Didn't know about the background of the site but they do cite the actual web address of the source data and that goes back to OMB.
Vote for Mr. Trump why ? Check out please
- Thread starter Raj-the -cuck
- Start date
If you believe Trump can make America great again, you can believe in anything. (especially the staged 9/11 where the victims were Christians and Muslims but the real agenda was to loot Afghan economy and win the confidence of naive people to avoid future disgracement).
Not a Trump supporter but... Afghanistan has an economy? Really? I know they have some bomb ass Opium but is there an oil field there we missed?
Yeah, I can just see Trump dealings with Iran, North Korea, and Russia. If Trump gets elected, we better go into "war mode" pretty quickly and bring back the draft.
Going to just agree to disagree.
@danj, I agree with you 100% about Sanders being a far-left socialist, Hillary being a dishonest, most self-serving candidate in the last 20 years and the character of Claire from 'House of Cards' who is all about strategizing with her husband to climb to the top to become POTUS one day her self is based on Hillary I think too.
However Hillary is definitely not a socialist and along with her Husband has done more to help Wallstreet and crony capitalism than even the Repubs have. While Hillary should be indicted on her negligence and mishandling of sensitive information with her own personal server is a clear violation of US law and anyone else who wasn't her would have been indicted already she is still the lesser of two incompetent evils compared to Trump.
Here is some info on Hillary's Crony Capitalistic dealings that even Sanders has been attacking her on with her coziness with Wallstreet and big money.
Here Come the Cronies – Buffett and Blackstone (One of the Largest Wallstreet Firms) President Launch $33,400 a Plate Hillary Clinton Fundraiser
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Dec 4, 2015 at 3:04 pm
All you need to know about Warren Buffett can be gleaned from this one sentence he uttered in a Bloomberg interview earlier this year:
Clinton has a vision for America that’s very similar to mine.
Indeed, and that vision is one of crony capitalism and oligarchy. Two things both Buffett and Hillary have a long history of supporting.
As such, he’s busying running a $33,400 a plate fundraiser for this faux populist, along with the President of private equity giant Blackstone. Blackstone, of course, is one of the firms that benefited most from the Obama administration’s banker bailouts, by quickly buying up all the foreclosed homes only to turn around rent them right back to the peasants who were evicted. Here are a few articles on the topic to get caught up.
Read the Full Article »
ref: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/page/2/?s=Hillary
Former Citigroup Trader Explains How Wall Street Came to Own the Clintons and the Democratic Party
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Jan 29, 2016 at 1:45 pm
Former FX trader at Citigroup, Chris Arnade, just penned a poignant and entertaining Op-ed at The Guardian detailing how Wall Street came to own the Democratic Party via the Clintons over the course of his career. While anyone reading this already knows how completely bought and paid for the Clintons are by the big financial interests, the article provides some interesting anecdotes as well as a classic quote about a young Larry Summers.
Here are some choice excerpts from the piece:
I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.
That is why when I recently went to see Hillary Clinton campaign for president and speak about reforming Wall Street I was skeptical. What I heard hasn’t changed that skepticism. The policies she offers are mid-course corrections. In the Clintons’ world, Wall Street stays at the center, economically and politically. Given Wall Street’s power and influence, that is a dangerous place to leave them.
The administration’s economic policy took shape as trickle down, Democratic style. They championed free trade, pushing Nafta. They reformed welfare, buying into the conservative view that poverty was about dependency, not about situation. They threw the old left a few bones, repealing prior tax cuts on the rich, but used the increased revenues mostly on Wall Street’s favorite issue: cutting the debt.
Most importantly, when faced with their first financial crisis, they bailed out Wall Street.
Read more:
Ref: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/0...to-own-the-clintons-and-the-democratic-party/
Ex-Goldman Banker Who Profited from Housing Crash and Subsequent Bailout Donates $100k to Hillary SuperPAC
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Dec 4, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Hillary Clinton is so completely owned and captured by Wall Street, she recently decided the only way to defend such blatant ties is to shamelessly say she helped them because of 9/11.
In case you need further evidence of how confident financial cronies are that she will do their every bidding, we learn the following from the Intercept:
The fact remains that the Clinton campaign is fundraising heavily from Wall Street. Contributions from the securities and investment industries comprise her fourth-largest pile of campaign money, totaling $2,044,471. Commercial banks have given $443,519 directly to her campaign.
One major donor to her Super PAC, Priorities USA, is Donald Mullen, Jr., a man who was singularly able to profit from the financial crisis both before and after the crash of the housing bubble.
Read the Full Article »
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/page/3/?s=Hillary
“What Difference Does it Make” – Hillary Clinton Emails Reveal More Shameless Cronyism
Michael Krieger | Posted Tuesday Mar 15, 2016 at 11:21 am
Excerpt:
"When it comes to raking in questionable dough via the abuse of political power, the Clintons are in a league all to themselves. In fact, their shamelessness is so rampant and sloppy, the only explanation is they simply thought no one would ever dare hold them to account.
Here’s the latest example, from Raw Story:
Student loan debt continues to be one of the largest economic issues plaguing the U.S., with the total amount topping $1.3 trillion. Hillary Clinton’s higher education policy touts debt-free degrees for underprivileged students. But is she being genuine in her efforts to address the issue?
While Hillary loves to rail against shady for-profit colleges on the campaign trail, she does have some financial ties to them that are likely to shape whether or not she holds them accountable for ripping students off.
It was recently revealed through Hillary’s emails that during her first year as Secretary of State she insisted that Laureate Education be included in the guest list for an education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.
“It’s a for-profit model that should be represented,” she wrote in the August 2009 email, and as a result, a senior vice president at Laureate was added to the guest list. Several months later, former President Bill Clinton became an honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, which turned out to be incredibly lucrative. He was paid a cool $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 for his role with the for-profit college.
