[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI[/youtube]
Or just a monstrous mistake of nature?
Admittedly, Hillary is no Cherry 2000.
But then the same argument might be made about Trump.
And, come on: Would you buy a used car from Ted Cruz?!
More to the point they are all synonymous with Wall Street. Maybe different factions, sure, but all within the general vicinity of “business as usual.”
Only Bernie actually makes an attempt to expose the belly of this particular beast. And can you image his fate if he ever actually were elected?!
More to the point, if he actually means what he says! If, in other words, he reconfigured the White House into this gigantic soap box to expose the sham that is “democracy” pertaining to the military industrial complex, the war economy, the corporate media and the true nature of American foreign policy?!!
Or is there but one more rendition of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama lurking around inside him? Change we can sell to the highest bidder. Or to the biggest campaign contributors.
I dont know man, its such a wild race.
I very much prefer Trump over Clinton, because he is someone who has not murdered so very gleefully with such a sanctimonious composure. Sanctimonious people in politics… nothing is scarier. Clinton is as sanctimonious, and as murderous as humans get.
Then, Trump openly says he wants to torture. I dont like that. Its the main objection I have against him.
Not that I have illusions about what does go on, and for what torture the US is responsible, but still.
Sanders, I am growing more and more fond of him, simply because he grows more and more powerful as a speaker. And I must admit having been quite moved when that bird came to sit with him. But you are right, it is unimaginable that, if by some stroke of fate he would win, how he would go about doing what he says he wants to do.
On top of that, I have no idea how ‘economically viable’ his plans are.
Then, it is hard to be less viable than the last 2 presidents.
Simple answer, yes.
Thats a goddamn T800 cyberdine model 101 cybernetic poly alloy… shit.
Bitch is old, true.
I liked Cruz a lot there for a while. Really impressed me at the CNBC debate. We need somebody who calls out the lying media in that way, and doesn’t back down from reality to play shitty little games. But he lost a lot of respect from me when he jumped on board criticizing Trump as being ‘responsible for a culture of violence’ because one of his aides touched a woman’s arm.
First time I heard Cruz talk was right before the Iowa causus. It was a speech he did in the senate, I think, I was extremely impressed with his eloquence, rhetoric discipline and detailed views on the constitution. If I were a US citizen I’d always be voting for conservative constitutionalists, if simply because that, despite all the problems translating it to modernity, is the only political ideology that makes the remotest shred of sense to me.
But then he went and fucked up. That stunt he pulled, having people say that his Christian rival had pulled out, cost him the race. I think he might have actually beat Trump if he wasn’t such a ‘cheap car salesman’. But then, that is apparently what he is made of.
Pezer was fearful of him, of his religious commitment to military violence. I think there’s a point there. But no one is as psychopathic as Hillary. The thought of her getting the office is the first truly terrifying prospect I’ve faced in my life following politics. The whore might actually unleash war on Russia, or force Putin to act.
Hello Jakob
Donald Trump’s name can be inserted in your original post without losing any meaning. After every debate CNN usually post a “Fact Check” article where the statements made by the candidates are rated as true, true but misleading, and false. How do you think that Trump fares? But never mind that. The thing is that democracy creates the necessity for lying. It becomes a song and dance. Bernie, God bless his heart, is perhaps the most honest about what he believes in and yet that might cost him in a general election, I don’t care what the polls say right now. In your opinion, what politician is truthful? Merkel, Putin…?
I don’t think that Trump is responsible for “the culture”, but as far as condoning violence…I would say so. Old man sucker punches a man being escorted out, clear assault, right on camera, and Trump has people looking to pay the old man’s legal fees!!!
Trump is a street fighter, the others are trained fighters. All lie and all speak truth, not a one is worth a damn but, they put on a fine show. I will vote for the least obnoxious and the most qualified independent. A nonlawyer business person. Who that is I have no idea yet.
My issue is violence. Sanctimoniousness about the violence one commits is, to me, the most loathsome quality in a politician. Obama, drone king, who has by his sheer hypocrisy ripped apart northern Africa and Syria, pretending to be a peace-maker. Hillary, terrifying in her violence, gathering around her the weak and the meek, the oppressed an the sorry-for-themselves, while she is involved in investing a hundred billion dollars in mininukes at the border of Russia - that sort of stuff gives me the chills
Trump is a violent guy and he is honest about this. But he is far less violent than the Clinton/Bush clan, who are truly sociopaths. He is not as insane as to follow Brzezinski, to try to pull Russia into war.
