which is certainly possible — the dynasty label would certainly apply, particularly if she were successful.

Certainly the expression hereditory dynasty wouldnt apply unless Chelsea also became president, But dynasty is also defined as a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field. In that regards Bill and Hillary are from the same family in its broadest terms.

But we still have the odd imo dynamic where a man can be president and then later his wife. On the one hand it could be read as equal opportunity, but i dunno......... it also looks like the power being held within a family or elite/ruling class. It looks more like a monarchy or oligarchy than democracy. Now there is nothing wrong with that its a system used the world over.
But we are seeing these systems being challenged as well in the various "springs"
Arab Spring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For many voting for trump represents a form of revolution or so it seems

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I would not be surprised to see Michelle O running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in a future election. If she wins…

 

[mike]

I would not be surprised to see Michelle O running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in a future election. If she wins…

And if that becomes the trend into the future, it may well be that at some stage in that future the US presidential system may best be described as an oligarchy

United States
Further information: Income inequality in the United States § Impact on democracy and society
Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature.[8][9] Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world.[10] Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay.

 

[Muadib]

It's a false revolution though, Trump is a politician by the very definition of the word now that he's running for political office. He may not be a career politician, but he's a businessman, so he is by virtue of what he does, a politician on some level as all businessmen have to be when they reach the level of Trump like status. He's been playing politics his whole life, just look at the money he doled out from his personal foundation to AG's that were reviewing his many, many lawsuits. Sounds like politics as usual to me.

For me, the bottom line is that he's a deplorable human being, a proven racist and misogynist, and that's not someone I want representing America. Hillary isn't perfect but she's at least 10 times as decent and honest as that schmuck and his running mate is just as bad, if not worse. A right wing fundamentalist religious wackjob of the first degree. Give me a second and I'll post a little info about Pence that should, if you're not a psychotic fundie yourself, blow your hair back. I wouldn't want either of them in charge of my city dump, much less the White House.

Edit: Here's the article I refer to on Pence, in it they describe him as Sarah Palin without the charisma, hilarious, but also true. I can't even imagine having this whackadoo running the country if something happened to the ole orange blowhard.

Mike Pence Promotes Christian Theocracy

 

[mike]

It's a false revolution though, Trump is a politician by the very definition of the word now that he's running for office. He may not be a career politician, but he's a businessman, so he is by virtue of what he does, a politician on some level as all businessmen have to be when they reach the level of Trump like status. He's been playing politics his whole life, just look at the money he doled out from his personal foundation to AG's that were reviewing his many, many lawsuits. Sounds like politics as usual to me.

For me, the bottom line is that he's a deplorable human being, a proven racist and misogynist, and that's not someone I want representing America. Hillary isn't perfect but she's at least 10 times as decent and honest as that schmuck and his running mate is just as bad, if not worse. A right wing fundamentalist religious wackjob of the first degree. Give me a second and I'll post a little info about Pence that should, if you're not a psychotic fundie yourself, blow your hair back. I wouldn't want either of them in charge of my city dump, much less the White House.

But again ppl will be voting for the ideals of the revolution, in this case a break away from the way things are being done, Ppl are noting voting for trump. They are voting for a paradigm shift. He just happens to be the figurehead promising it.

Hitler was a deplorable person and a racist too, His first six years in power resulted in rapid economic recovery from the Great Depression, the effective abandonment of restrictions imposed on Germany after World War I, and the annexation of territories that were home to millions of ethnic Germans—actions which gave him significant popular support.

Ppl wont vote for who he is, they will vote for what hes promising to do

I think its a mistake to call this one based on which figurehead is the kinder gentler human being, i dont think thats whats being decided this time round

 

[mike]

Edit: Here's the article I refer to on Pence, in it they describe him as Sarah Palin without the charisma, hilarious, but also true. I can't even imagine having this whackadoo running the country if something happened to the ole orange blowhard.

Mike Pence Promotes Christian Theocracy

That is some scary shit thats for sure. Reading that and contemplating your scenario of him taking over in the event of ....

I would not vote for trump if i lived in the US.

But for trump having him on board makes sense, it locks in the bible belt which he needs

 

[Muadib]

But again ppl will be voting for the ideals of the revolution, in this case a break away from the way things are being done, Ppl are noting voting for trump. They are voting for a paradigm shift. He just happens to be the figurehead promising it.

Hitler was a deplorable person and a racist too, His first six years in power resulted in rapid economic recovery from the Great Depression, the effective abandonment of restrictions imposed on Germany after World War I, and the annexation of territories that were home to millions of ethnic Germans—actions which gave him significant popular support.

Ppl wont vote for who he is, they will vote for what hes promising to do

I think its a mistake to call this one based on which figurehead is the kinder gentler human being, i dont think thats whats being decided this time round

I get where you're coming from, but I should point out that Hitler got Germany out of the Great Depression by starting a wartime economy and as you said disregarding the sanctions placed on Germany after WW1. I don't think the comparison is fully valid in this particular case.

We aren't currently in any kind of Great Depression and the paradigm shift that Trump is promising isn't going to happen. The man has yet to explain how he's going to accomplish any of the things he's promised. It's all ear candy and feel good rhetoric for those who feel they've been disenfranchised. A very dangerous situation, yes, and your comparison to Hitler is a good one considering some of the things that Trump wants to do, like creating a list of every Muslim in this country, basically outlawing their ability to freely practice their religion by shutting down mosques and having door to door sweeps looking for illegal immigrants. "Papers, please".

