Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?

    Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?
    ________________________________________
    A suggestion like that would have been ridiculous a few weeks ago but now…… well nobody can be so sure.

    Trump should have been toast by now according to conventional political wisdom.
    The guy gave Fox News the finger for Pete’s Sake! Refused to swear support to the eventual winning candidate, openly played the race-xenophobia card and of course virtually ignores GOP HQ and political niceties and conventions.

    So why is he not only still there but steadily pulling ahead?

    Essentially Sanders should have faded quietly away after a token run in polite competition to Clinton just to show the Democrats weren’t running a one-horse show.
    This hasn’t happened and he slowly but steadily starts getting more traction at each appearance, his rumpled, unkempt underdog image in stark contrast to the ‘hacks in suits’ the public is so used to.

    He’s an avowed ‘democratic socialist’ in the most avowedly capitalist economy on the planet.
    Could he win in Iowa?!
    Yikes! What’s going on?

    Are we’re seeing the early days of a campaign which may, just may, end up as a contest between two basically non-conventional Washington outsiders (to use the cliché)?

    They remind me of two sides of a coin in some ways, and both don't seem to give a damn about 'looking presidential'!

    It’s a long-shot but given the deep dissatisfaction and wellspring of frustration with the same old s**t regarding the political mainstream in the US.
    It might, just might happen.

    Just remember you heard the above tagline for 2016 here first.

    No-one steals lodestar’s thunder and lives.
    No-one.

    Regards
    lodestar

  • #2
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?
    ________________________________________

    Got to find it first, assuming that such a thing would be collective and have properties common to all, I suspect that the people of the USA are much more complex and diverse.
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lodestar View Post
      Are we’re seeing the early days of a campaign which may, just may, end up as a contest between two basically non-conventional Washington outsiders (to use the cliché)?lodestar
      Sanders is a Washington insider.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

      Comment


      • #4
        Well,

        Hillary lies and covering up are forcing her slide... they have to go somewhere.

        Trump says interesting and controversial things... which are powerful at the moment but usually weak when it comes to substance (policy). Polling at this time doesn't really show how the mainstream will vote in the end. Just my opinion.
        SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tsar View Post
          Sanders is a Washington insider.
          And a Marxist.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Speaking as an outside it would great TV if Sanders and Trump were to stand against each other next year. It could happen look what has in Britain in a landslide victory the Labour Party has elected as its leader a loony left winger who counted as his friends the IRA and middle eastern terror groups.

            So anything can in the US next year.
            War is less costly than servitude

            Comment


            • #7
              Don't like either. More choices please...
              It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself-- Th. Jefferson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                Speaking as an outside it would great TV if Sanders and Trump were to stand against each other next year. It could happen look what has in Britain in a landslide victory the Labour Party has elected as its leader a loony left winger who counted as his friends the IRA and middle eastern terror groups.

                So anything can in the US next year.
                The "great TV" comment might be a bigger part of this than we want to admit. Polls can be made to show things that might not be 100% accurate...depends on what you ask, who you ask, and how you ask it whether it's really scientific or not. I think that CNN, Fox, MSN have an interest in having candidates like these lead the way because at this point in the campaign they're newsworthy. Polls, if conducted by them, I would take with a grain of salt.
                I suspect that candidates with substance will start to rise to the top over the next several month. If there are any.
                It is true, though, that Americans tend to believe that virtually all politicians are crooked to some degree, and the idea of an 'outsider' being elected is one of those myths that we tend to appreciate--the fiery candidate going to Washington to "clean up this town", that type of thing. The more people perceive that the government is monopolized by the same old two parties and same old candidates the more likely it is they'll support an alternative, even if it seems a bit counterproductive. More and more, during election years, it also seems as if we're casting negative votes-- to keep the person we dislike the most out of office-- rather than to elect a person we believe in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                  Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?
                  ________________________________________
                  A suggestion like that would have been ridiculous a few weeks ago but now…… well nobody can be so sure.

                  Trump should have been toast by now according to conventional political wisdom.
                  The guy gave Fox News the finger for Pete’s Sake! Refused to swear support to the eventual winning candidate, openly played the race-xenophobia card and of course virtually ignores GOP HQ and political niceties and conventions.

                  So why is he not only still there but steadily pulling ahead?

                  Essentially Sanders should have faded quietly away after a token run in polite competition to Clinton just to show the Democrats weren’t running a one-horse show.
                  This hasn’t happened and he slowly but steadily starts getting more traction at each appearance, his rumpled, unkempt underdog image in stark contrast to the ‘hacks in suits’ the public is so used to.

                  He’s an avowed ‘democratic socialist’ in the most avowedly capitalist economy on the planet.
                  Could he win in Iowa?!
                  Yikes! What’s going on?

                  Are we’re seeing the early days of a campaign which may, just may, end up as a contest between two basically non-conventional Washington outsiders (to use the cliché)?

                  They remind me of two sides of a coin in some ways, and both don't seem to give a damn about 'looking presidential'!

                  It’s a long-shot but given the deep dissatisfaction and wellspring of frustration with the same old s**t regarding the political mainstream in the US.
                  It might, just might happen.

                  Just remember you heard the above tagline for 2016 here first.

                  No-one steals lodestar’s thunder and lives.
                  No-one.

                  Regards
                  lodestar
                  Lots of people here, who are registered voters, routinely give FOX News the finger so that hardly detracts from his popularity.

                  Obama has been playing the race card for the last even years, so that doesn't detract either.

                  And why should Trump or anyone, for that matter, pledge to support someone else if they themselves have to drop out. Either the winner can carry it on his own or he shouldn't be there to begin with. If Trump drops out his followers are feel to choose any other candidate they feel is worthy, and that's how it should be. Those votes do not automatically belong to any other candidate.

