Reply With Quote
OP is a got and Politico is an anti-Trump SJW rag.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3kheu4CKxHere are some of the things that have been said by the guy who has galvanized the GOP’s Tea Party base and taken the lead in the Republican presidential race:
“Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.”
“As far as single payer [health care], it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland. … You can't let the people in this country, the people without the money and resources, to go without healthcare."
“People as they make more and more money can pay a higher percentage” of taxes.
Only one of two conclusions can be drawn here. Either the Tea Party base—which the media would have us think mainly consists of angry libertarians inveighing against taxes and runaway big government—hasn’t really been listening to Donald Trump, who made all the above statements, or, alternatively, most of the media have read the Tea Party and its true aims and ambitions entirely wrong.
I suggest the latter is the correct answer. The success of Trump’s campaign has, if nothing else, exposed the Tea Party for what it really is; Trump’s popularity is, in effect, final proof of what some of us have been arguing for years: that the Tea Party is less a libertarian movement than a right-wing version of populism. Think William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long, not Ayn Rand. Tea Partiers are less upset about the size of government overall than they are that so much of it is going to other people, especially immigrants and nonwhites. They are for government for them and against government for Not-Them.
This is what explains a lot of what’s going on now. After all, according to the commentariat, the Summer of Trump was supposed to have been the Summer of Rand Paul. It seems like only yesterday that the media were interpreting the rise of the Tea Party as a triumph of anti-statism and predicting that Paul, with his libertarian views on national security and data privacy, represented the future of the American right.
But Paul has all but disappeared from view, polling in the low single digits, while Trump has soared into the lead, and nothing he says, no matter how outrageous, seems to sour the right-wing base on him. Trump is no libertarian; quite the opposite. He is a classic populist of the right who peddles su ion of foreigners—it’s no accident that he was the country’s leading “birther” raising questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship—combined with a kind of “producerism.” In populist ideology, society is divided not among rich and poor but among producers and parasites.
OP is a got and Politico is an anti-Trump SJW rag.
He exposed the tea party and the democratic party is next in line.
He is courting the Boomers real hard. Medicare and racism sells to that demographic.
When his favorability gets over 45% then I will take him seriously as a candidate. Last one I saw had him at 37%.
http://national.suntimes.com/nationa...-favorability/
"I had 15,000 people in Phoenix but @politico said "the rooms capacity is just over 2000." But said Bernie Sanders had 11,000 in same room."
nope, Trump and Bernie rented different rooms, Bernie the big room, Trump a smaller room
Boutons how do you feel about your buddy George Soros funding
the immigration crisis in Europe? The goyim know
So you're not taking Hillary seriously, then? Three new polls, all under 45% favorability.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...vorable-rating
You definitely can't be taking Bernie Sanders seriously, either.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...vorable-rating
got
Appears certain dumb s haven't realized I don't like the Clintons or the Democratic party.
I don't like Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Obama or any of the democratic leadership. I know that doesn't make sense to your binary pea-brain but its there just the same.
I disagree with the "only two conclusions can been drawn" part. There's more two it than those two conclusions (btw why do I have to point this out to a dude who acts like he has Latin logical fallacy wiki page as his desktop?) you want to simplify and distort things to fit an agenda, which to me is obviously the case here.
So who are you "taking seriously" as a candidate?
I will vote for Paul in the primary but I don't expect he will make it considering how Boomers are going to vote.
I don't support either party. I support replacing the single member district, an amendment to revoke the 14th amendment privileges to corporate en ies, re-regulating the banks and revoking LEOBoR laws. Neither party has that as their platform. I am unrepresented in US politics like most people.
Larry Lessig's shtick is interesting if he makes it into the democratic primary.
In my district the GOP primary is the real election.
So you wont take Trump seriously because of his favorability but you'll vote for Paul who has an ever worse favorability at below 30%
perfect logic there genius
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