The result will be no different than when Hitler came to power and you had ordinary citizens reporting on people in order to relieve them of their goods and properties.

The real question here is, will the American people go along with it, like the Germans did with Hitler, or are we better than that? Have we learned from history or are we doomed to repeat it?

I for one am going to play the optimist and as of now at least, the polls (which I know are not the end all, be all) agree with me. Hell, so does over half of the GOP with them abandoning Trump in droves and calling for him to step down, which obviously isn't going to happen, but still. The American people are better than that, they're better than Trump and his circus of lies and there's no way he's ending up in the White House.

 

[mike]

In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class"[17][18] (list of top donors)[19] and defined the class, for the first time,[20] as "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population – and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access."[17]


French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."[21]


A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University was released in April 2014,[22] which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." The study analyzed nearly 1,800 policies enacted by the US government between 1981 and 2002 and compared them to the expressed preferences of the American public as opposed to wealthy Americans and large special interest groups.[23] It found that wealthy individuals and organizations representing business interests have substantial political influence, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little to none. The study did concede that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.[24]


Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if wealthy Americans and business-oriented interest groups also want it; and that when a policy favored by the majority of the American public is implemented, it is usually because the economic elites did not oppose it.[25] Other studies have questioned the Page and Gilens study.[26][27][28]


In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.[29]


Out of interest do you all agree that the US is pretty much an Oligarchy in some form or another, and how do you feel about that ?

 

[Muadib]

That is some scary shit thats for sure. Reading that and contemplating your scenario of him taking over in the event of ....

I would not vote for trump if i lived in the US.

But for trump having him on board makes sense, it locks in the bible belt which he needs

Very true, that's one group he has on lock, the evangelicals, which is ironic considering what a scuzz he really is.

 

[mike]

We aren't currently in any kind of Great Depression

No but he doesnt need one, the deficit and its a shocker and his promise to fix it will do just as nicely.

Thats one trillion, you owe 18 of these

The great depression is just a label, for the people the label doesnt matter its the effects. no money no jobs etc. Hes saying he will fix that for them

 

[Muadib]

[/I]
Out of interest do you all agree that the US is pretty much an Oligarchy in some form or another, and how do you feel about that ?[/QUOTE]

I completely agree, one need look no further than our justice system to see that money will buy you pretty much anything in this country, including a way out of prison for commiting horrible crimes, even murder.

Just look at the "affluenza" case where a young man killed people while drunk driving yet got off with probation because "his parents never taught him right from wrong". Horseshit, his parents economic status was what got him off. If that was me I'd be in prison until I was too old to walk without a walker.

Or how about Caitlin Jenner, kills some people by rear ending them at over 60mph while texting while driving and is completely free. I don't know all the particulars but it just goes to show if you have enough money, connections and status, you can pretty much get away with anything.

Those are just two small examples, there are many more. Meanwhile we have the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world. Who do you think makes up that body of incarcerated peoples, it sure as hell ain't the rich/elite/whatever you want to call them.

America has been an oligarchy for quite some time and it both sickens and saddens me. Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of that and this current election certainly isn't going to provide it. Though I do have to admit I think things would get even worse with Trump in the White House.

It's like South Park says, do you vote for the turd sandwich or the giant douche? Not sure which one Hillary is but I think you get my point when I say IMO she's the lesser of the two repugnant choices.

 

[Muadib]

No but he doesnt need one, the deficit and its a shocker and his promise to fix it will do just as nicely.

Thats one trillion, you owe 18 of these

The great depression is just a label, for the people the label doesnt matter its the effects. no money no jobs etc. Hes saying he will fix that for them

Right, that's what he says, but what's the plan to actually accomplish it? I get that you say to most people it's enough that he's promised, they aren't concerned with how it will actually get done, and you make a good point. A lot of people won't look behind the curtain and see that the all powerful Oz is just a man pulling levers and hitting buttons, and that he actually has no power at all.

I'm just hoping there's enough of us who see through his bullshit and that combined with his current self destructive behavior will be enough to keep him and Pence out of the White House.

I'm actually starting to be more against Pence than I am Trump, it's like Palin/McCain all over again.

 

[Wade]

In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class"[17][18] (list of top donors)[19] and defined the class, for the first time,[20] as "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population – and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access."[17]


French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."[21]


A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University was released in April 2014,[22] which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." The study analyzed nearly 1,800 policies enacted by the US government between 1981 and 2002 and compared them to the expressed preferences of the American public as opposed to wealthy Americans and large special interest groups.[23] It found that wealthy individuals and organizations representing business interests have substantial political influence, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little to none. The study did concede that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.[24]


Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if wealthy Americans and business-oriented interest groups also want it; and that when a policy favored by the majority of the American public is implemented, it is usually because the economic elites did not oppose it.[25] Other studies have questioned the Page and Gilens study.[26][27][28]


In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.[29]


Out of interest do you all agree that the US is pretty much an Oligarchy in some form or another, and how do you feel about that ?

I was thinking more along the lines of a plutocracy