Also consider that while 12 percent of the country’s students go to for-profits, a whopping 96 percent of them have to take out federal loans. As a result, for-profit colleges account for 25 percent of all federal financial aid dollars and half of all Department of Defense Tuition Assistance funds."
ref: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/0...linton-emails-reveal-more-shameless-cronyism/
More examples of 'PYSCHOLOGICAL WARFARE' Being conducted on the American Population:
America’s Corrupt Media – How Reporters Took Direct Orders from Hillary Clinton’s Staff
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Feb 12, 2016 at 9:24 am
Excerpt:
It is the job of the Fourth Estate to act as a check and a restraint on the others, to illumine the dark corners of Ministries, to debunk the bureaucrat, to throw often unwelcome light on the measures and motives of our rulers. ‘News’, as Hearst once remarked, ‘is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising’. That job is an essential one and it is bound to be unpopular; indeed, in a democracy, it may be argued that the more unpopular the newspapers are with the politicians the better they are performing their most vital task.
– Brian R. Roberts from a October 29, 1955 article in the London periodical “Time & Tide”
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.
– H.L. Mencken
If you really want to know how weak Hillary Clinton is as a candidate, you merely have to appreciate that the U.S. media essentially acts as her own personal PR firm, yet the public still recognizes her as a dishonest crook. Brace yourself for the following story, it’s huge.
Earlier this week, we learned from Gawker that at least one U.S. reporter traded content in his article for information from Hillary Clinton’s staff while she was Secretary of State. In what is an almost hard to believe exchange, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, agreed to insert specific words and imagery into his article in return for a copy of Hillary’s upcoming speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.
We have the exact exchange thanks to emails released from a 2012 Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA).
ref: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/0...ok-direct-orders-from-hillary-clintons-staff/
Leaked Documents Show How Blackstone Fleeces Taxpayers via Public Pension Funds
Michael Krieger | Posted Monday May 5, 2014 at 11:47 am
The following story by David Sirota at PandoDaily is simply excellent. It zeros in on the secretive and rapidly expanding relationship between private equity firms and the public pensions that invest in them. It shows a crony capitalist love affair greased by lobbyist influence peddlers known as “placement agents,” as well as non-public agreements between PE firms and public pensions chock full of conflicts of interest, extremely high fees and underperformance. Unbelievably, in many instances the trustees of the public pensions are not allowed to know what funds the “fund of funds” invest in. This makes due diligence impossible, and in one particularly egregious example it led the Kentucky Retirement Systems to unknowingly invest in SAC Capital despite the fact it was under SEC investigation at the time.
Furthermore, with the Wall Street Journal reporting back in 2011 that $37 of every $100 dollars invested in Blackstone’s investment pool coming from state and local pension plans, it appears that taxpayers are once again being fleeced by the financial oligarch class. Additionally, it appears to answer a recent question I posed in my piece: Is the Credit Bubble Popping? Carlyle Group Warns on Frothiness and Junk Bond Deals Get Pulled. After reading about a growing pool of insane “dividend deals” and payment-in-kind” notes being issued, I wondered who in their right mind was buying these deals. Well, based on the complete lack of competence and due diligence happening at public pension funds, I think we have solved part of the mystery.
The chief villain in this article will be no stranger to readers of this site. It is Blackstone, the private equity giant who I have criticized many times on these pages for buying up homes all across America in “all cash” deals, making homes unaffordable to average American peasants. Of course, Blackstone is just one of many, but given its size and influence, highlighting its practices is probably quite representative.
Here are some excerpts from the article. Read it and weep:
When you think of the term “public pension fund,” you probably imagine hyper-cautious investment strategies kept in check by no-nonsense fiduciary laws.
But you probably shouldn’t.
An increasing number of those pension funds are being stealthily diverted into high-fee, high-risk “alternative investments” that deliver spectacular rewards for the Wall Street firms paid to manage them – but not such great returns for pensioners and taxpayers.
And yet… despite the fact that they deal with the expenditure of taxpayer money, the agreements between public pension systems and alternative investment firms are almost entirely secret.
Until now.
Thanks to confidential documents exclusively obtained by Pando, we can now see some of the language and fee structures in the agreements between the “alternative investment” industry and major public pension funds. Taken together, the documents raise serious questions about whether the government employees, trustees and politicians overseeing major public pension funds are shirking their fiduciary responsibilities under the law when they are cementing “alternative” investment deals.
The documents, which were involved in a recent SEC inquiry into the $14.5 billion Kentucky Retirement Systems (KRS), were handed to us by SEC whistleblower Chris Tobe, an investment consultant and former trustee of the KRS. Tobe has also written a book — “Kentucky Fried Pensions” — about the scandalous state of the Kentucky public pensions system.
The documents provided by Tobe (embedded below) specifically detail Kentucky’s dealings with Blackstone – a giant Wall Street investment firm which has deployed a platoon of registered lobbyists in Kentucky and whose employees are major financial backers of Kentucky U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R).
Read the Full Article »
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/0...axpayers-via-public-pension-funds/#more-12858
Wall Street on Parade Explores JP Morgan’s Disturbing Links to the CIA, NYPD and More…
Michael Krieger | Posted Thursday Feb 13, 2014 at 7:48 am
Pam Martens of Wall Street on Parade does some excellent work, and I have featured her articles several times on this site. Most recently, I highlighted her article: New York is Drowning in Bribes and Corruption, which was a particularly popular post. In the article I have chosen today, she dives into a topic frequently discussed on the Wall Street on Parade site. Namely, the incestuous and entirely inappropriate relationship between JP Morgan and law enforcement, including the CIA itself. No wonder no one ever gets in trouble or goes to jail…
Here are some excerpts from her latest:
The nonstop crime news swirling around JPMorgan Chase for a solid 18 months has started to feel a little spooky – they do lots of crime but never any time; and with each closed case, a trail of unanswered questions remains in the public’s mind.
The price of no prosecution.
