Conservatively speaking, the body count from socialism easily tops 100 million.
Posted by Bobhummel 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
Sanders: The political system is rigged to favor well-heeled special interests. There is too much power in the hands of a few. Regular citizens seldom get a say in the distribution of spoils, and insiders clean up at the expense of the rest of us.
Mark Levin: I agree. Yes. Yes. And, yes. You have correctly analyzed the way our political system operates, and I wholeheartedly endorse your diagnosis of the problem. I, too, have been fighting against powerful insiders in Washington – their snouts in the public trough, their clutching hands on your wallet – the ones that have sought to disenfranchise citizens looking for more accountability and a fair shake from government.
So let’s give the Washington Machine more money, more control over our lives. Let’s concentrate power in the hands of an elite few and trust them to act in our best interests, to choose a better distribution of winners and losers.
Wait. What?
Mark Levin: I agree. Yes. Yes. And, yes. You have correctly analyzed the way our political system operates, and I wholeheartedly endorse your diagnosis of the problem. I, too, have been fighting against powerful insiders in Washington – their snouts in the public trough, their clutching hands on your wallet – the ones that have sought to disenfranchise citizens looking for more accountability and a fair shake from government.
So let’s give the Washington Machine more money, more control over our lives. Let’s concentrate power in the hands of an elite few and trust them to act in our best interests, to choose a better distribution of winners and losers.
Wait. What?
Every time they prevail, those who helped them either shut up out of fear and shame, or whine, "But it wasn't supposed to turn out like this."
I don't post that many things on here, but I hope you can tell I don't buy into this line of thinking myself. But many others (and they DO vote) do think this way.
A question for other Gulchers is how can people who think along these lines be convinced otherwise?
The average man on the street are the elite, the value producer, the value creator...while those corrupted by money and power are simply the great unwashed.
Then I read that Union Pacific Railroad has so far gotten rid of 4100 people in a 23 state area of the west because they aren't moving coal from Colorado as well as other coal mines in the west.They have idles 1500 locomotives, now in storage. We have probably 250 here in G.J.
I do not care who of the republicans is elected that person will not turn things around because with the help of the republicans during his 2 terms as president 0 has accomplished so much destruction of the world economy by damaging the US economy that resurrecting it will be monumental. Those fools in the congress both rep and dem are as illiterate as any group on the planet. My estimate was 20 years before the complete crash and now i think that it will be sooner.
Cheers
Just look at so many young smiling faces beside held up signs like "FIGHTING FOR US" as if someone really cares.
Look at his policies. He's a fan of government-run healthcare, just not "Obamacare". He's a fan of government using eminent domain to take land for big casinos like his. He wants to raise taxes, because he knows he can afford the lawyers and accountants so he doesn't pay them. And he's gone through four major bankruptcies - not really the sign of a great businessman.
Yes, he talks big on building the wall and the Second Amendment, but beyond that, he's empty rhetoric. He's more than happy to sling the mud but when it gets thrown at him, he complains.
You're welcome to vote for the populist in Donald Trump. Just don't say you weren't warned when we get another Narcissist-in-Chief.
What I question, however, is when people want an outsider at all costs - without considering the policies espoused by the candidate. Mob rule is the downfall of democracy.
As to the "mob" issue, I don't see it that way. Yes, it is a "movement," but the mob mentality, at this point, is missing.
Want to see a mob? Wait til it's Trump vs Hildebeast and SHE wins via voter fraud. THEN, the mob will arise.
Trump will be a much better foreign affairs administrator than others we have had, and much better than the other GOP or Demo candidates. He wont get us into useless wars that gain us nothing.
The taxes he wants to raise are in a way to compensate for the freebie cash the federal reserve has printed and given to the wall street people.
He will tell it like it is and hire good people to advise and work with him.
He is not John Galt by any means, but we arent going to get a nice consistent objectivist in this culture at this time who would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. He is better than the evil Hildebeast or the evil (but honest) Sanders
Yes, bankruptcies are built into the law, but these expose Trump's claims of being a great businessman. If he was so great, he wouldn't have lost over a billion $ in those bankruptcies and gotten ousted from the boards of many of them. Further, if you look at his list of successes in business, they are actually quite few. He's much better as an entertainer than a businessman.
I actually support the completion of the wall. That law was actually passed several presidents ago and never actually finished. I agree with "The Donald" on the need to control illegal immigration. And I agree with you that the main problem is the drug cartels and violence in Mexico.
With regard to foreign affairs, I have to question your assertion that Trump would be a boon to the US. He's an unknown. I could probably say with some confidence that he couldn't be as feckless as Obama or John Kerry, but I seriously doubt he would be Reagan or even GW Bush. Listen to his policies around the Middle East for instance: the guy is just clueless. Might he actually put a good Sec State in? Sure. But it's a complete unknown.
"The taxes he wants to raise are in a way to compensate..."
