Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
This guy writes well in Trump's favor:
-
-
“In my travels around the country I've found many who support Trump precisely because of the qualities he's being criticized for having.


A Latina-American from Laredo, Texas, tells me she and most of her friends are for Trump because he wants to keep Mexicans out. She thinks too many Mexicans have come here illegally, making it harder for those here legally.


A union member from Pittsburgh says he's for Trump because he'll be tough on American companies shipping jobs abroad, tough with the Chinese, tough with Muslims.


A small businessman in Cincinnati tells me he's for Trump because "Trump's not a politician. He'll give them hell in Washington."


Political analysts have underestimated Trump from the jump because they've been looking through the rearview mirror of politics as it used to be. Trump's rise suggests a new kind of politics. You might call it anti-politics.


The old politics pitted right against left, with presidential aspirants moving toward the center once they cinched the nomination. Anti-politics pits Washington insiders, corporate executives, bankers and media moguls against a growing number of people who think the game is rigged against them. There's no center, only hostility and suspicion.


Americans who feel like they're being screwed are attracted to an authoritarian bully -- a strongman who will kick ass. The former reality TV star who repeatedly told contestants they were "fired!" appears tough and confrontational enough to take on powerful vested interests.


That most Americans don't particularly like Trump is irrelevant. As one Midwesterner told me a few weeks ago, "He may be a jerk, but he's our jerk."


By the same token, in this era of anti-politics, any candidate who appears to be part of the political establishment is at a strong disadvantage. This may be Hillary Clinton's biggest handicap.


The old politics featured carefully crafted speeches and policy proposals calculated to appeal to particular constituencies. In this sense, Clinton's proposals and speeches are almost flawless.


But in the new era of anti-politics Americans are skeptical of well-crafted speeches and detailed policy proposals. They prefer authenticity. They want their candidates unscripted and unfiltered.


A mid-level executive in Salt Lake City told me he didn't agree with Trump on everything but supported him because "the guy is the real thing. He says what he believes, and you know where he stands."


In the old politics, political parties, labor unions, business groups and the press mediated between individual candidates and the public -- explaining a candidate's positions, endorsing candidates, organizing and mobilizing voters.


In this era of anti-politics, it's possible for anyone with enough ego, money and audacity -- in other words, Donald Trump -- to do it all himself: declaring himself a candidate; communicating with and mobilizing voters directly through Twitter and other social media; and getting free advertising in mainstream media by being outrageous, politically incorrect and snide. Official endorsements are irrelevant.


Donald Trump has perfected the art of anti-politics at a time when the public detests politics. Which is why so many experts in how politics used to be played have continuously underestimated his chances. And why Trump's demagoguery -- channeling the prejudices and fears of Americans who have been losing ground -- makes him the most dangerous nominee of a major political party in American history.”


[I think the US economy peaked in 1967, and a butthead like Trump will speed up the inevitable big crash and rebuilding, like what the British and Soviet empires of lies went through, and are still going through. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and I will probably vote for Jill Stein again in November, although the Kentucky corrupt electoral college votes will likely all go to Trump- hopefully Trump does not pick a moron like Sarah Palin as his running mate.]


From:
-
-
Why Trump might win
-
-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Comparing the 2016 US presidential election to the 1848 election:

"In 1848, General Zachary Taylor, a roughhewn career soldier who had never even voted in a presidential election, conquered the Whig Party.


Democrats quick to dismiss Trump should beware: Taylor parlayed his outsider appeal to defeat Lewis Cass, an experienced former Cabinet secretary and senator.


But Republicans should beware, too: Taylor is often ranked as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history—and, more seriously, the Whig Party never recovered from his victory. In fact, just a few years after Taylor was elected under the Whig banner, the party dissolved—undermined by the divisions that caused Taylor’s nomination in the first place, and also by the loss of faith that followed it.


Taylor first distinguished himself as a captain in the War of 1812 and gained even greater fame in the Second Seminole War, for which he earned the nickname “Old Rough and Ready” by bravely crossing a treacherous swamp with his men during the Battle of Okeechobee in Florida.


The moniker suited this stocky, stern, undisciplined slob, who shared his men’s battlefield hardships and rarely dressed in military finery. With his signature straw hat, “he looks more like an old farmer going to market with eggs to sell,” one officer muttered. [sort of like Trump’s baseball caps to prevent his fake hair from getting windblown, while looking like he supports the Middle Class as a multimillionaire]


Just days before Congress officially declared war on Mexico in May 1846, Taylor led U.S. troops to two victories over much larger Mexican forces at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. And in February 1847, Taylor’s force defeated Mexican troops despite being outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 at the Battle of Buena Vista. After the victory, Americans sang, “Zachary Taylor was a brave old feller, Brigadier General, A, Number One/ He fought twenty thousand Mexicanoes;/ Four thousand he killed, the rest they ‘cut and run.’”


All his life, Taylor had proudly refused to enroll in a political party, boasting that he never voted. As late as 1846, Taylor insisted the idea of becoming president “never entered my head … nor is it likely to enter the head of any sane person.”