Full article here.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/0...ng-links-to-the-cia-nypd-and-more/#more-10784
Last edited:
A good tweet from a UK person i saw:
Whether you vote for Hillary or Trump - your still voting for America's upperclass and Ultra-rich who only serve themselves and people like them who make up 5% of the world's population and control 95% of the world's wealth. Sometimes the objectives of the upperclass who have billions of dollars to finance the expensive US political office campaigns overlap with the middle-class and poor but its not that often. Hence the middle-class and poor are pissed-off and I get it.
Our "Government of the people, by the people, for the people...," is really a Government selected and elected by the DC Insider Cabal Establishment who work not for 'the (common US citizen) people' but only for a select percentage of the people who stuff their pockets to help them remain career politicians such as lobbyists for large corporations, PACs, & large donors individual donors.
Open your eyes, be wise and know the facts - Hillary can't be painted as a socialist and even Bernie Sanders has been pointing that out. I'm not a socialist either but I don't believe in a Big Government brought out by a small Ultra-wealthy elite either. I know people are being exploited so just a few people at the top can make obscene amounts of cash with relatively little bit of work equity (*******, sweat, and tears) while the rest of the majority work like mules carrying the load of weight and get little compensation for it. Its just plain exploitation.
------------------
Charting the American Oligarchy – How 0.01% of the Population Contributes 42% of All Campaign Cash
Michael Krieger | Posted Monday Apr 27, 2015 at 11:43 am
This is an economic fight, but this is also a political fight. The biggest financial institutions aren’t just big – they wield enormous political power. Last December, Citibank lobbyists wrote an amendment to Dodd-Frank and persuaded their friends in Washington to attach it to a bill that had to pass or the government would have been shut down. And when there was pushback over the amendment, the CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, personally got on the phone with Members of Congress to secure their votes. How many individuals who are looking for a mortgage or a credit card could make that call? How many small banks could have their lobbyists write an amendment and threaten to shut down the US government if they didn’t get it? None. Keep in mind that the big banks aren’t trying to make the market more competitive; they just want rules that create more advantages for themselves. The system is rigged and those who rigged it want to keep it that way.
– From Senator Elizabeth Warren’s excellent speech: “The Unfinished Business of Financial Reform”
This is probably one of the most important posts I’ll write all year. The reason is because in order to displace the current paradigm, the public needs to deeply and intellectually understand exactly where the real cancer resides.
I never liked the saying: “We are the 99%.” While admittedly catchy and effective as a slogan, I think it is ultimately divisive and counterproductive. The reason I say this is because the statement itself alienates much needed allies for no good reason.
In a country with a population of 320 million, the 1% represents 3.2 million people, which is a pretty big number. While the 1% certainly have far superior material lives compared to the 99%, that doesn’t mean a particularly large percentage of them are thieves, cronies or oligarchs. In fact, it behooves people interested in transitioning to another paradigm to court as many of them as possible to the cause. It is very useful to have well meaning people with resources and connections on your side. To blithely assume there aren’t plenty of potential allies from a pool of 3.2 million is committing strategic suicide. Indeed, John Hancock came from one of the wealthiest families in the American colonies in the run up to the Revolution, yet he isn’t remembered by history for his family’s tremendous wealth, but for his signature:
The moment you proudly espouse, “I am the 99%,” you are being tribal and open yourself up to irrational thought. You are essentially saying 3.2 million of your countrymen and women are in some way the enemy merely because of their income. You are lumping a lot of very decent — albeit wealthy — people inappropriately into the oligarch bucket. While many of them are indeed oligarch wannabes or their well paid henchmen, many of them are not. You create a barrier between yourselves and them. This works to make many of the 1% reflexively align with each other when they should be aligning with you. It’s a pretty stupid strategy to alienate millions of people you know nothing about.
The root of the problem is the oligarchy, run by, well, oligarchs. Here is how I defined the term in the post: Inside the Mind of an Oligarch – Sheldon Adelson Proclaims “I Don’t Like Journalism.”
In a nutshell, while many oligarchs are extremely wealthy (or have access to extreme wealth), not all people with extreme wealth are oligarchs. The term oligarch is reserved for those with extreme wealth who also want to control the political process, policy levers and most other aspects of the lives of the citizenry in a top-down tyrannical and undemocratic manner. They think they know best about pretty much everything, and believe unelected technocrats who share their worldview should be empowered so that they can unilaterally make all of society’s important decisions. The unwashed masses (plebs) in their minds are unnecessary distractions who must to be told what to do. Useless eaters who need to be brainwashed into worshipping the oligarch mindset, or turned into apathetic automatons incapable or unwilling to engage in critical thought. Either outcome is equally acceptable and equally encouraged.
So oligarchs are the problem, but there aren’t 3.2 million of them. In case you missed it the first time around, I discussed this in the post, Where Does the Real Problem Reside? Two Charts Showing the 0.01% vs. the 1%. In that piece, I highlighted the following chart, which showed how the 1% has more or less been treading water while the wealth of the 0.01% has exploded in recent years:
While that chart is disturbing in its own right, over the weekend, I came across another one that simply blew me away. It was from Palo Alto based political data compiling company CrowdPac, and it showed the percentage of political contributions emanating from the 0.01% of income earners. Here is what it showed:
You’ll notice a couple of trends from the chart above, but one that is crystal clear is that although the trend has been higher for decades, it hit escape velocity since the bailouts (and the Citizens United decision). These two things resulted in an increased concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the oligarchy (the bailouts), and provided an avenue for this wealth and power to be wielded (Citizens United). The bailouts did very little to help the American economy, but served as a mind-boggling windfall for the plutocracy.
