Originally Posted by playwrite

Yep, that would delay it.

But inevitably, the political gridlock of a House GOP majority holding up the vast and growing majority of people from dealing with real problems will eventually lead to the political power demise I envision for them. I see waves of challenges to the gerrymandering resulting from the 2020 scenario you lay out and a judicial system, starting with a DEM-nominated SCOTUS, increasingly proactive in making those districts more representative to the changing demographics that will keep the pressure on regardless of the GOP's last ditch rear guard efforts - something akin to what's going on right now in your Commonwealth.

If I don't see that eventuality before my own demise, I will at least see that it's on the inevitable path. Fingers crossed.

I'm on the same page with you playwrite.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those are two different factions. Calling someone (Pamela Geller? Who the bleep is she?) a blowhard does not establish an electoral strategy. Trump's main targets are immigration and free trade; plus the usual Republican nonsense about overspending and opposition to taxes. As libertarians, the Pauls are less concerned with immigration and free trade, because Trump's policies require more government. Buchanan OTOH is very concerned with both of those things. Trump is thus aligned with Buchanan, not so much with Paul. But almost all the Republicans including Buchanan and Paul want to reduce taxes and government spending (trickle-down economics).

One thing Buchanan and Paul DO have in common is a less-interventionist foreign policy. But Trump is different from both of them on that; Trump wants more intervention. He is quite militaristic, and he could get lots more American boys killed in fights with Muslims.

I can't believe that you of all people don't see right through the Pauls. They are not "libertarians" - they are phonies: During the '80s, Ron Paul never met a budget-busting defense appropriation he didn't fulsomely support; from Day One of the Cold War he was a straight-down-the-line rollbacker. Now, of course, when our number-one ally just happens to be a Jewish state, he and his sickening son are suddenly for "peace."

And the last time Paul Senior ran for President, he refused to use the bathroom at a gay supporter's (as Burt Ward said, "Holy naivete!") apartment in San Francisco because he was afraid that he would get AIDS from sitting on the toilet seat.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those are two different factions. Calling someone (Pamela Geller? Who the bleep is she?) a blowhard does not establish an electoral strategy.

Pam Geller is a piece of work.

From Wikipedia:

Pamela Geller (born June 14, 1958) is an American political activist and commentator. She is known for her anti-Islamic writings, opposition to the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center, and sponsorship of the "Draw the Prophet" cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. She says her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country. She is described as a critic of radical Islam and self-described as opposing political Islam, and criticized as Islamophobic.

She is currently the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative which she co-founded with Robert Spencer. The American Freedom Defense Initiative has been designated an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The British government barred Geller's entry into the UK in 2013 saying her presence would "not be conducive to the public good." She and Spencer co-authored the book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America in 2010.

The Huffington Post has called her "far right", as have other media sources while others, such as the BBC, contrast her right-wing support for small government with her socially liberal positions.

....

Critics say that many other claims that Geller has posted in her blog are outrageous. For example, she has published articles that said black South Africans are engaging in a "genocide" against whites; that argued the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites, should be removed; and that defended Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžic, perpetrators of the Bosnian War and genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Croats, denying the existence of Serbian concentration camps and arguing that many Muslim war victims were murdered by their own people in order to bring condemnation on the Serbs. She denies supporting Milošević but has expressed skepticism of some accounts of the camps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller

Pam Geller’s N.Y. Times profile reveals her enormous wealth including a $4-million divorce settlement, a $5-million life insurance on the death of her ex-husband, Michael Oshry (her married name was Pamela G. Oshry), and a portion of the $2-million sale of the Hewlett Harbor home she jointly owned with Oshry. All of which allows her to live in luxury on an entire floor of upper Eastside condo.

What isn’t as well-known, and was whitewashed from her Times profile, is that the basis of her wealth is a criminal enterprise. Michael Oshry, her ex-husband who died of an alleged heart attack in 2008, owned a large Long Island car dealership which operated a scam allowing buyers to purchase cars using fraudulent identities. Such a scam is perfect for organized crime and others seeking to use cars in the commission of felonies. In fact, one such vehicle was used by a former car salesman to murder two New York City police officers. An employee who discovered the scam was murdered execution-style.

