Beyond Compared to Whom: the unanswerable Donald criticism

Who will dare to say it?

marginalrevolution.com/marginalr … utter.html

But… we NEED distraction from the broader truth!

The true unanswerable is why, in an age of instant mass communications, do we need middlemen to “represent” us when the chief virtue of a good politician apparently is the belief that the will of the people is a cesspool of populism and mischief.

Cause, sadly, it usually is. Look at California referendums- this is nice! Let’s vote for this! Whaddya mean, vote to pay for it?
How many voters do you think would respond to the headline “Belgian Terror Attack” by saying “Let’s go get them dirty Belgians!”

[quote=“MikeN”]
How many voters do you think would respond to the headline “Belgian Terror Attack” by saying “Let’s go get them dirty Belgians!”[/quote]
Californians have been raised to believe in the government free lunch.

Cause, sadly, it usually is. Look at California referendums- this is nice! Let’s vote for this! Whaddya mean, vote to pay for it?
How many voters do you think would respond to the headline “Belgian Terror Attack” by saying “Let’s go get them dirty Belgians!”[/quote]

The best evidence that voters are stupid is the fact that they keep coming back for more, despite the fact that it’s obvious to any thinking person that the only real purpose of voting is to sedate the people into thinking anyone really cares what they think or want.

1 Like

The elephant in the Oval Office…

usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 … /85843656/

[quote]But these kinds of suggestions, aimed at the people doing the job, probably miss the real problem, which is the job itself: The presidency as it exists today is a mess. Presidents have too much power, too little accountability and too high a public profile. That makes the job attract the wrong sort of people, and then ensures they’re not up to it.

If we were to shrink the government, and shrink the presidency, we might find that what was left would attract better people — and would be easier even for lesser mortals to execute.

When your political system consistently delivers bad results, it’s time to look at a change.[/quote]

At least they recognize that the Democratic party and the left are two different things. And with Hillary they’re basically running a centre-right candidate. The Dems have taken the place that the GOP should occupy.

I, a staunch Republican, am still planning to vote for Hillary and see absolutely NO reason to vote for Donald Trump. Am I missing out on something?

You must be sane

No. You’ve got the latest memo. Ignore the fog.

[quote]Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, says he will vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, in one of the most dramatic signs yet that Republican national security elites are rejecting their party’s presumptive nominee.

“If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton,” Armitage told POLITICO in a brief interview. . . .

Dozens of Republican foreign policy elites have already declared their unwillingness to support or work for Trump, though far fewer say they would cast a ballot for Clinton. The latter group includes Max Boot, a prominent neoconservative military analyst, . . . Armitage gained national prominence in 2006 when he admitted to revealing the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to the columnist Robert Novak after her husband, Joe Wilson, publicly challenged Bush administration claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. . . .

Armitage told POLITICO Thursday that he didn’t know whether more Republicans might soon back Clinton. But he added that many of his conservative friends with national security backgrounds “are confused” by the choice before them and unsure about what to do.

“They’re in kind of a fog,” he said.[/quote]

Yeah. You’re missing something. Big time.

Jeepers. Either vote Libertarian or stay the hell out of it.

Time to bump this. It’s no longer academic. The shit’s about to get real.

All you Bubbette lovers. How do you feel about the federal government now? Think maybe the presidency should have less power? `Coz petty soon The Donald will have that pen and and that phone.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Executive orders. Yes, we know.

What’s wrong with that?

[quote]There’s more good news. For at least the next four years we’ll see a renewed interest in that quaint concept called “checks and balances.” Watch for Donald Trump – excuse me, President Donald Trump – to be the most checked and balanced chief exec ever. And that’s terrific.

Oh, and the media will re-discover curiosity about governmental misconduct and inefficiency again – once the collective weeping ends.[/quote]

Oh NOW they worry.

In other news, there’s a whistleblowing community.

1 Like

A strange new respect for the First Amendment:

Free speech for me, but not for thee. Not unlike their position on guns. Or privacy.

2 Likes

And perhaps for the Second Amendment as well…

A left leaning friend of mine has recently talked about buying a gun.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/fbi-and-nsa-poised-to-gain-new-surveillance-powers-under-trump

The upside: barring faithless electors, there’s no potential for Bubbette to abuse this power.