There are roughly 250 million adults in America, so 0.01% of that is about 25,000 people. I would argue even this number is too high. In fact, I want to find out information about what percentage of political contributions come from the 0.001%. That number will probably get us much closer to the root of the problem. It is far more possible and efficient to closely monitor 2,500 people as opposed to 25,000. After all, 25,000 people don’t regularly call Congress and get the specific legislation they want passed. 25,000 people don’t have a direct line to the Federal Reserve, but people like Jamie Dimon do, and it is these people we must watch like hawks. If we can zero in on the 2,500 wealthiest people, we can also efficiently pick out the worst offenders, as opposed to just demonizing people based on wealth, even within the 0.001%. You can’t easily separate the good from the bad with a sample of 25,000 people, but you can with 2,500 (and that smaller group has much more pull anyway).
Far fewer people are calling the shots in America than you could ever imagine, and we must zero in with laser like precision on them, as opposed to alienating 3.2 million people. A more accurate slogan would be: “We are not the Oligarchy.”
For related articles, see:
Portrait of the American Oligarchy – The Very Troubling Income and Wealth Trends Since 1989
When Asked if the U.S. is a Capitalist Democracy or Oligarchy, Janet Yellen Can’t Answer…
New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
ref: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/0...pulation-contributes-42-of-all-campaign-cash/
We live in an Oligarchy and the best Democratic-Republic that money can buy. The American middle-class are living under a modern-day trapped in debt/wage-slave/serfdom system to the upper-class. Your wages don't go up as fast as the rate of inflation on goods you purchase there fore the middle class purchasing power is shrinking, you make more purchases on credit that keeps revolving than you can pay off, and they are none too wise on what to do to stop it besides thinking doing the same thing over and over again with the electorate officials that are selected for you are going to change the status-quo. No, the upperclass only interest is in laying off workers and off-shoring jobs to minimize the labor expense to help increase profit margins between revenues on the corporate balance sheets therefore maximizing their take-home bonus pay of the largest share-holders (WallStreet and wealthy Business Execs). After-all this is how capitalism works right, someone has to do the pimping, and someone has to do the hoeing.Our "Government of the people, by the people, for the people...," is really a Government selected and elected by the DC Insider Cabal Establishment who work not for 'the (common US citizen) people' but only for a select percentage of the people who stuff their pockets to help them remain career politicians such as lobbyists for large corporations, PACs, & large donors individual donors.
Open your eyes, be wise and know the facts - Hillary can't be painted as a socialist and even Bernie Sanders has been pointing that out. I'm not a socialist either but I don't believe in a Big Government brought out by a small Ultra-wealthy elite either. I know people are being exploited so just a few people at the top can make obscene amounts of cash with relatively little bit of work equity (*******, sweat, and tears) while the rest of the majority work like mules carrying the load of weight and get little compensation for it. Its just plain exploitation.
------------------
Charting the American Oligarchy – How 0.01% of the Population Contributes 42% of All Campaign Cash
Michael Krieger | Posted Monday Apr 27, 2015 at 11:43 am
This is an economic fight, but this is also a political fight. The biggest financial institutions aren’t just big – they wield enormous political power. Last December, Citibank lobbyists wrote an amendment to Dodd-Frank and persuaded their friends in Washington to attach it to a bill that had to pass or the government would have been shut down. And when there was pushback over the amendment, the CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, personally got on the phone with Members of Congress to secure their votes. How many individuals who are looking for a mortgage or a credit card could make that call? How many small banks could have their lobbyists write an amendment and threaten to shut down the US government if they didn’t get it? None. Keep in mind that the big banks aren’t trying to make the market more competitive; they just want rules that create more advantages for themselves. The system is rigged and those who rigged it want to keep it that way.
– From Senator Elizabeth Warren’s excellent speech: “The Unfinished Business of Financial Reform”
This is probably one of the most important posts I’ll write all year. The reason is because in order to displace the current paradigm, the public needs to deeply and intellectually understand exactly where the real cancer resides.
I never liked the saying: “We are the 99%.” While admittedly catchy and effective as a slogan, I think it is ultimately divisive and counterproductive. The reason I say this is because the statement itself alienates much needed allies for no good reason.
In a country with a population of 320 million, the 1% represents 3.2 million people, which is a pretty big number. While the 1% certainly have far superior material lives compared to the 99%, that doesn’t mean a particularly large percentage of them are thieves, cronies or oligarchs. In fact, it behooves people interested in transitioning to another paradigm to court as many of them as possible to the cause. It is very useful to have well meaning people with resources and connections on your side. To blithely assume there aren’t plenty of potential allies from a pool of 3.2 million is committing strategic suicide. Indeed, John Hancock came from one of the wealthiest families in the American colonies in the run up to the Revolution, yet he isn’t remembered by history for his family’s tremendous wealth, but for his signature:
The moment you proudly espouse, “I am the 99%,” you are being tribal and open yourself up to irrational thought. You are essentially saying 3.2 million of your countrymen and women are in some way the enemy merely because of their income. You are lumping a lot of very decent — albeit wealthy — people inappropriately into the oligarch bucket. While many of them are indeed oligarch wannabes or their well paid henchmen, many of them are not. You create a barrier between yourselves and them. This works to make many of the 1% reflexively align with each other when they should be aligning with you. It’s a pretty stupid strategy to alienate millions of people you know nothing about.
The root of the problem is the oligarchy, run by, well, oligarchs. Here is how I defined the term in the post: Inside the Mind of an Oligarch – Sheldon Adelson Proclaims “I Don’t Like Journalism.”
In a nutshell, while many oligarchs are extremely wealthy (or have access to extreme wealth), not all people with extreme wealth are oligarchs. The term oligarch is reserved for those with extreme wealth who also want to control the political process, policy levers and most other aspects of the lives of the citizenry in a top-down tyrannical and undemocratic manner. They think they know best about pretty much everything, and believe unelected technocrats who share their worldview should be empowered so that they can unilaterally make all of society’s important decisions. The unwashed masses (plebs) in their minds are unnecessary distractions who must to be told what to do. Useless eaters who need to be brainwashed into worshipping the oligarch mindset, or turned into apathetic automatons incapable or unwilling to engage in critical thought. Either outcome is equally acceptable and equally encouraged.