Geller was listed as a co-owner of the dealership though she denied any knowledge of the fraud. However, the head of the local D.A.’s economic crimes unit is quoted as saying that the owners of the dealership knew about, and possibly actively organized the fraud, which implies that either Geller had to know about it or willfully kept herself in the dark.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/20...d-cop-killing/

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I can't believe that you of all people don't see right through the Pauls. They are not "libertarians" - they are phonies: During the '80s, Ron Paul never met a budget-busting defense appropriation he didn't fulsomely support; from Day One of the Cold War he was a straight-down-the-line rollbacker. Now, of course, when our number-one ally just happens to be a Jewish state, he and his sickening son are suddenly for "peace."

They are libertarians at least on many policies, but I don't imagine that he has been fully consistent. I don't know about his support for the Cold War in the 80s; that was before I ever heard of him or heard him speak. But it may be true.

Whose number one ally is a Jewish state? What has Israel ever done for us except get us in trouble? Some "ally." Pam Geller does indeed seem like a "blowhard" from the descriptions in brower's post; an Islamiphobe for sure.

I'm not entirely sure about the Iran deal, but I do think negotiation is better than war, and better than trying to oppose Iran all on our own without any allies except Israel, who would never be satisfied with any possible negotiation.

And the last time Paul Senior ran for President, he refused to use the bathroom at a gay supporter's (as Burt Ward said, "Holy naivete!") apartment in San Francisco because he was afraid that he would get AIDS from sitting on the toilet seat.

I think he is probably more socially-conservative than many actual libertarians (He is not a Libertarian, but a Republican after all). And Rand Paul is trying to fit in with the party on some issues where he has taken libertarian positions in the past; probably including some support for the military. Consistently libertarian? I doubt it. But, not the same as Buchanan or Trump.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Pam Geller is a piece of work.

From Wikipedia:

Pamela Geller (born June 14, 1958) is an American political activist and commentator. She is known for her anti-Islamic writings, opposition to the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center, and sponsorship of the "Draw the Prophet" cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. She says her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country. She is described as a critic of radical Islam and self-described as opposing political Islam, and criticized as Islamophobic.

She is currently the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative which she co-founded with Robert Spencer. The American Freedom Defense Initiative has been designated an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The British government barred Geller's entry into the UK in 2013 saying her presence would "not be conducive to the public good." She and Spencer co-authored the book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America in 2010.

The Huffington Post has called her "far right", as have other media sources while others, such as the BBC, contrast her right-wing support for small government with her socially liberal positions.

....

Critics say that many other claims that Geller has posted in her blog are outrageous. For example, she has published articles that said black South Africans are engaging in a "genocide" against whites; that argued the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites, should be removed; and that defended Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžic, perpetrators of the Bosnian War and genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Croats, denying the existence of Serbian concentration camps and arguing that many Muslim war victims were murdered by their own people in order to bring condemnation on the Serbs. She denies supporting Milošević but has expressed skepticism of some accounts of the camps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller




http://www.richardsilverstein.com/20...d-cop-killing/

But if Geller is so "far right," then how could she be so pro-gay? See those totally awesome bus ads she ran in San Francisco, which I devoted a thread on the "Culture And Values" forum to.

And I defended Milosevic and Karadzic too - and I'm still dang proud that I did.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if Geller is so "far right," then how could she be so pro-gay? See those totally awesome bus ads she ran in San Francisco, which I devoted a thread on the "Culture And Values" forum to.

Maybe she sees homosexuals as natural allies against Islam. Go figure.

And I defended Milosevic and Karadzic too - and I'm still dang proud that I did.

I hope that you were well rewarded.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You and I may want to ban big money guns as soon as possible, but in the meantime, let's not bring a knife to the gunfight.

The idea being tested here though, is whether big money can be overcome in the meantime, before (if it even happens--the SCOTUS often tends to respect its own precedents--if I understand the doctrine of stare decisis correctly) Citizens United is revisited and overturned.

I say, if it can, in the age of increasingly influential internet-based media, "netroots", and a guy running very strongly on the idea that he's refusing corporate money (an idea that can have its own big appeal to voters)--then that would be a huge victory itself, making corporations pour billions of dollars into defeat. If such a victory of a small-donor candidate happened over a big-donor candidate, that itself could change elections going forward, as big donors could no longer be confident in their ability to cynically buy both sides of an election.