His wife was ill and he felt unqualified. And he preferred to tend to his vast landholdings and his hundreds of slaves in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi—an inherited fortune augmented thanks to goodies showered on him after his war victories, that made him one of the wealthiest Americans of his day.


A genuine nationalist who recognized how much Americans disliked professional politicians, Taylor placed himself above the “trading politicians … on both sides.” Despite all this talk of staying away from one party or another, Taylor began inching toward the Whig Party, and the Whigs inched closer to him.


At first glance, a general seemed to be a strange choice for the Whigs. Founded in the 1830s as a strained coalition of Southern states’ rights conservatives and Northern industrialists, they were united mostly by disgust at Andrew Jackson’s expansion of presidential power. In fact, the popular backlash they stirred against Democratic President James K. Polk was so great that the Whigs seized control of Congress during the 1846 midterm election. Whigs calculated that running an extremely popular war hero like Taylor would prove to voters that the Whigs were patriotic, despite their anti-war stance.


Taylor’s status as a wealthy slaveholder who dodged questions about the escalating slavery debate seemed to be a clever choice for a party increasingly divided over the South’s enslavement of blacks. The territory the U.S. acquired during the Mexican-American War only escalated the feud, sparking a major political debate over whether slavery would be allowed in the new territories.


Many Whig loyalists mistrusted Taylor. He was crude, nonpartisan, unpresidential. Ohio Senator Thomas Corwin wondered how “sleeping 40 years in the woods and cultivating moss on the calves of his legs” qualified Taylor for the presidency.


The great senator and former Secretary of State Daniel Webster called Taylor “an illiterate frontier colonel who hasn’t voted for 40 years.” The biographer Holman Hamilton would pronounce Taylor “one of the strangest presidential candidates in all our annals … the first serious White House contender in history without the slightest experience in any sort of civil government.”


Taylor annoyed the legendary ultra-Whig Henry Clay, who had lost a heartbreaking contest in 1844 to Polk and expected the 1848 nomination. “I wish I could slay a Mexican,” Clay grumbled, mocking celebrity soldiers and not Hispanics. “The Whig party has been overthrown by a mere personal party,” he complained in June, vowing not to campaign if the party nominated this outsider. “Can I say that in [Taylor’s] hands Whig measures will be safe and secure, when he refused to pledge himself to their support?”


With Polk respecting his promise to serve only one term, at their convention in May the divided Democrats settled on General Lewis Cass, a former congressman, secretary of war and senator. The lumbering Michigander was considered a “doughface,” too malleable, a Northern man with Southern principles. His support for “popular sovereignty,” letting each new territory decide for itself on whether it would permit slavery, pleased the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery majority but infuriated abolitionists.


That June, during their convention in Philadelphia, the Whigs were torn over Taylor. On the first ballot, Taylor won 76 percent of the Southern vote, but 85 percent of the Northern delegates opposed him. A rival Mexican War hero, the Virginia-born General Winfield Scott, appealed to antislavery Whigs who hated Clay and Taylor because they were both slaveowners. On the fourth ballot, Taylor secured the nomination, beating Clay, Scott and Webster.



In the end, 62 percent of Taylor’s votes came from Southern Whigs, who calculated that Taylor’s nomination would kill the abolitionist movement.


The nomination left many other Whigs dissatisfied. Many lamented that Taylor’s popularity had trumped party loyalty and principles. The party had not even drafted a platform for this undefined, unqualified leader. Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune pronounced the convention “a slaughterhouse of Whig principles.” The Jonesborough Whig did not know “which most to dispise, the “vanity and insolence” of General Taylor, or the “creeping servility” of the Whig Convention that nominated him.


Resisting pressure to run as an independent, but refusing to stump for Taylor, Henry Clay exclaimed, “I fear that the Whig party is dissolved and that no longer are there Whig principles to excite zeal and simulate exertion.”


Almost immediately after the nomination, the self-proclaimed “Conscience Whigs” (anti-slavery Whigs) bolted, refusing to support a slaveowner candidate. Joining various other anti-slavery factions, including those that defected from the Democratic Party, the rebels formed The Free Soil Party and nominated former President Martin Van Buren.


What the Democrats called the Whigs’ “two-faced” campaign worked: The Whigs in the South insisted that no slaveholder would abandon slavery, as Northern Whigs whispered that the passive Taylor would never veto a bill banning slavery in the new territories if it passed.


Blessed by an even more unpopular Democratic opponent whose party suffered more from the antislavery defections than the Whigs did, Taylor won—barely. He attracted only 47 percent of the popular vote, merely 60,000 more popular votes than Clay had in 1844. Turnout dropped from 78.9 percent in 1844 to 72.7 percent in 1848, reflecting public disgust with both candidates. Taylor’s Electoral College margin of 36 was the slimmest in more than two decades.