So oligarchs are the problem, but there aren’t 3.2 million of them. In case you missed it the first time around, I discussed this in the post, Where Does the Real Problem Reside? Two Charts Showing the 0.01% vs. the 1%. In that piece, I highlighted the following chart, which showed how the 1% has more or less been treading water while the wealth of the 0.01% has exploded in recent years:
While that chart is disturbing in its own right, over the weekend, I came across another one that simply blew me away. It was from Palo Alto based political data compiling company CrowdPac, and it showed the percentage of political contributions emanating from the 0.01% of income earners. Here is what it showed:
You’ll notice a couple of trends from the chart above, but one that is crystal clear is that although the trend has been higher for decades, it hit escape velocity since the bailouts (and the Citizens United decision). These two things resulted in an increased concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the oligarchy (the bailouts), and provided an avenue for this wealth and power to be wielded (Citizens United). The bailouts did very little to help the American economy, but served as a mind-boggling windfall for the plutocracy.
There are roughly 250 million adults in America, so 0.01% of that is about 25,000 people. I would argue even this number is too high. In fact, I want to find out information about what percentage of political contributions come from the 0.001%. That number will probably get us much closer to the root of the problem. It is far more possible and efficient to closely monitor 2,500 people as opposed to 25,000. After all, 25,000 people don’t regularly call Congress and get the specific legislation they want passed. 25,000 people don’t have a direct line to the Federal Reserve, but people like Jamie Dimon do, and it is these people we must watch like hawks. If we can zero in on the 2,500 wealthiest people, we can also efficiently pick out the worst offenders, as opposed to just demonizing people based on wealth, even within the 0.001%. You can’t easily separate the good from the bad with a sample of 25,000 people, but you can with 2,500 (and that smaller group has much more pull anyway).
Far fewer people are calling the shots in America than you could ever imagine, and we must zero in with laser like precision on them, as opposed to alienating 3.2 million people. A more accurate slogan would be: “We are not the Oligarchy.”
For related articles, see:
Portrait of the American Oligarchy – The Very Troubling Income and Wealth Trends Since 1989
When Asked if the U.S. is a Capitalist Democracy or Oligarchy, Janet Yellen Can’t Answer…
New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
ref: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/0...pulation-contributes-42-of-all-campaign-cash/
Last edited:
is she really anymore dishonest than anyone else that has run.... besides the Benghazi committee has gone out of their way to make her look that way... and even a few republicans have admitted so!
so take away Benghazi and now what is dishonest about her?
there have been 3 different republican committees investigate the thing and found no wrong doing... but that didn't satisfy Mr gowdy!
If she wasn't running for office that whole thing would have been done and dismissed a year ago!
Man like I said I can go in on Hillary but I need to do some other ******* today, but here is some more data to dump on her (I do my homework as you can see my friend. Too many dots linking up on why not to trust hillary):
Must Read – “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote”
Michael Krieger | Posted Wednesday Feb 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm
Why the black community supports Hillary Clinton is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps someone can rectify my ignorance in the comment section, but it appears irrational to support a person so single-mindedly focused on her own wealth and power, as opposed to someone genuinely interested in helping poor and struggling communities.
Perhaps it’s merely a name recognition thing, or the fact that her husband was so popular with the black community. I don’t know, but what I do know is Hillary Clinton is running for President because she wants the Presidency. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is running because he sees America in deep trouble. There’s a huge difference.
– From the post: Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders
Earlier today, we learned that Ta-Nehisi Coates will be voting for Bernie Sanders. A few hours later, a hugely important piece written by Michelle Alexander at the Nation began making the rounds titled: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote. Taken together, these two revelations could represent a major turning point with regard to Bernie Sanders’ success within the black community. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her lead among blacks cut in half over the next few weeks. It’s about to get real.
Here are a few excerpts from the fantastic Nation article which outlines how disastrous the Clinton administration was when it came to the black community.
Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.
Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.
And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.
What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?
No. Quite the opposite.
Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on *******—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder an addictive white substance, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for *******-law enforcement.
Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”
When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all ******* offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal *******. Prison admissions for ******* offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.
Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.” When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.
read rest of article here:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/02/10/must-read-why-hillary-clinton-doesnt-deserve-the-black-vote/
How Progressive – Private Prison Company Lobbyists are Raising Funds for Hillary
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Jul 24, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Earlier this week, we learned that lobbyists for Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft and the Telecom industry are actively raising funds for the pantsuit revolutionary, Hillary Clinton. Today, we can add private prison companies to the list. Because private prisons are sooooooo progressive.
From the Intercept:
As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton.
Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future.
Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.
You ready?
For related articles, see:
A Deep Look into the Shady World of the Private Prison Industry
Video of the Day – John Oliver on Municipal Fines and Private Probation Companies
Profiting from Prisoners – How Jails Partner with Private Firms to Charge for Video Calls While Ending Visitation Rights
Poverty Profiteering in 2014 – Introducing Private Probation Companies
FBI Launches Investigation into a Private Prison So Violent it is Called “Gladiator School”
One thing that is very common inbetween US and India is that we are blinded by the media and when we discover the reality, we feel ashamed how we previously imagined things.
The oil reserves, gold, afghan carpets, cotton, coal, fruits are some of the major exports of Afghanistan. I am not Afghani but I educate myself with the reality.
Do not believe everything media tells you.
@8inchoffun - true some people are blinded and mislead by the media and others are just plain uneducated ignorant of the facts and fail to study or do the homework necessary to 'educate' themselves as you put it.
You are right that Afghan has exports outside of opium as they have alot of precious metals and jewels as well. I had a friend who was from Afghan that would get alot of jewels and metals and from Afghan and sell them here at tripple the price he paid for it in Afghan. He was making some nice returns.