Again, Sanders is a prototype for this kind of candidate. His campaign in the primary is a test of that prototype. His momentum is slowly but steadily growing as more and more people get to know who he is. If he can somehow win the primaries (the odds still seem long, but less long than they were just a few months ago), then I would say he has a good shot at the general as well. Possibly better than Clinton, in terms of waking some of the dissatisfied who currently don't vote because they're sick of what they see as "the usual", that within the boundaries that big money dictates (criticize this thinking as much as you want, call it "false equivalency" or whatever, but it still exists, and you're not persuading them -- perhaps someone like Sanders can).

Obviously some good sums of money are still needed to run the logistics of a modern campaign. An average of, say, $50 from 5 million small donors is still a quarter billion dollars. Presidential campaigns were running fine on that kind of money just a decade ago, still getting the message out. Ultimately that is all you have to do--that and mobilize voters. I suspect there are increasingly diminishing returns with more and more tens and hundreds of millions spent, past the basics of being able to get the message out, buy a decent amount of ads, tour the country, pay for a campaign infrastructure (staffed mostly by enthusiastic volunteers). After that, you can saturate the airwaves all you want, but there might even come a point where that has a negative effect (people get sick of it). And if a key to your campaign itself is refusal of corporate money, and that word is out as part of your messaging, that itself can serve as a negative against the other candidate (without even having to be a direct attack, although it can be used as such also). The corporate money they pump into the campaign will be noted, maybe to the point where those diminshing returns become negative returns. Imagine not even needing to overturn Citizens United (however long that would take), to effectively subvert it and neutralize its threat! Worth a try, isn't it?

I recall Paul Wellstone running a similar kind of campaign--making his lack of big-money donors a strength. He also travelled the state of Minnesota in an old beat-up bus and drew huge crowds. Republican Rudy Boschwitz outspent him seven to one ​in that first 1990 election. As we know, Wellstone won anyway, and went on to be a very well-regarded Senator who could very well have won a third term were it not for the plane crash, and a worn-out Walter Mondale running in his place*. And while he was more to the left than just about any other Senator at the time, he was unafraid to stick to his principles, and had the grudging respect of even some right-wingers here for it. (Sanders would likewise get the same respect, I think--which would make governing a bit easier, hard as it still will be.) And while there were no Citizens United-level monies involved in politics yet (and it was only a statewide race), there was also no (widely-used) internet, no social media, etc., where the word can get out in very creatively effective ways without a lot of cash (just dedicated and creative volunteers). That latter can potentially bridge the money/big media gap if used smartly.

(*) Note about that: I was more a right-leaning libertarian at that time (2002), didn't really turn against Bush until it became obvious that his "preemptive war" (a concept I was even then quite skeptical of) in Iraq was promoted to the people under false premises. And my general policy views evolved later than that still (probably near complete by Katrina, as far as rejection of the Right--I did vote for Kerry in the interim). But even near the peak of my rightish phase, I was seriously thinking of voting for Wellstone (just moved back to Minnesota two years earlier), because I absolutely respected his tenacity to his beliefs--and felt it was important that his general views, though I mostly didn't share them, were nonetheless represented in our Senate amidst the war fever we were in (and of which I was only a grudging participant). That's INTP thinking for you . Anyway, when he was tragically killed, I had no interest in voting for Mondale, and voted for Coleman. The election was tight, and I wonder if there were just enough others who generally felt the same way to make a difference. It would have been tight either way though, such was the war fever of 2002.

If Sanders knocks off Hillary, that will be a heart-stopper. I will support him as much as I can, but I wonder if the votes by "the disillusioned with politics as usual" will make up for the votes who don't want a "socialist." I don't have a lot of faith in a country that gave Dubya enough votes to steal the election-- twice. Although 12 and 16 years later, the electorate might be a bit better.

Obama did a good enough job that people should have seen through the nonsense that he failed to deliver on his promises. No president has ever faced such a determined and fanatical opposition party; coupled with faint-hearted DINOs. His problem is mostly his own voters who deserted him in 2010 and 2014. Because they did so, Sanders will not be able to achieve very much, and this will cause still more disappointment among these same fickle voters.

What amuses me the most is those who characterize Donald Trump as an "outsider" running against "the elite." Trump is the very essence of the elite. The elite is not the people whom Americans, wisely or not, or deceived and cheated by big money or not, have put into political office with their votes. The elite is the folks with the money, especially the mere money and property changers and gamblers like Trump. And his backers say he doesn't need special interest money to win because he's rich. So what? He's just representing the interests of his class, and his own interest and oversized ego too.