Taylor was the last Whig president. His nomination had attempted to paper over the sectional tensions that would kill the party, but ultimately exacerbated them. Running a war hero mocked the Whig’s anti-war stand just as running a slaveholder failed to calm the divisive slavery issue. And, as a nonpartisan outsider, Taylor proved particularly unsuited to manage these internal party battles once elected.


Unfortunately for the wobbling Whigs, pro-slavery Southerners felt betrayed when Taylor took a nationalist approach, brokering what became slavery’s Compromise of 1850. As a result, Holt writes, “Within a year of Taylor’s victory, hopes raised by Whigs’ performance in 1848 would be dashed. Within four years, they would be routed by” the Democrats. “Within eight, the Whig party would totally disappear as a functioning political organization.”


Republicans have recently enjoyed a surge in gubernatorial, congressional and state legislative wins. Still, Trump and the Republicans might want to study 1848 to see the damages a win for an unprepared, unethical president can cause.


Many Republicans might want to consider what is worse: the institutional problems mass defections by “Conscience Republicans” could bring about—or the moral ruin that could come from the ones who stay behind, choosing to pursue party power over principles."


Read more: How an Outsider President Killed a Political Party: Zachary Taylor & the Whig Party - POLITICO Magazine
-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I like this article about how Sanders has affected Hillary, even though he has no chance of winning the primary:
-
-
“Bernie Sanders rejected all forms of big campaign contributions as inherently corrupting, instead relying almost exclusively on a small-donor army that nobody thought could foot the enormous multimillion-dollar cost of a modern presidential campaign.


It worked. Sanders raised so much money from small donors that he even outspent Hillary Clinton by more than 50 percent throughout on advertising, according to NPR.


As I reported in March Sanders raised more than $77 million from those giving under $200 each.


Sanders's model represents a break from what political consultants consider the traditional way of fundraising: Compile a list of wealthy donors, then tap them and their friends for the maximum $2,700 contribution. [and try to get them to add to the unlimited secret funding for their party]


Sanders has at least proven that there are the dollars and the contributors to power a national presidential campaign essentially through small donors alone.


Sanders's small-donor revolution fits with another way he changed the story of the 2016 primary: by making the growing gap between America's wealthiest and poorest into the defining issue of his campaign.


"At a time when millions of American workers have seen declines in their incomes and are working longer hours for lower wages, the wealth of the billionaire class is soaring in a way that few can imagine. If you can believe it, between 2013 and 2015 the 14 wealthiest individuals in the country saw their net worth increase by over $157 billion," Sanders said in June 2015. "We live in the one of the wealthiest countries on earth, yet children go hungry, veterans sleep out on the streets, and senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs. This is what a rigged economic system looks like."


The point is not so much that Sanders discovered income inequality or was the first person to make it into a campaign issue, but that he did so with more consistency and urgency than anyone else. Until Sanders, few candidates had so aggressively thrust inequality to the top of their agenda — or framed it as an existential crisis that threatened the essential stability of the country.


"He's not moving a party to the left. He's moving a generation to the left," the institute's polling director told the Washington Post in April. "Whether [...] he's winning or losing, it's really that he's impacting the way in which a generation — the largest generation in the history of America — thinks about politics."


At the outset of the campaign, it was unclear whether the Democratic Party would throw its weight behind the "Fight for $15" movement calling for a $15-an-hour minimum wage across the country. Clinton sent mixed signals, praising the campaign in the abstract without endorsing its specific goals, and center-left wonks were (and remain) ambivalent.


"It is not a radical idea to say that if somebody works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty," Sanders said in defense of the idea.


By April, Clinton clearly felt the heat, and in a Democratic debate against Sanders she announced that she would sign a bill mandating a $15-an-hour minimum wage as president.


"Despite Clinton's past insistence that she only supported a $12-an-hour minimum wage, [Sanders] helped push her to switch positions and back a $15-an-hour minimum," wrote Vox's Dylan Matthews after the debate.


Hillary Clinton spoke out 45 times in favor of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal from 2009 to 2013.


Then in October 2015, she suddenly reversed course: She announced she would instead oppose the trade deal she once claimed represented the "gold standard" for trade deals.


"Her explanation for why she's coming out against the deal now — after years of supporting it — makes no sense," Vox's Timothy Lee wrote. "She cited two specific objections: It doesn't have language dealing with currency manipulation, and it has provisions that favor big drug companies over patients. These are totally plausible arguments for opposing the TPP. But they make no sense as reasons for Clinton to change her mind about the treaty."


Of course, we know the real reason Clinton dramatically reversed course on the trade deal, the big variable that changed between 2013 and her decision: Bernie Sanders.


"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy," Sanders said in one press release. "The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world."


Sanders cares deeply about the dangers posed by free trade deals, and most can see the problems after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, with thousands of car factory jobs moving from the US to Mexico and Canada. And there's little doubt that Bernie changed where Hillary stands on it too.”


From:
-
5 legacies: how Bernie Sanders changed 2016 ? and the Democratic Party - Vox
-
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top