~BBB76
The sad part is most of the people are blinded by negative media, do not believe in diversification and are racist scumbags. Trump is a businessman, he knows about these statistics and he will take every advantage of it.
I am curious about that "secret" that trump claims to know about Cruz's wife.... be willing to bet it has something to do with that "loan" they got before the campaign...just my guess
but I'm sure if Cruz should happen to get the nomination... which id real unlikely I think.... I'm sure it will come out
Donald the Dictator?
March 22, 2016 by Bill Bonner, Chairman, Bonner & Partners
Bill Bonner's Diary
Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too.
– Marcus Aurelius
Caesar in the Flesh
Meanwhile, President Obama visited Cuba, hoping to be remembered by historians for more than just Obamacare.
And the presidential primaries continued to be a source of amazement and entertainment.
It is not often that we get to use the word “apoplectic.” But this seems to be an occasion for it.
Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times in London, is practically melting down at the prospect of a Trump win:
The U.S. is the greatest republic since Rome, the bastion of democracy, the guarantor of the liberal global order. It would be a global disaster if Mr. Trump were to become president. Even if he fails, he has rendered the unthinkable sayable.
Mr. Trump is a promoter of paranoid fantasies, a xenophobe, and an ignoramus. His business consists of the erection of ugly monuments to his own vanity. He has no experience of political office.
An American “Caesarism” has now become flesh.
Quoting leading neocon Robert Kagan, Wolf writes that Trump is the “GOP’s Frankenstein monster.”
If you have any doubt about the kind of monster Trump may be, just Google “Trump Hitler.” You’ll find 2,700,000 results, including a number of videos.
Some complain about The Donald being compared to Hitler, suggesting that a comparison to FDR would be more appropriate.
Others are of “Hitler” complaining about being compared to Donald Trump…
Meanwhile, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren says Trump is an “insecure loser who reminds me of Hitler.”
And South of the Border, the Mexican president… along with two of his predecessors… have all found similarities between A.H. and the Republican frontrunner.
The Road to Tyranny
Is Trump really like Hitler?
Trump has no moustache. He doesn’t speak German. He has the “strongest Jewish ties of all the candidates,” he tells New Yorkers. His *******, Ivanka, is married to an orthodox Jew and has converted to the faith.
What kind of Hitler is this?
No, to understand Donald J. Trump, you have to go further back… to a Time Before Pants.
“If there were anybody who would have been unsurprised by the sudden rise of the Donald,” writes colleague Van Bryan in Classical Wisdom Weekly, “it would have been Plato.”
Plato believed that democracy would be a fleeting and unhappy phase of human government. It was the “worst” kind of government, he said… partly because it led inevitably to tyranny.
In Plato’s rendering of political cycles, the best form of government is the Aristocracy – with superior, high-minded, selfless, and capable people in the driver’s seat.
Think Jefferson or Adams.
This typically gives way to a degenerate form of government, Timocracy, in which the leaders were still public spirited but less competent.
Then, the rich and powerful (the cronies) take advantage of weak government by asserting their own authority. Plato called this form of government an oligarchy.
Suddenly or gradually, the little people get tired of being exploited. They take control of things in a democracy.
The Plagues of Every City
Plato seems to have little respect for and little confidence in democratic government.
The number of “drones” (we would call them “zombies”), hoping to get something for nothing, multiplies. As Plato wrote of the “drones”:
[They] are the plagues of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the good physician and lawgiver of the State ought, like the wise bee-master, to keep them (drones) at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever coming in.
Freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State… And in the democracy, they are certainly more intensified.
Public discipline disintegrates. Chaos and disorder increase. Budgets get out of balance. Markets become volatile. Pointless wars proliferate. Finally, the “drones” accept a dictator who promises to restore order (“Make America Great Again”).
To which Donald Trump replies: “Hey, they love me in Athens.”
Regards,
Bill
ref: http://bonnerandpartners.com/donald-the-dictator/
It is extremely disheartening to read in your articles – as one can find also elsewhere and everywhere – that Donald Trump is an outsider.
He is the quintessential INSIDER. Please see interview with Sean Hannity. He explained his large and extensive donations to politicians throughout his career (and at all levels): so they would answer his calls.
In attempting to explain his huge donations to Democrats – to Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to name a few – he revealed himself.
– Eleanor N.
You bet I like Trump’s honesty, forthrightness, humbleness, unquestioned ability, 100% commitment, fighting spirit, inability to be bought, sold or influenced; not looking for a legacy nor power nor fame nor riches nor success, nor the next rung on the ladder, nor recognition, nor influence. I like him for what he is doing to right the GOP, but most of all to oversee Making America Great Again.
– Robert S.
I’m taking my mind off the political circus by going to my Libertarian Party state convention as a delegate… and from there to the national convention to make sure I don’t have to vote for a whip-wielding lion tamer bent on making us obedient, or a tattooed lady, or a clown driven by a need to be the center of attention.
There are more candidates out there. But the problem for libertarian voters is recruiting candidates who aren’t in it for the personal attention or the personal power. The LP is much better at doing this than either of the two dominant parties… in part because they were anti-politics and in part because we have little power to offer a candidate.
But we do give power to voters by offering them another candidate. One thing’s for sure: Refusing to vote hasn’t ever worked.
– Sandra K.
Have you considered the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
to pillory Hillary or merely to thump that chump Trump?
– Nicholas P.
Do you have a personal story to share about one of the presidential candidates?
Bill and the team would love to hear from you. Write us at feedback@bonnerandpartners.com.
March 22, 2016 by Bill Bonner, Chairman, Bonner & Partners
Bill Bonner's Diary
– Marcus Aurelius
Caesar in the Flesh
Meanwhile, President Obama visited Cuba, hoping to be remembered by historians for more than just Obamacare.
And the presidential primaries continued to be a source of amazement and entertainment.
It is not often that we get to use the word “apoplectic.” But this seems to be an occasion for it.
Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times in London, is practically melting down at the prospect of a Trump win:
The U.S. is the greatest republic since Rome, the bastion of democracy, the guarantor of the liberal global order. It would be a global disaster if Mr. Trump were to become president. Even if he fails, he has rendered the unthinkable sayable.
Mr. Trump is a promoter of paranoid fantasies, a xenophobe, and an ignoramus. His business consists of the erection of ugly monuments to his own vanity. He has no experience of political office.
An American “Caesarism” has now become flesh.
Quoting leading neocon Robert Kagan, Wolf writes that Trump is the “GOP’s Frankenstein monster.”
If you have any doubt about the kind of monster Trump may be, just Google “Trump Hitler.” You’ll find 2,700,000 results, including a number of videos.
Some complain about The Donald being compared to Hitler, suggesting that a comparison to FDR would be more appropriate.
Others are of “Hitler” complaining about being compared to Donald Trump…
Meanwhile, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren says Trump is an “insecure loser who reminds me of Hitler.”
And South of the Border, the Mexican president… along with two of his predecessors… have all found similarities between A.H. and the Republican frontrunner.
The Road to Tyranny
Is Trump really like Hitler?
Trump has no moustache. He doesn’t speak German. He has the “strongest Jewish ties of all the candidates,” he tells New Yorkers. His *******, Ivanka, is married to an orthodox Jew and has converted to the faith.
What kind of Hitler is this?
No, to understand Donald J. Trump, you have to go further back… to a Time Before Pants.
“If there were anybody who would have been unsurprised by the sudden rise of the Donald,” writes colleague Van Bryan in Classical Wisdom Weekly, “it would have been Plato.”
Plato believed that democracy would be a fleeting and unhappy phase of human government. It was the “worst” kind of government, he said… partly because it led inevitably to tyranny.
In Plato’s rendering of political cycles, the best form of government is the Aristocracy – with superior, high-minded, selfless, and capable people in the driver’s seat.
Think Jefferson or Adams.
This typically gives way to a degenerate form of government, Timocracy, in which the leaders were still public spirited but less competent.
Then, the rich and powerful (the cronies) take advantage of weak government by asserting their own authority. Plato called this form of government an oligarchy.
Suddenly or gradually, the little people get tired of being exploited. They take control of things in a democracy.
The Plagues of Every City
Plato seems to have little respect for and little confidence in democratic government.
The number of “drones” (we would call them “zombies”), hoping to get something for nothing, multiplies. As Plato wrote of the “drones”:
[They] are the plagues of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the good physician and lawgiver of the State ought, like the wise bee-master, to keep them (drones) at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever coming in.
Freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State… And in the democracy, they are certainly more intensified.
Public discipline disintegrates. Chaos and disorder increase. Budgets get out of balance. Markets become volatile. Pointless wars proliferate. Finally, the “drones” accept a dictator who promises to restore order (“Make America Great Again”).
To which Donald Trump replies: “Hey, they love me in Athens.”
Regards,
Bill
ref: http://bonnerandpartners.com/donald-the-dictator/
Mailbag
The Donald continues to divide opinion among Diary readers…It is extremely disheartening to read in your articles – as one can find also elsewhere and everywhere – that Donald Trump is an outsider.
He is the quintessential INSIDER. Please see interview with Sean Hannity. He explained his large and extensive donations to politicians throughout his career (and at all levels): so they would answer his calls.
In attempting to explain his huge donations to Democrats – to Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to name a few – he revealed himself.
– Eleanor N.
You bet I like Trump’s honesty, forthrightness, humbleness, unquestioned ability, 100% commitment, fighting spirit, inability to be bought, sold or influenced; not looking for a legacy nor power nor fame nor riches nor success, nor the next rung on the ladder, nor recognition, nor influence. I like him for what he is doing to right the GOP, but most of all to oversee Making America Great Again.
– Robert S.
I’m taking my mind off the political circus by going to my Libertarian Party state convention as a delegate… and from there to the national convention to make sure I don’t have to vote for a whip-wielding lion tamer bent on making us obedient, or a tattooed lady, or a clown driven by a need to be the center of attention.
There are more candidates out there. But the problem for libertarian voters is recruiting candidates who aren’t in it for the personal attention or the personal power. The LP is much better at doing this than either of the two dominant parties… in part because they were anti-politics and in part because we have little power to offer a candidate.
But we do give power to voters by offering them another candidate. One thing’s for sure: Refusing to vote hasn’t ever worked.
– Sandra K.
Have you considered the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
to pillory Hillary or merely to thump that chump Trump?
– Nicholas P.
Do you have a personal story to share about one of the presidential candidates?
Bill and the team would love to hear from you. Write us at feedback@bonnerandpartners.com.
Voices: Is Trump a demagogue?
Rick Hampson, USA TODAY 6:48 p.m. EST January 25, 2016
Donald Trump has been called a demagogue by critics ranging from Garrison Keillor to George Pataki. I don’t know if Trump fits the political science definition, but I know who did.
Joe McCarthy, a Republican U.S. senator from Wisconsin, turned the government upside down In the early 1950s with a witch hunt for Communists. He muddied reputations and ended careers until he was censured by the Senate in 1954.
In college I was assigned Richard Rovere’s Senator Joe McCarthy, a critical but not entirely unsympathetic biography. McCarthy, wrote Rovere, was “a first rate organizer and galvanizer of mobs, a skilled manipulator of public opinion, and a genius at that essential American strategy: publicity.’’
That sounds familiar. As does this: McCarthy “exploited the American party system in brilliant and daring ways, while being himself beyond partisanship … He was a Republican who started as a Democrat.’’ Trump was a Democrat until 1987.
USA TODAY
Wolff: Sanders could make Trump president
In 1952, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote an anti-McCarthy passage into Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation speech. In 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron said if Trump “came to visit our country I think he would unite us all against him.’’