Heart-stopper? Hillary is liable to be in the federal women's prison in Alderson, WV on Election Day - if she's not awaiting execution for espionage or even treason on death row in Terre Haute, IN, where inmates awaiting execution, regardless of gender, are housed (maybe Hillary and Joker Tsarnaev can be cellmates).

And count me among the patriotic "DINOs" who will bolt the party (even though I am actually a registered Independent myself) and rally behind Jim Webb or someone similar. I hope they call it the New National Union Party - which would be a double entendre since most of the (labor) unions would be on board with us.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I recall Paul Wellstone running a similar kind of campaign--making his lack of big-money donors a strength. He also travelled the state of Minnesota in an old beat-up bus and drew huge crowds. Republican Rudy Boschwitz outspent him seven to one ​in that first 1990 election. As we know, Wellstone won anyway, and went on to be a very well-regarded Senator who could very well have won a third term were it not for the plane crash, and a worn-out Walter Mondale running in his place*. And while he was more to the left than just about any other Senator at the time, he was unafraid to stick to his principles, and had the grudging respect of even some right-wingers here for it. (Sanders would likewise get the same respect, I think--which would make governing a bit easier, hard as it still will be.) And while there were no Citizens United-level monies involved in politics yet (and it was only a statewide race), there was also no (widely-used) internet, no social media, etc., where the word can get out in very creatively effective ways without a lot of cash (just dedicated and creative volunteers). That latter can potentially bridge the money/big media gap if used smartly.

(*) Note about that: I was more a right-leaning libertarian at that time (2002), didn't really turn against Bush until it became obvious that his "preemptive war" (a concept I was even then quite skeptical of) in Iraq was promoted to the people under false premises. And my general policy views evolved later than that still (probably near complete by Katrina, as far as rejection of the Right--I did vote for Kerry in the interim). But even near the peak of my rightish phase, I was seriously thinking of voting for Wellstone (just moved back to Minnesota two years earlier), because I absolutely respected his tenacity to his beliefs--and felt it was important that his general views, though I mostly didn't share them, were nonetheless represented in our Senate amidst the war fever we were in (and of which I was only a grudging participant). That's INTP thinking for you . Anyway, when he was tragically killed, I had no interest in voting for Mondale, and voted for Coleman. The election was tight, and I wonder if there were just enough others who generally felt the same way to make a difference. It would have been tight either way though, such was the war fever of 2002.

GOD DAMN IT, now you got this Minnesotan all nostalgic about Wellstone.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Heart-stopper? Hillary is liable to be in the federal women's prison in Alderson, WV on Election Day - if she's not awaiting execution for espionage or even treason on death row in Terre Haute, IN, where inmates awaiting execution, regardless of gender, are housed (maybe Hillary and Joker Tsarnaev can be cellmates).

Surely you jest. Her "scandals" are much ado about nuthin.

And count me among the patriotic "DINOs" who will bolt the party (even though I am actually a registered Independent myself) and rally behind Jim Webb or someone similar. I hope they call it the New National Union Party - which would be a double entendre since most of the (labor) unions would be on board with us.

OK I'll count you in. But you won't have Webb to rally behind. Labor won't be with you either. But sure, some Democratic voters could bolt if Sanders is the nominee.

Remember though, Sanders is not enough of a peacenik for some socialists. He supports Obama's policy against the IS, which is good enough. No Democrat can be nominated or win if they propose sending troops on the ground back to Iraq. Sanders is a common sense guy who might not stray off the ranch of American interests. He's no anti-American. Remember, his cosmic score will keep him from going off the deep end.

I still want to discuss the Zodiac killings with you, Eric.

CNN reports: Police: Invoking Trump, 2 men beat up homeless man because he is an 'illegal immigrant'

I'm not big into labeling politicians as 'fascist', 'socialist' or similar phrases. On the other hand I do keep an eye on spirals of violence.

It seems that in Boston a couple of guys going home from a Red Sox game saw a homeless man, decided he was hispanic and illegal, urinated on him, then beat him up.

This is a long way from hundreds of uniformed political thugs marching openly then committing similar acts of violence. Still, it deserves a mention.

Trump didn't endorse the violence, but... "I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate," Trump said. "They love this country, they want this country to be great again."

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN reports: Police: Invoking Trump, 2 men beat up homeless man because he is an 'illegal immigrant'

I'm not big into labeling politicians as 'fascist', 'socialist' or similar phrases. On the other hand I do keep an eye on spirals of violence.