Putin is my favorite politician of this time. Merkel among my least favorites.
bernie is just another “climate change” enforcer. Of course, he will never speak about chemtrails (globalresearch.ca/haarp-secr … fare/20407)
Moreover, indeed which candidate is going to dare cause instant global economic demise if exposing The regulation Trap: youtube.com/watch?v=BBeHcstqF7k
People who really want thing to change will not fear any material losses. The system cannot be fixed, has to be let go.
I have to agree with you here. Or think Madeleine Albright and the devastating consequences that resulted from the Iraq boycotts.
Not for Saddam Hussein, of course, but for these folks:
As for Trump, he has not yet been afforded the opportunity to appall me in the White House. But if he does get there I don’t expect him not to.
What’s trickiest thing about him [for me] is in making the distinction between what he does believe and what he professes to believe in order to get elected. In other words, the extent to which he is an objectivist. I suspect though that he is cut more from the cloth of the moral nihilist: show me the money.
In other words, is he a reactionary in the uccisore mold or is he more than willing to be shaped and molded to the office — in the same manner in which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were.
Not to mention all of the presidents before them.
Edit - I made the mistake of taking it too seriously.
It’s still what it is.
I cant be getting to close to taking personal stands.
Maybe the guy who got punched totally had it coming. Do we really have to pretend that that’s unfathomable? I like that I don’t have to pretend when talking about Trump.
Its funny how backing a guy who punches an asshole is seen as a violation of ethical protocol in an arena of such intense stakes. You have to admire the … presbeterianism .
It’s not though. It’s just this alternate language we have to use in politics, that Trump doesn’t use. It’s like when discussing politics we have to pretend that nobody ever deserves a cuff in the mouth. Or we have to all just accept that a woman being taken by the wrist for a moment has been ‘brutalized’. It’s all a bunch of bullshit, and it only ever benefits the same political types. Bernie supporters can dress up like the KKK, scream and spit and punch people, block roads so people can’t get to a Trump rally, and if one of them gets shoved, then it’s all about “Trump promoting a culture of violence”.
Hello Jakob
Trump promises a lot of it. Everything from expanding torture of suspects to taking out their families.
Obama has been a strategic innovator with his authorizations of drone strikes. I would call it brilliant. Why? Because it does not expose american troops to IEDs, they are hard targets, unlike regular combat aircraft, they present a flexible, able to adapt to real-time data because it can stay airborne much longer.
As for Syria, Obama has had plenty of opportunities to authorize an attack, his famous red line in the sand occasion, and walked away from the decision to attack. As for Africa I think that Obama, like many others, truly had hoped the “Arab Spring” would be a turning point in the history of the ME, so often dictated by dictators put in place by american administrations. People will later appreciate Obama for a real-politik philosophy that did not engage into nation-building, nor in dictator building. What that has done is reveal the fundamental problems affecting the region and which, unless fixed, will defeat any american initiative. When the veil of “government” has vanished, we see that the region has return to their default tribalism. National identity has eroded in favor of religious identity. Obama’s peace mission is challenged by the fact that there is no good choice for an american president to make. For the Russian administration the choice is easy, but they could give a shit about change or improvement to life in the region.
Please provide some sources because this seems incorrect.
It is anyone’s guess as to what exactly Trump would do, which is the true mark of a sociopath. By comparison, Obama and Hillary are predictable and reasonable…Obama a bit more unpredictable but not even close to the degree of Trump. He has criticized Europe for not supporting Ukraine and has promised a large military and does not rule out using nukes in Europe. The invasion of the Ukraine happened on Obama’s and Hillary’s watch, so if they didn’t go into war then, what makes you think that they would go into war in the future?
Hello Ucissore,
Had it coming? Even if I do grant you that he was probably there to disrupt a Trump speech, which rightfully got him thrown out, he was still being escorted out and there was no reason to take a cheap shot…if you do not condone violence. If you do condone violence then you might say “he had it coming” or “next time we might have to kill him”, or offer to pay the old man’s legal fees: take your pick.
It’s the law. It’s that simple. Do I drive at the posted speed limit? No, but I know that it is the law and if I am caught, which happens, I don’t argue that the officer is acting as if driving fast is a big deal when he or she knows that driving involves high stakes. The old man punching a guy is not a violation of some protocol but a violation of a person’s rights while in custody. Offering to pay the legal fees of a criminal? That might be a violation of ethical protocol, I don’t care how intense the stakes are because the Law is not written for when the stakes are low, and all are singing kumba-ya, but exactly for when the stakes are intense.