                  His popularity appears to me to be his simply being himself, take it or leave it, as opposed to the professional politicians who constantly remake their image for every different audience, and he speaks his mind openly, another radical departure from the professional liars currently campaigning. Trump is very much WYSIWYG, and that obviously resonates loudly with the American public these days.

                  Maybe he'll make it; maybe he won't. At the very least, I hope he serves as a wake up call for the bloatocrats that make up the vast army professional political parasites.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    And a Marxist.
                    bs
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My projection;

                      Trump - 80%
                      Sanders - 18%
                      George Clooney - 2%
                      (you just know some fool from Hollywood will jump in)

                      And the next day the Ayatollah of Iran goes into isolation to meditate on the end of the world, ISIS disbands, and Putin breaks his hand trying to punch his TV to death.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Steve573 View Post
                        The "great TV" comment might be a bigger part of this than we want to admit. Polls can be made to show things that might not be 100% accurate...depends on what you ask, who you ask, and how you ask it whether it's really scientific or not. I think that CNN, Fox, MSN have an interest in having candidates like these lead the way because at this point in the campaign they're newsworthy. Polls, if conducted by them, I would take with a grain of salt.
                        I suspect that candidates with substance will start to rise to the top over the next several month. If there are any.
                        It is true, though, that Americans tend to believe that virtually all politicians are crooked to some degree, and the idea of an 'outsider' being elected is one of those myths that we tend to appreciate--the fiery candidate going to Washington to "clean up this town", that type of thing. The more people perceive that the government is monopolized by the same old two parties and same old candidates the more likely it is they'll support an alternative, even if it seems a bit counterproductive. More and more, during election years, it also seems as if we're casting negative votes-- to keep the person we dislike the most out of office-- rather than to elect a person we believe in.
                        I wholeheartedly agree, but one has to remember the last Washington outsider we elected as president, he turned out to be a total ineffective dud, in my opinion anyway.
                        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                          I wholeheartedly agree, but one has to remember the last Washington outsider we elected as president, he turned out to be a total ineffective dud, in my opinion anyway.
                          Do you mean Regan or Clinton!
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                            I wholeheartedly agree, but one has to remember the last Washington outsider we elected as president, he turned out to be a total ineffective dud, in my opinion anyway.
                            Bush the lesser one, yeah.... I'm tempted to say a dud would be better than one deliberately out to wreck us, but to undo the damage we need something better than that.
                            Which is what insiders are today, all duds.

                            Never forget the elections last year; landslide Republican wins in the House and Senate... and Osbama just cruises right along getting everything from Cromnibus to Iranian nukes coming up.... and the people elected did NOTHING to even hinder any of it.

                            We need something else, and the more the GOP hates the candidate, the better.
                            You will find that the DNC has the exact same opinion of the field, and if that don't tell you what the deal is these days then I don't know what will.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                              bs
                              According to Bernie Sanders...
                              8. In the book he wrote with Huck Gutman, Outsider in the House, published in 1997: “Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat. I’m a democratic socialist.”

                              9. In an interview with the Guardian in November 2006: “Twenty years ago, when people here thought about socialism they were thinking about the Soviet Union, about Albania. Now they think about Scandinavia. In Vermont people understand I’m talking about democratic socialism.”

                              10. In an interview with The Washington Post in November 2006. “I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist. … In Norway, parents get a paid year to care for infants. Finland and Sweden have national health care, free college, affordable housing and a higher standard of living. … . Why shouldn’t that appeal to our disappearing middle class?”


                              Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3gMcmpXFR

                              Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist, which is a branch of Marxism...
                              Social democratic Marxism

                              Various trends of Marxism were created in Europe after Marx. The major one was Social Democracy in Germany by Eduard Bernstein. Bernstein renounced the ideas of violent revolution and economic determinism, and proposed a peaceful acquisition of hegemony through parliamentary democracy.

                              Austrian Marxists such as Max Adler, and Otto Bauer, equally renounced violent revolution and argued for the needs of a moral foundation to promote socialism. They attempted to integrate Kantian ethics into Marxism.

                              http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism

                              Therefore Bernie Sanders is a Marxist... Although, he says he is not a Communist.

                              Social Democracy is a branch of Marxism. It is Communism with less violence, more civil liberties and indirect state ownership of the means of production.

                              Social Democracy brings the pot of water to boil slowly, so the frog thinks he's getting a warm bath. Communism just kills the frog outright unless he's quick enough to jump out of the pot.

                              Social Democracy is an intermediate step in the Marxist transition from capitalism to socialism and utopia.

                              For those still unclear on the concept...

                              Social democracy
                              Written by The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
                              Last Updated 6-17-2014

                              Social democracy, political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society.

                              http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy



                              Don't feel bad, the DNC Chairwoman can't tell the difference either...
                              On MSNBC's Hardball Thursday night, host Chris Matthews stumped DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) when he asked her what the difference is between a Democrat and a socialist.

                              "What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" Matthews asked, leaving Wasserman Schultz at a loss for words.

                              "I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?" Matthews tried again. "A Democrat like Hillary and a socialist like Bernie Sanders."

                              [...]

                              "You're chairman of the democratic party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist," Matthews reminded her.

                              "The relevant debate that we'll be having this campaign is what's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican," Schultz said.

                              [...]


                              http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...socialist.html


                              Ms. Dumber Than a Bagful of Hammers couldn't differentiate Hillary Clinton (Democrat) from Bernie Sanders socialist), in part, because there are no genuine ideological differences.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X