It seems that in Boston a couple of guys going home from a Red Sox game saw a homeless man, decided he was hispanic and illegal, urinated on him, then beat him up.

This is a long way from hundreds of uniformed political thugs marching openly then committing similar acts of violence. Still, it deserves a mention.

Trump didn't endorse the violence, but... "I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate," Trump said. "They love this country, they want this country to be great again."

Grossly inadequate, of course. Donald Trump is appealing to ethnic bigotry as callow opportunism. He has sown the whirlwind of divisive demagoguery.

People who truly love this country love its people, too -- including Americans who look little like themselves, pray differently or to different entities, speak differently, etc. We are all in it together lest we cut our own throats and debase this country.

Originally Posted by Odin

GOD DAMN IT, now you got this Minnesotan all nostalgic about Wellstone.

Was he before or after Jesse Ventura? And the latter was also an outsider with no previous government experience.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Was he before or after Jesse Ventura? And the latter was also an outsider with no previous government experience.

Ventura was Governor from 1998-2002, Wellstone was Senator from 1990-2002.

Ventura was the mayor of Brooklyn Park previously--a not so small suburb of over 50,000 people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If Sanders knocks off Hillary, that will be a heart-stopper. I will support him as much as I can, but I wonder if the votes by "the disillusioned with politics as usual" will make up for the votes who don't want a "socialist." I don't have a lot of faith in a country that gave Dubya enough votes to steal the election-- twice. Although 12 and 16 years later, the electorate might be a bit better.

Obama did a good enough job that people should have seen through the nonsense that he failed to deliver on his promises. No president has ever faced such a determined and fanatical opposition party; coupled with faint-hearted DINOs. His problem is mostly his own voters who deserted him in 2010 and 2014. Because they did so, Sanders will not be able to achieve very much, and this will cause still more disappointment among these same fickle voters.

What amuses me the most is those who characterize Donald Trump as an "outsider" running against "the elite." Trump is the very essence of the elite. The elite is not the people whom Americans, wisely or not, or deceived and cheated by big money or not, have put into political office with their votes. The elite is the folks with the money, especially the mere money and property changers and gamblers like Trump. And his backers say he doesn't need special interest money to win because he's rich. So what? He's just representing the interests of his class, and his own interest and oversized ego too.

He's not a career politician. He's not considered to be a member of the political class. Above all, he does not bow down to the liberal elite. Trump is an outsider. An outsider who could shake things up politically. He's rich and he does not hide that fact.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Heart-stopper? Hillary is liable to be in the federal women's prison in Alderson, WV on Election Day - if she's not awaiting execution for espionage or even treason on death row in Terre Haute, IN, where inmates awaiting execution, regardless of gender, are housed (maybe Hillary and Joker Tsarnaev can be cellmates).

And count me among the patriotic "DINOs" who will bolt the party (even though I am actually a registered Independent myself) and rally behind Jim Webb or someone similar. I hope they call it the New National Union Party - which would be a double entendre since most of the (labor) unions would be on board with us.

Unfortunately, Jim Webb or someone similar doesn't have a chance of winning in today's Democratic party.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

People who truly love this country love its people, too -- including Americans who look little like themselves, pray differently or to different entities, speak differently, etc. We are all in it together lest we cut our own throats and debase this country.

This ought to be so, and let's do what we can to make it so.

Still, one can't deny that prejudice against the latest wave of immigrants is as tried and true an American tradition as any. So it was for all our yesterdays. So it is today. Should global warming create the anticipated massive wave of immigration pressure, I have little expectation for anything different tomorrow.

Originally Posted by B Butler

This ought to be so, and let's do what we can to make it so.

Still, one can't deny that prejudice against the latest wave of immigrants is as tried and true an American tradition as any. So it was for all our yesterdays. So it is today. Should global warming create the anticipated massive wave of immigration pressure, I have little expectation for anything different tomorrow.

Americans can only be screwed by its government for so long. Sooner or later, taxing will begin and splitting will following. I don't care if you end up stuck with 10,000,000 illegals, millions more living on the dole and largely undefended borders.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

He's not a career politician. He's not considered to be a member of the political class. Above all, he does not bow down to the liberal elite. Trump is an outsider. An outsider who could shake things up politically. He's rich and he does not hide that fact.

