See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Why Trump Is in Trouble?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-trouble/
Published: Aug 6, 2016
Author: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Post Date: 2016-08-06 16:03:34 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 388
Comments: 22
Writes Jay Stephenson: Trump’s spokesperson got laid into this week for blaming Obama for the death of the Khan family’s son in Iraq during Bush’s tenure. The real reason why she said it, I believe, is because after the campaign fired Cory Lewandowski and influenced Trump to pick a neocon as a VP, a decision was made not to attack Bush anymore. So what can Trump do as he’s getting hammered by Bush-era cronies this week given this newstrategy? Basically nothing. The right way to attack is to blame Bush/Clinton/Obama, but he has to stick with cliché GOP talking points that they’ve been using ever since Obama took office. It’s a losing strategy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
His recent endorsements of raging neocons such as McCain and Ayotte won't help him much either.
As long as billary is his oppenet, he's fine.
______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
Don't fall for the fake propaganda. The Mainstream media has been releasing fake polls. They have made pure propaganda up about Putin hacking Hillary, Trump is dropping out and and Trump is Putin's stooge. It is all BS. Trump is essentially tied in the LA Times/USC poll. Look at the size of the rallies. Hillary gets fewer than a 100 counting Democrat operatives and civil servants. Trump gets thousands. Trump had to endorse McCain and Ryan because the party would dump if he didn't. Assange has a series of more data dumps coming. Two of which are criminal in nature. The Republicans have no pull in the media. CNN will break when Trump mentions Hillary funding ISIS. That is why we need the grassroots to break through and explain the biggest scandals like stealing billions from Africans, Haitians and Katrina victims. And the treason of supporting ISIS which is fighting against US soldiers. The debates will collapse her campaign. The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Exactly.
Amazing, isn't it? It's why the founders were so adamantly opposed to political parties. (As well as jews, muslims, and other suspect groups.) “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
"""As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 per hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl’s Hamburgers."""
I've been pushing for "Approval" voting as a superior vote system. With this system, people can vote for as many candidates as they want. The candidate getting the most votes wins. It occurred to me much more recently that with Approval voting, political parties can be done away with. Primaries become obsolete, because there's no reason to limit the ballot to one candidate per party at the general election.
Some areas have None of the Above. If None of the Above scores 50%, then they have another election without the previous candidates.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
That does not matter. Trump needs the party. A man running for President cannot do it without a party. Period. He cannot do what you and I can because we are not presidential candidates.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Well, with AV, "none of the above" is an option too. As is "all of the above".
Donald Trump draws thousands and thousands of voters to his rallies, Hillary Clinton can't draw flies at her shit rallies.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: FormerLurker, Ada, (#1)
(Edited)
#4. To: titorite (#2)
#5. To: Horse (#3)
Trump had to endorse McCain
#6. To: titorite (#2)
As long as billary is his oppenet, he's fine.
#7. To: Lod (#4)
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
#9. To: Lod (#8)
#10. To: Lod (#8)
It's why the founders were so adamantly opposed to political parties.
#11. To: Pinguinite, Lod (#10)
#12. To: Ada (#5)
#13. To: Horse (#11)
Some areas have None of the Above. If None of the Above scores 50%, then they have another election without the previous candidate
#14. To: Ada (#0)
-Alex Kurtagic
#15. To: Horse, Penguinite, Cynicom, 4 (#11)
I've long been a fan of the None of the Above option.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#16. To: Pinguinite (#10)
While it sounds good in theory to do away with the 2 party system by bringing in "Approval" voting or other facsimile systems instead, theory doesn't always translate into better outcomes in the real world. For example in California, the Demrats pushed for and won Prop. 14 which implemented a "Non- partisan blanket primary" voting system and it stinks. Now we have 2 Demrat politicians running against each other in many elections. Eliminating the 2 party system and giving lots of choices to the electorate assumes that voters are open minded and are intelligent enough to make educated choices based on platforms; that they're not idealogues. But in the USA - especially in states like CA. where you have so many Third World naturalized socialist voters and limousine liberals and large college campuses with young Utopian brain- washed voters etc etc, all it means is that there is no choice for what's left as candidates in the 2nd round run off. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
#17. To: hondo68 (#7)
That was.great.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#18. To: hondo68 (#7)
Good one hondolt!
