Trump is a reactionary, and a fascist. Any actual libertarian who votes to give power to a fascist reactionary is a damn fool. Anyone who thinks fascist reactionaries are a lower risk for war than anyone else is ignorant of history as well as politics - the only fascistic reactionaries who don't launch war on their neighbors are the ones at war with their own citizenry. So blowing it off won't hurt a bit, or do you any harm. It's not really there, after all - and if it is, you can buy another one for cheap in a real free market like we will have when we have real money in capitalist freedom land, like the US was in 1780 1830 1850 1880 1900 1910! yeah! 1910! Here's a shotgun named "TRUMP", aimed at your kneecap: pull the trigger. Have the wingnuts ever led you wrong?
A few reasons on why Progressive Murikan's may want to consider voting for The Donald. He's positively a Statists, and a Progressive Social Fascist at that. On guns? Trump: “I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun” - That seems reasonable? Pretty progressive if you think about it. You know, reaching across the isle. Making small but realistically doable change. The Uber-Rich? In order to reduce federal debt Trump said the federal government should directly take control of the bank accounts of some very rich private citizens and levy a “one-time tax”. By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on net worth above 10millionwouldraise" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 14.6667px; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">10millionwouldraise10millionwouldraise5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop (well, back in 1999). "No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium. The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said. "The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said. - Seems 'progressive' and 'socialistic', and IF elected, that would BE "The People's" mandate in our good Ole' Greatest Democracy on Earth......MooMurika. We'll probably have to lower that down to 2millionandupthetaxto" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 14.6667px; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">2millionandupthetaxto2millionandupthetaxto25%. But, that's fine with the bottom 99%. Most of them don't even have $5000 worth of lifetime savings. The Free-Market? Um, The Donald doesn't 'do' free-market. He's a pure Statist - through and through. The government MUST be used to prop up major US corporations (including banks) and he was a strong advocated for TARP. Of the Big Three auto companies? They should NEVER be allowed to fail. “You cannot lose the auto companies”. - Seems to be looking out for the worker. How magnanimous. Universal Healthcare? Of course The Donald supports a total government takeover of healthcare and has done so since in the 1990s. Trump: “We must have universal health care” - Doesn't get much more Progressive than that. So, there you have it. A few good reasons Progressive Statists, such as you may be, should consider voting Trump over Warmonger Hilary. Or not. It's not going to matter either way. Michael, Aug 28, 2015
What do you think of State Authoritarianism now? Do you like it? Do you like the idea of a single person, who wins a popularity contest, having the right to direct the State's governmental agency's towards initiating violence against morally innocent citizens? Also, do you see now, how 'voting', this act, does NOT change immoral behaviors, into moral behaviors? Is this starting to take on a new meaning? Are you still a Statist? I'm just curious. Either way, don't worry, soon all of this will seem perfectly normal.
Progressive Strongman Donald Trump: Supports Same-Sex Marriage. The Libertarian position? The State has no right to 'legalize' the relationship between two people. Legalization of marriage, is just another one of our Nation State's morality laws. No different than the sorts of morality laws we see in KSA, such as not allowing women to legally leave their home without a male guardian.
One half brain, then the other: We've got our "libertarian" claiming the State cannot legally establish a standard relationship between two people. In a minute, he's going to specify that his libertarian utopia will include private property transfer and other such standard legal contracts between two people. And never the twain shall meet.
That's correct. Adults can legally form contractual agreements and the State would be limited to the role of enforcing those contracts where legal. That aside, I found this funny: Oh, and again, no - I do not think the Nation State should determine which adults can marry. The very notion that the Nation State could make black and white marriages illegal, is sick. Belief that the State should enforce morality laws - that's a mental illness. Regardless, this is probably the first in a line of many Progressive Policies that Progressive Strongman Donald Trump will support.
Be interesting to see if the Trump administration reduces US backing of anti-Iranian jihadists. This could be a complex matter - Russia wants to be friends with Iran, so US backing of Sunni foes of Iran is probably something Putin wants the US to cut back. On the other hand, there's a lot of money in being friends with KSA, UAR, Kuwait, and the like, and these fundie Sunni jihadi funders who hate Iran have Trump-like tastes in culture, status, furniture, and women - the tee-totaling Trump has a natural band of brothers there, possibly more congenial than the hard-drinking redneck Russians.
It seems that the usa has been a puppet military pawn of the Saudi/Qatari Sunni clique. They bribe our diplomats with tens of millions so that we will spend trillions fighting their wars of aggression. (Echoes of Byzantium?) What do we as a country gain from this expensive military adventurism?
A good political lesson: Never vote for rightwing corporate authoritarians, especially with ties to the oil business. http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm
Considering how little a stake in Iraqi oil US oil companies have come away with, that strategy(if it was one) seems moot.
Not at all. They fuck up all the time - famous for it - but they made a ton of money off the Iraq War, they stand to make a lot more, and they got rid of a looming competitor and a serious currency problem, and they might still get a power base for Iranian treaty and Central Asian influence (that was the fuckup, losing their main chance at that via incompetence in warmaking); they were very well rewarded for their investment in the US government, by that war. They'd do that again in a heartbeat. And they have the voting base all lined up, the media and politicians in pocket, an entire major Party at their service.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/ From the article: A spokesman for a major super PAC backing Donald Trump said Wednesday that the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a “precedent” for the president-elect’s plans to create a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries. That is just fucking great, I am starting to be embarassed to be from the US.
Meanwhile, in more "progressive Donald" news, Frank Gaffney has been invited into the transition team - joining Bannon, Priebus, Trump's children, Pence, Giuliani, - - - quite the lineup. With the requisite media gaming: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16...t-frank-gaffney-joins-trumps-transition-team/ America's government, for the next four years. The people choosing and vetting the next Supreme Court. Elections have consequences.
After W&Cheney, that's not really going to sting much any more (and saying it out loud cost the Dixie Chicks their career). The Obama dignity break is over, back on your heads. http://www.jokesgallery.com/jokes/1751/welcome-to-hell-2
WaPo: Trump got more votes from people of color than Romney did. Here’s the data. Well, the data are coming in and we see that contradictory to The Narrative, Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population. Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on. --You Are Still Crying Wolf --o-- That's interesting, though, not surprising.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Trump walked on stage in Greeley, Colorado to a large cheering crowd when he spotted a rainbow flag in the audience. As the music blasted through the speakers, Mr. Trump pointed to a supporter as if to ask if he could see his flag and then motioned for a campaign worker to help retrieve the LGBT symbol of equality from the attendee. Within seconds, Mr. Trump was walking around the platform with the rainbow flag in his hands and moments later unfurled it in full display. You could see a huge smile on Mr. Trump’s face as he walked to both sides of the stage to proudly hold up the rainbow flag announcing support from the gay and lesbian community. Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told me, “Mr. Trump is campaigning to be President for ALL Americans and was proud to carry the ‘LGBT for Trump‘ rainbow flag on stage in Greeley, CO yesterday.
In the first place, Trump lost a lot of college educated white votes. His big turnout and extra appeal was in the non-college educated white folks - especially the bigots and fundies - not the total white vote. Lumping the white vote into one group with Trump is deception. In the second place: The narrative this guy is pushing is that Trump is an aberration, radically different from a generic Republican. That's bs. He isn't. He got the standard Republican core white vote, which is the fundie and bigot vote. So? In the third place: before we start handing Trump slivers of extra percentages of black vote, we should correct for the vote suppression and the voting machine tally/exit poll problems. The latter were particularly significant in swing State regions of high black or brown turnout, and Trump's black and brown vote tally was so low that even small tally manipulations would affect it noticeably.
