I know there is an inherently reactionary element to conversing on these topics, but it is never a bad idea to stop and vet what you are about to put out into the world against the standards you would actually like to hold yourself to. Otherwise you risk ending up espousing what at best can charitably called cognitive dissonance.
Also, while I acknowledge that his relationship with them is complicated, I question whether the candidate representing the party that has for years controlled both the House and the Senate can realistically be characterized as the anti-establishment vote.
One last thing too, Trump’s opinion of the Iraq war at the time was rather milquetoast. I don’t really fault him for that, it wasn’t really his job to form a strong unambiguous position at the time, and the argument for going in was muddled with false information provided by our government. But it is a misrepresentation to say now that he was vehemently opposed to it.
I don’t have to characterize it as an-establishment vote, I simply look at the fund raising ledger and the media bias. Meanwhile you have Gary Johnson supporting TPP and getting calls from Romney, the writings not on the wall it’s in the fundraising. It’s why I support Citizens united so what if so & so raises a billion dollars. It’s a billion pieces of evidence of what they stand for.
Even Farrakhan says it, “Trump doesn’t take their money.”
It is an interesting position he’s in, where he gets to claim he isn’t taking contributions from the moneyed establishment but gets to laud himself as being part of the moneyed establishment and self-funding.
We desperately need campaign finance reform, but neither of these candidates are going to do much about it, and it is a problem that can probably only be fixed in Congress regardless. I can’t at all fault Trump for using his own money to finance his campaign, but it doesn’t make him a paragon either, and in an ironic sort of way actually makes it tougher to read his influences than those of his opponent.
But there is a diversity of bellwethers that indicate that Trump, agree with him or not is the opposition to the establishment this go around. I used to hear this shit about Rand Paul, he’s a corporate wall street shill… whom Wall Street endlessly funds his opposition. Bernie was there too but he’s not going to be on the ballot.
The RNC, DNC, Koch Brothers, Silicon Valley, Media all have made their opposition to Trump clear. If he was acting in their interests they wouldn’t be opposing him.
A vote for Trump sends a clear indication to lawmakers that the public take campaign financing seriously. Sanders and Trump both appealed to huge audiences by not getting Super PAC donations.
A vote for Hillary indicates that they either don’t care, or the issues does not effect their vote.
The DNC oppose him because it is literally their job to oppose any R candidate.
The Media “oppose” him because bashing him brings in higher ratings in their target demographics- they actually benefit from keeping him in the public eye in that regard.
The RNC oppose him because he has inelegantly muscled in on their leadership’s turf rather than because of some insurmountable incompatibility, and they are quickly working on assimilating with him.
Assorted moneyed interests oppose him because he is unpredictable, not because he is going to champion the common man over them. Wealthy businesses/people HATE unpredictability even when opportunity arrives with it. Otherwise on paper he’d be a huge boon to them with the amount of deregulation he touts.
That’s a massive oversimplification. Nobody thinks that the election is a single issue referendum, and even if it was that wouldn’t be the keystone issue anyway. That Sanders and Trump had the success they did is already a clear indication that there is voter support for campaign reform, and the problems preventing campaign reform aren’t going to be resolved with the outcome of this election.
Saying that a vote for Clinton is a vote against campaign reform is as off base as saying a vote against Clinton is a vote for misogyny (and some wackos do say that).
Correct. A vote for Hillary at this point simply says- I care more about who the media says I should fear-ridicule, rather than the substance of my supposed principles.
You vote for the guy who isn’t bought, or the gal whose bought by everyone, including her own media shills (Time Warner which owns CNN and Jeff Bezos who owns Washington Post at both Clinton donors). It’s really that simple.
I disagree, Trump is a referendum against open border globalism in favor of Nationalism, it’s why it lacks a hard consistent ideology. Trumps left of Clinton on a litmus, centrist isn’t real fanatical about much. He was even vetting a pro-choice VP at one point. The monied interests, media, and establishment parties all promote open border globalism.
What do Sanders, Trump and Stein all have in common? Shitty treatment by the media/parties and opposition to TPP,NAFTA with a nationalistic slant.
It is a consistent phenomena in the narrative nation wide out the establishment. If you are Pro-Globalism, your fine. If you are a Nationalist you are a left/right fanatic kook who can’t win and they blow on the racism dog whistle. They were even trying to gear up the racist narrative on Bernie with BLM crashing him routinely it just wasn’t sticking.
George Soros funds BLM. George Soros, head of the Open border society. Look how they all annoited open border/bi-lingual Jeb.
If Trump endorsed TPP tomorrow and amnesty the Media and parties would warm to him immediately.
GARY JOHNSON SAYS: “I WOULD SIGN THE TPP” And Romney is talking about endorsing him, I am officially off the Johnson train. His petty shit he pulled to Austen Petersen because he wanted Weld was bad enough. The TPP you can kiss the open internet good bye. All that SOPA/PIPA shit that was rejected a few years ago is in the TPP.
It’s not a free trade agreement, it’s a regulatory treaty that off-shores regulatory mechanisms to multi-national corporations. Some of those regulations have to do with fuckery in regards to Marijuana and the internet, two things I simply wont stand for. That has nothing to do with free trade. You don’t need an agreement for Free trade, you simply do it. You need bloated large agreements instituting new laws that are difficult to challenge for **Regulated **trade.
Free means Free, as in trade not bound in regulation, laws or contract.
I am all for Free trade, it requires far less paperwork. The TPP is Regulated trade, regulated by corporations for their benefit and favoring nations as it politically suits them.
Big business loves regulation and controlled economies despite feigning the later, regulation grants them monopoly only they can afford killing competition.
by in its nature it provides free trade that prevents outright fraud, its goal is to faciliate trade to where it could be considered free.
if I ignore what you say about free trade, I don’t know how you can be nationlaist and for a closed border, when liberterian advocates heavily for that as well. So either you are nationalist, or liberterian. Choose
Tbh I knew Bernard was too good to be true. He won my heart when he walked out to “Where The Hood At” during one of his rallies. But, I digress. An old white man that wants to make everything free was something out of a fairy tale.
The TTIP is still set to allow companies to sue governments for changes in law that effect their profits right?
Surely anyone who buys any goods or services or who is employed by anyone other than themselves should be worried as fuck about what that could mean for things like consumer and employee protections and rights, shit sounds fucking whack.
“I don’t know how you can be nationlaist and for a closed border, when liberterian advocates heavily for that as well. So either you are nationalist, or liberterian.”
I am for a regulated border/immigration because we don’t live in a Libertarian society. Society indentures my obligation to others through taxes, entitlements etc. So since I am obligated to these people I want their number and character regulated.
If policy and society shifted libertarian I wouldn’t care about border controls as much because if I am not collectivized with them through socialism they don’t affect me.
I wish this election cycle has an actual labor party who’s against globalization like TPP, against importing cheap foreign labor to create unnecessary competitions, against mass surveillance and thought policing on the citizens by the elites, for stopping foreign intervention and use the money on ourselves instead, and for public healthcare.
I am tired of rich progressive and conservative elites who put foreign interests ahead of their own people.
Sanders and Stein still love sucking up to foreign labors because it makes them look PC on stage. Labors would have never put up with that bullshit.
Ideologically libertarians should actually advocate for open borders because they believe everything should be laissez faire and not government controlled.