He's not an outsider; he's a prime member of the elite, as both a billionaire and a celebrity performer. He is playing folks like you. He knows what to say and do to attract customers; he's done it for 50 years. You have no idea what he would actually do and say if he ever got elected. In 2012 he said Romney's "self-deportation" policy was "maniacal." Now he has gone much further beyond Romney. He used to advocate single-payer health care, and was a Democrat. He makes Romney's flip-flops look like Gold medal-winning Olympic diving performances. He might shake things up indeed, arousing the hateful militants and racists as well as ordinary misguided and ignorant folks. His failure will only frustrate them more. He is a typical 4th turning demagogue of the kind that the T4T authors predicted. He stokes the angry white right-wing super-patriots, tea-party cynics, culture warriors, gun nuts and racists who might secede or lash out. He could be a factor in an approaching civil conflict in America of one kind or another.

There is no liberal elite. Liberals oppose the elite by definition. The elite is not the political class-- the folks whom we, deceived and bought or not, have decided to put into political office to serve us. The elite is the moneyed elite who own this country and the world, and money is a government program. But the government only serves the elite if we the people allow it to do so. The elite is the 1% who have as much money as the remaining 99% of the world today. Donald Trump is a prime member. We need Bernie Sanders to help us oppose and dethrone the real elite. He is attracting a much larger proportion of the voters than Trump so far, but gets less than half of the media attention. That's not an accident. Trump is one of the media's own stars. So was Reagan.

I give Trump credit though. He is talented and charismatic, and he has the right touch to appeal to Americans. His cosmic score is high for getting elected (which does not necessarily mean a high score for governing well; all the Bush's have high cosmic scores, and Dubya has the highest of the 3). He probably could be an effective leader if he had a better background and a deeper character and life story. As he is, he is more likely to remain a demagogue, when he's not simply an entertainer. His policies are nonsense and have no pragmatic prospect of ever being adopted. The 14th amendment can't be overturned by a president. He does not use his abilities yet to put together real consistent program proposals, or to conduct himself as a leader and not just a salesman. He is talented at getting attention and making money. This does not yet translate into an ability to lead a people. So I don't think he will win. Cosmic scores and entertaining charisma aren't everything. But I wouldn't count him out entirely.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Americans can only be screwed by its government for so long. Sooner or later, taxing will begin and splitting will following. I don't care if you end up stuck with 10,000,000 illegals, millions more living on the dole and largely undefended borders.

The Government is ideally We the People -- but in practice it becomes those who buy the politicians.

Illegal aliens are not drains upon the government. Their fault is that they work off the books and thus do not contribute to Social Security. For real drains look at business subsidies and wars for profit.

It may be ironic, but welfare spending at the least goes quickly into the economy. Welfare recipients are in no position in which to hoard benefits. To put it in economic terms, the marginal propensity to spend welfare benefits is practically 1.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

He's not a career politician.

The skill set for a business executive is extremely different from that of a politician. Donald Trump can fire any employee at one of his business properties for any reason of his choosing. As President he cannot fire a Senator who disagrees with him and frustrates his agenda. He can't tell the Ambassador from India "My way or the highway" and make it stick.

As a plutocrat Donald Trump can make sure that any subordinate is out of work the next day.

He's not considered to be a member of the political class.

Which means that he could be entirely clueless. You don't hire a physicist to do accounting and you don't hire an accountant to do physics.

Above all, he does not bow down to the liberal elite.

Which means that he has no respect for liberals.

Trump is an outsider. An outsider who could shake things up politically.

He could shake things up, all right -- most likely the wrong things at times. He might get something right. After a short time we could regret him as President.

He's rich and he does not hide that fact.

He is also ruthless and narcissistic in the extreme.

Now what does operating a hotel chain have to do with being President of the United States?

If I were to pick a good model from the private sector to be a political executive, why would I not prefer a captain of a cruise ship?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Government is ideally We the People -- but in practice it becomes those who buy the politicians.

Illegal aliens are not drains upon the government. Their fault is that they work off the books and thus do not contribute to Social Security. For real drains look at business subsidies and wars for profit.

It may be ironic, but welfare spending at the least goes quickly into the economy. Welfare recipients are in no position in which to hoard benefits. To put it in economic terms, the marginal propensity to spend welfare benefits is practically 1.

Here's the deal, as long as your social issue (illegal aliens) does not become our financial issue, there will be no issue. The right has no issue with shoving them down your financial throats.