An American Tragedy: Trump Won Big
- This topic has 9 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Elliot Erwitt New York 1955 If the US presidential debate last night showed anything, it must be that just about everyone has dug themselves into thei
[See the full post at: An American Tragedy: Trump Won Big]Trump does apparently have business connections in Russia: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html
The tax issue is a bit more complicated than just following the rules or not. Taxes depend on accounting, and accounting is always a matter of judgment and interpretation, e.g. whether an expense is personal or business-related. How close to the line does a person play in order to reduce their taxes? How flagrant a violation is required before the IRS decides the evidence is enough to convince a jury? Beyond that, people often structure their business activities in order to enable the kind of accounting that reduces taxes, along with protecting assets from bankruptcy proceedings etc.
Trump has no political track record and bases a lot of his campaign on his business acumen. So it is important to establish that for Trump, business = greed. This is the Ayn Rand philosophy that has infected so much of the power elite in recent decades and destroyed the country.
I’m thinking voting for Trump as a revolutionary or anarchic act is sort of silly idea. It would be self defeating in any short to medium term. Handing the keys over to the authoritarian who would think he has a popular mandate is not a wise move. It is unlikely that the National Security State would instantly bend to Trump’s will and move against anybody that strikes is fancy in the middle of the night, right away, but in a year, or two…?
I’ve thought this over and the thing is that yes, Hillary represents every entrenched institutional power there is. Protesting institutional power by voting against its top representative only now is cheap and lazy. A symbolic act which would amount to the cure being worse than the disease, again in any short to medium term. When the break comes in the financial economy and then the real economy surely the right will rise to fill the vacuum, probably uninvited. Don’t invite them in before hand.
As to his winning, winning voters? I will pass in silence.
Susan Sarandon is correct. Far better to accelerate the tide’s regression now than delay with unrealistic hope and endure far more pain all around later. Besides, Hillary can live out her remaining years…probably very limited… earning more than a President’s salary as an ombuds(wo)man for AIPAC if she doesn’t end up in jail. Hard to reconcile what I witnessed in the debate last night (Trump OBVIOUSLY a big winner in spite of highly biased moderator and Zioglobalist-in-arms Raddatz) with the post-debate MSM analyses on the internet this morning. Impossible to not wince at the blatant partiality of the commentary by the mouthpieces of the money worshipers.
In an unwinnable scenario, short of Jesus showing up and running for POTUS, Trump is the only option. I do not believe he will solve things, because they are unsolvable. But I do believe he is the only one who might actually keep things from being worse than they otherwise would be. So I don’t totally agree with the notion that he’s going to blow things up because of his unsuitability for office–rather he will blow things up because they are going to blow up anyway, and he will be the spark that ignites the long dead forest. Trump will begin dismantling the charade so something better might have a chance of surviving in its place. In fact, I actually can’t think of a policy statement he’s made I couldn’t get behind. Except he said Snowden was a traitor. That’s almost enough for me to reject Trump. But no one, sadly, is perfect.
Lord Acton pretty much covered it all. Not much left to say but “Power corrupts,,,,absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Ilargi, am I correct you are not a citizen of the USA? If not, you are not eligible to vote, whomever you prefer. That burden falls on the imperfect electorate whose government, in fractal terms, exists as a compilation of all our aptitudes and accomplishments, our failings and frustrations. Woe betide us all, especially the poor sap or sapess who becomes our next president, if events proceed as you and Nicole insist. Rather than criticizing individuals, kindly offer one constructive idea each of us can do in our own lives to better prepare for the future. Thank you.
Golly, Shak, generally Raul and Nicole offer nothing but constructive ideas you can use at home. One of those above is, “Don’t take it all too seriously.” But if you look to the very latest article, you’ll see a laundry list of how when the very character of the money system changes, the electoral and political system must as well. And what this will mean at your house: https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/10/the-imf-and-all-the-other-losers/
Everyone has opinions. Certainly the Americans do about leaders in France, Britain, Germany…and Syria, Libya, and Egypt, in which they enforce the selection of their favorite leader at the point of a gun, and nevermind economic collapse and WWIII falling on the Deplorables.
Not trying to step on any toes, it’s just what I do naturally…
“<i>There is zero proof of that, as there is of everything the US claims about Russia.</i>”
Wow, that has to be a gross exaggeration but, otherwise, a nice piece. I hate Trump as much as Clinton but I totally see the bias in the media at almost every report. Trump’s lewd remarks a decade ago were just that, and indefensible, but they were just as he says, locker room talk (or bar-room talk); I’ve heard almost as bad myself from people who are fantastic blokes otherwise. Seems that fantasizing is wrong, now.
Yes, I think crude private conversations are completely defensible. In fact it’s strangely ironic that the progressive left fought for twenty years to give us the right to be sexually free adults with the liberty to live our private sex lives the way we want, but all of a sudden these same “champions” of freedom have become some kind of morality police that deems sex talk unacceptable. I will continue to defend my right, and anyone else’s right, to talk about sex in private conversations, full stop. The day that my private conversations about my sex life become illegal will be a very scary day indeed, and it seems that’s the direction the regressive left is taking us today.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.