The needed course is a reduction in SPENDING. Raising taxes provides only marginal revenue and in our current state, would likely send our economy into full-blown recession. It's a huge mistake that to me demonstrates his lack of fundamental understanding of economics. Of course, that's pretty par for the course with elected officials in general.
'He will tell it like it is and hire good people to advise and work with him."
He probably better start with a new campaign adviser then. He got roasted in the last two debates because he's getting pushed on real policy decisions. And hiring good people and advisers only works if you actually listen to them. Narcissists tend to want to go things their way.
Would "The Donald" be better than Hillary? Yes. Better than Sanders? I don't know. Sanders is a feckless old man with little force of character - which both Trump and Clinton have in spades. Sanders doesn't have the cache to browbeat the Republicans like Obama, so I doubt that he would be very effective as President. But the real question is would Trump be better than Cruz or Rubio. A definite no regarding the former and only a maybe regarding the latter.
Until the beginning of the Progressive era near the end of the 19th century, eminent domain was only rarely imposed by the Federal government (in contrast to the states). Since then it has become a nightmare at all levels of government, with the Supreme Court expanding the power under the Constitution in accordance with statist desires.
Spending is the problem of course. But I doubt any of the candidates are going to be able to actually reduce it in the next 4 years. Hildebeast and Sanders would radically increase spending most likely.
Foreign affairs. I think Trump's style would get us more respect internationally. Obama/Kerry/Clinton just resulted in less respect. Respect reduces the chances of accidental war, and would keep us out of useless wars like we seem to get into all the time- with no clear objectives or even a way to pay for them.
Trump has been under constant attack from all sides because he is an outsider and threatens the status quo. He gets hammered all the time and its hard to stand up there and defend yourself constantly. An example is Rubio and Cruz, who were so annoying in the last debate making claims and not even giving Trump a chance to respond.
Rubio is a bit slick for me. He just talks, but I really doubt there is anything there that he really has done. Cruz is a religious zealot, better than Hildebeast, but I doubt he would be good at foreign relations or convincing anyone of anything.
Uh, even the Washington Examiner showed that Trump had more than ten minutes more talking time than any other candidate (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/who.... He spoke for 30 minutes and his next closest competitor only 20. If he's not using that time effectively, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. And the moderators more than covered for Trump several times when Cruz came after him, so I'm not buying the sympathy argument either.
(I listened to Hannity the other day and his campaign spokesman was an effective mirror of Trump: he monopolized the airtime and filled it with mostly empty accusations about the other candidates instead of definite actions Trump would take. Even Sean got tired of it and he's a closet Trump supporter.)
What struck me in the last two debates was that Trump was mostly hot air. I'm not a fan of Rubio, but he had some really effective zingers when Trump attempted to deflect, like in the Trump University and the "statute of limitations on lies" comments. When asked what he would do to fix healthcare, he again got zinged because he repeated the same thing five times and had no new ideas to add. (Of course, that's probably because healthcare is a position on which "The Donald" is progressive.)
Trump was ill-prepared for the last two debates and it showed. He needs to be able to articulate policy instead of wasting his time calling his opponents liars. Rubio is an easy mark for his Gang-of-Eight participation and it plays well into Trump's immigration policy. He should be hammering that point. But in order to do that, he has to know his own policy statements backwards, forwards, and inside out. They should be a part of him - not just words on his website. He should be able to call up the statistics that support his position and show that his opponents' attacks are empty. His other major liability is that he has no political history to call on as evidence of his positions. What political legacy he has is limited to campaign contributions - mostly to Democrats. Both Rubio but especially Cruz can point to their histories of action and results.
I am not sure at all that the "debates" were more than opportunities for the media to sell ads. They told me nothing I didnt already know- both for the democrats and repubs.
The more people pick on Trump, the more I want him in there, because its usually hidden agendas that cause people to hate one or another. Trump takes no contributions, which none of the other candidates can claim, so he isnt beholden to special interests. THAT is one of the big advantages of Trump.
Cheers
As to the quality of the debates, I'd love to see a more Lincoln-Douglas style of debate, but that really only works with two candidates. So that means that any other style of debate is going to come with its deficiencies. Whether it is partisan moderators (one of the weightier crimes), softball questions, targeted questions, or whatever, there's always plenty to gripe about. A savvy debater will simply just shift to the topics that matter.
As to being beholden to special interests, "The Donald" isn't nearly as immune as you might think. He's currently $540 MILLION in hock to the big banks. That's a pretty hefty "special interest" in my book. And to be realistic, EVERYONE has a special interest in something. The real question is what that interest is. Would you be opposed if someone was receiving millions of dollars from a Ragnar or Midas Mulligan? You see, it's a false argument. All the donors tell you is what kinds of policies that person is going to favor. If you want to brag about Donald Trump being his own donor, all you're really saying is that Donald Trump's first interest is his own: not necessarily a bad thing, but not nearly the coup d' grace it is proposed as.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBg2c...
https://www.conservativereview.com/en...