If you compare Rovere’s McCarthy with the Republican frontrunner, you find some similar tactics.
Own an issue: McCarthy was not the only politician talking about internal Communism, but “it was McCarthy who had mastered it and given it its name before he had any significant power in government or (Republican) party affairs.’’
Immigration was a hot issue before Trump. But, he said in August, “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration. This wasn’t a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement."
USA TODAY
Trump: The art of the debate
Tap voters’ anger: McCarthy “built a coalition of the aggrieved … deeply affronted by various tendencies over the preceding decades.’’ For Trump, voter anger is mom’s milk.
Talk fast and loose: McCarthy’s “tongue was loose and always wagging; he would say anything that came into his head and worry later, if at all, about defending what he said.‘’ Trump says things so outrageous they’d sink any other candidate.
Take on a hero: McCarthy called Gen. George C. Marshall, possibly the most distinguished soldier of his time, “a man steeped in falsehood … (part of) a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.’’ Trump said Sen. John McCain, a Navy pilot shot down and held prisoner during the Vietnam War, isn’t “a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.’’
ONPOLITICS
Trump on McCain: 'I like people who weren't captured'
Don’t sweat the details: McCarthy not only had no long-term plan to eradicate Communism, “he had no program for tomorrow morning.’’ Trump has offered relatively few specifics about how he’d achieve certain goals, such as how to ******* Mexico to pay for the wall he wants along the border.
Don’t sweat the facts: “There has never been the slightest reason to suppose (McCarthy) took what he said seriously or that he believed the nonsense he spread.’’ Trump in his The Art of the Deal: “I play to people's fantasies. … A little hyperbole never hurts."
Attract the fringe: McCarthy “drew into his following most of the zanies and zombies and compulsive haters who had followed earlier and lesser demagogues.’’ Trump “fired up the crazies” when he held a rally in Phoenix in July, according to McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.
If Trump is a demagogue, he seems a less proficient one than McCarthy. Gallup once found 50% of Americans had a favorable opinion of him, with 29% unfavorable. Late last year, Gallup found Trump viewed favorably by 32% of Americans, with an unfavorable rating of 59%.
Hampson,who reports for USA TODAY, studied American history at Boston College
ref: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/01/25/voices-trump-demagogue/79070930/
Rick Hampson, USA TODAY 6:48 p.m. EST January 25, 2016Donald Trump has been called a demagogue by critics ranging from Garrison Keillor to George Pataki. I don’t know if Trump fits the political science definition, but I know who did.
Joe McCarthy, a Republican U.S. senator from Wisconsin, turned the government upside down In the early 1950s with a witch hunt for Communists. He muddied reputations and ended careers until he was censured by the Senate in 1954.
In college I was assigned Richard Rovere’s Senator Joe McCarthy, a critical but not entirely unsympathetic biography. McCarthy, wrote Rovere, was “a first rate organizer and galvanizer of mobs, a skilled manipulator of public opinion, and a genius at that essential American strategy: publicity.’’
That sounds familiar. As does this: McCarthy “exploited the American party system in brilliant and daring ways, while being himself beyond partisanship … He was a Republican who started as a Democrat.’’ Trump was a Democrat until 1987.
USA TODAY
Wolff: Sanders could make Trump president
In 1952, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote an anti-McCarthy passage into Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation speech. In 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron said if Trump “came to visit our country I think he would unite us all against him.’’
If you compare Rovere’s McCarthy with the Republican frontrunner, you find some similar tactics.
Own an issue: McCarthy was not the only politician talking about internal Communism, but “it was McCarthy who had mastered it and given it its name before he had any significant power in government or (Republican) party affairs.’’
Immigration was a hot issue before Trump. But, he said in August, “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration. This wasn’t a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement."
USA TODAY
Trump: The art of the debate
Tap voters’ anger: McCarthy “built a coalition of the aggrieved … deeply affronted by various tendencies over the preceding decades.’’ For Trump, voter anger is mom’s milk.
Talk fast and loose: McCarthy’s “tongue was loose and always wagging; he would say anything that came into his head and worry later, if at all, about defending what he said.‘’ Trump says things so outrageous they’d sink any other candidate.
Take on a hero: McCarthy called Gen. George C. Marshall, possibly the most distinguished soldier of his time, “a man steeped in falsehood … (part of) a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.’’ Trump said Sen. John McCain, a Navy pilot shot down and held prisoner during the Vietnam War, isn’t “a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.’’
ONPOLITICS
Trump on McCain: 'I like people who weren't captured'
Don’t sweat the details: McCarthy not only had no long-term plan to eradicate Communism, “he had no program for tomorrow morning.’’ Trump has offered relatively few specifics about how he’d achieve certain goals, such as how to ******* Mexico to pay for the wall he wants along the border.
Don’t sweat the facts: “There has never been the slightest reason to suppose (McCarthy) took what he said seriously or that he believed the nonsense he spread.’’ Trump in his The Art of the Deal: “I play to people's fantasies. … A little hyperbole never hurts."
Attract the fringe: McCarthy “drew into his following most of the zanies and zombies and compulsive haters who had followed earlier and lesser demagogues.’’ Trump “fired up the crazies” when he held a rally in Phoenix in July, according to McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.
If Trump is a demagogue, he seems a less proficient one than McCarthy. Gallup once found 50% of Americans had a favorable opinion of him, with 29% unfavorable. Late last year, Gallup found Trump viewed favorably by 32% of Americans, with an unfavorable rating of 59%.
Hampson,who reports for USA TODAY, studied American history at Boston College
ref: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/01/25/voices-trump-demagogue/79070930/
well now I guess we all know what "The Donald" was referring to when he told Cruz to lay off his wife... but Cruz didn't listen... and now look..... Mr. Religious right wing.... can't keep his pants up...
Don't know how true it all is.... but would love to be a mouse in the Cruz house right now!
Similar threads