#19. To: hondo68 (#7)
Pretty funny, but I'm pretty sure Trump was imitating Hillary.
#20. To: scrapper2 (#16)
All too true! I would caution against expectations of instant beneficial results. I'm not familiar with the CA's prop 14 or even aware anything like this had happened, but seems to me at first glance that the longer term result would be that the R party would become less popular because no R's end up making it to the general election. So more candidates end up registering as D's. Longer term, no one really cares what the D platform is because everyone is a democrat. They instead have to understand what each candidate stands for, which is what should be happening anyway. Without the R party, the D party stands for nothing. I don't follow this. Eliminating the party system means there are no platforms on which voters can base choices. It should be understood first and foremost there is no perfect voting system. That's been mathematically proven, or so I read. There are many. Pluralist voting which we have now (about the worst there is), AV as I described. Run-off which is in play in many countries. Instant run-off which has mathematical quirks where the order in which candidates are first removed can alter the final result. A system where everone gets 100 votes and allocates them to the degree they favor candidates, and at least one more I won't bother describing. The current dilemma in the US is that candidates from 3rd parties (so-called) have about zero chance of attracting votes due to the "wasted vote syndrome" which is in fact an encouragement for people to vote strategically instead of according to their honest preferences. I.e. a vote for Johnson for president is in fact a vote for [Trump/Clinton] because Johnson isn't going to win and you are throwing your vote away. So if you really hate Clinton and you don't vote for Trump, you are helping Clinton to win. I'm sure you're familiar with all that. Again no system is perfect. But I do see the current pluralist voting system a relic from the days when ballots were probably hand written 200 years ago. Tech makes a lot of things better, and with voting, it should be no different. While it sounds good in theory to do away with the 2 party system by bringing in "Approval" voting or other facsimile systems instead, theory doesn't always translate into better outcomes in the real world.
For example in California, the Demrats pushed for and won Prop. 14 which implemented a "Non- partisan blanket primary" voting system and it stinks. Now we have 2 Demrat politicians running against each other in many elections.
Eliminating the 2 party system and giving lots of choices to the electorate assumes that voters are open minded and are intelligent enough to make educated choices based on platforms;
all it means is that there is no choice for what's left as candidates in the 2nd round run off. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
#21. To: Pinguinite (#20)
200 years ago the only voters were free, White, male land-owners at least 21- years old. That scenario would change the current election lineup: no Hillary Clinton, no Bernie Sanders. Maybe no Donald Trump. Certainly no televangelist preacher like Ted Cruz. Jeff Bezos/Warren Buffett/Mark Zuckerberg/Bill Gates would be rich, eccentric idiots and would define a distinct minority of voters considered to be "cranks". But I do see the current pluralist voting system a relic from the days when ballots were probably hand written 200 years ago.
-Alex Kurtagic
#22. To: Pinguinite (#20)
The current dilemma in the US is that candidates from 3rd parties (so-called) have about zero chance of attracting votes due to the "wasted vote syndrome" which is in fact an encouragement for people to vote strategically instead of according to their honest preferences. 1. I was referencing the campaign platforms - as in the particular positions - espoused by each individual seeking office. In California non-partisan blanket primary is non-partisan in name only. What the Demrat party has been doing is providing big bucks to multiple high profile Demrat candidates to run against lesser known candidates say from the R and Green parties, for example. So with the big bucks which also buys lots of advertising, in the first round, the 2 Demrat candidates win hands down and then those 2 proceed to run against each other in the final round. The Demrat Party wins no matter which of the 2 candidates wins. And there's no R candidate in the second round of voting who can show how his platform/his positions differ or why the opposing candidate has warts. The 2 Demrat candidates typically don't do more than a girlie slap fest with each other because the Demrat Party wouldn't want warts revealed. So the non-partisan primary B.S. ultimately takes away choices for the voter. 2. 3rd partys would never work in the USA anyways. 3rd parties work in a Parliamentary system of government, which the USA does not have. I don't follow this. Eliminating the party system means there are no platforms on which voters can base choices.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest