The Meteor on Course

[BCSpace]

Quote

Perhaps there are some you only agree with the idea of immigration reform and border security.  But there are those disagreeing with Trump who support that.  You state that the movement is not anti-intellectual or xenophobic, but is about the problem of illegals.  If that is true, you've picked a guy who is polluting and corrupting that.  But, at th esame time, what are your actual onjections to current immigration policy, to the current swaths of immigrants?  Let's hear your concrete reasons and scrutinize them.  Let's see how your reasons overwhelm the gospel-centered justification for welcoming those in need into our borders as we have been.

There is no gospel-centered justification for open borders.  At some point, a unified world under man's law is anti-Gospel because it removes choice.

I am certainly not one of those opposed to immigration, only illegal immigration and Soros' open borders philosophy. But Trump's "corruption" of it is overridden by the Democrat's corruption of it.  For them, the jig is up as more people see how their policies are destructive.  They use immigration to replenish a voting stock not yearning to be free but traditional supporters of government dependance.  Big corporations play a part here to because they are looking for low cost workers.  But they can be excused since the economic policies of the Democrats have made it more and more difficult to do business here.  Low income workers are essentially the only avenue they have left.

[BCSpace]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Reasonably we cannot expect an anti-Clinton to be automatically better than Clinton. Why are our two major candidates frought with questionable leadership morals, to put it nicely?

I do not consider it automatic, but in this case, the anti Clinton is indeed far better than Clinton.  So your premise, to me,  makes your question a logical fallacy akin to "When are you going to stop beating your wife?".

Since when have morals of previous candidates been more scrupulous than Clinton's or Trump's?  Trump's are merely more visible than some others.  Trump is a blowhard but his campaign is coalescing around some Conservative values, that is to say, values closer to the Church's if that is important to you.  Clinton's morals, the values of her party, have always been intrinsically questionable.....to put it nicely.

Edited July 31, 2016 by BCSpace
More descriptive

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Problem with quote function on phone!

To "Freedom:"

I agree that the current election process is archaic. In my opinion it profoundly hinders our ability to select righteous leaders as instructed by apostles and prophets. I call it the "two-party trap." This year is a glaring example of how the two party system promotes a worsening of standards for leaders rather than improvement.

I'd also like to see shorter elections but with more intense grilling for the major candidates: for down with 6 reporters specialising in 6 major areas like economy, education, health care, security, immigration, and foreign policy. Let them each grill the one candidate 30 minutes on the spot, live.  Then do another candidate the next night. Expect them to speak and respond to the issues in detail and under pressure. 

We need to promote a process that helps us reason out the competencies or incompetencies so we can better select righteous leaders. Imo

And outlaw vague promises.  Detailed plans that have multiple contingencies so that one gets a better idea on what is intended and can have something to measure for both understanding of issues, practicality, and effectiveness of followthrough.

If only...sigh.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

There is no gospel-centered justification for open borders.  At some point, a unified world under man's law is anti-Gospel because it removes choice.

I am certainly not one of those opposed to immigration, only illegal immigration and Soros' open borders philosophy. But Trump's "corruption" of it is overridden by the Democrat's corruption of it.  For them, the jig is up as more people see how their policies are destructive.  They use immigration to replenish a voting stock not yearning to be free but traditional supporters of government dependance.  Big corporations play a part here to because they are looking for low cost workers.  But they can be excused since the economic policies of the Democrats have made it more and more difficult to do business here.  Low income workers are essentially the only avenue they have left.

The current immigration policy is not "open borders."

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I disagree with that it is anti-intellectual or xenophobic.  Illegal immigration is not a race but a status.  It is healthy for a country to control its borders and who comes into the country and how many.  A nation that does not control its borders will eventually cease to be a nation.  Trump has said dumb things but he is touching on something that the population feels and its going on in Europe right now as well.  The failure of government to deal with these issues opened to door to Trump to succeed. 

I agree with Meadow that it is veering into anti-intellectual and xenophobic ideas. I've personally known a number of people who have, at one given time or another been undocumented/illegal immigrants of some sort. Most of these were not illegal by choice but necessity and 1-2 were even suggested by legal avenues to let the legal status flag for a minute while the convoluted paperwork was being done for their residency. Their situations do not come close to the rhetoric that Trump gives. I've also known a number of Muslim families growing up and their stories. Again the rhetoric doesn't match the reality of their lives. And yes there are feelings in the population that are allowing Trump's rhetoric to stand. But a feeling doesn't make it right. I think of the scripture in 2 timothy about God not giving us a spirit of fear but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. I think what would Jesus do. I think of the Good Samaritan and why that story was given. Luckily, I feel our church is taking the route that allows us to see people behind the status. Stories that are of lifting people up and being true neighbors. Of inclusion. Statements that indicate more charity and understanding and mercy in our immigration policies that have a tendency of hurting families.

A feeling also doesn't make reality. And if Trump's ideas are the ones being floated for solutions to these problems, there's a reason these aren't being addressed. They don't work. And they' re ideas more likely to harm some of the best ideals of America. 

I know a number of these go beyond immigration concerns and into general frustration and isolation of a specific subsection of Americans who feel disenfranchised and are struggling economically. Ones where the economic turn around hasn't necessarily made things easier for them. But it's not ok. It's that sort of place that terrible policies and ruthless leaders have been brought to power. Plus this form of nationalism assumes that America can only look and be one specific way. It's not. I don't know what sort of America that Trump envisions but it is not the America I want to live in or a legacy I want to give to my children. I want the America that entails a history of overcoming great odds. The one that say you can fight injustice and make the world different for not only yourself but those around you. I want the America that says all nations may come and have a shot at a better life and find commonality even though we view things differently. That's the America I'm proud of. Trump represents none of that. He represents a character that finds it ok to attack Gold Star Muslim parents while propagating stereotypes that breed more fear. 

 

It concerns me how statements that are obviously pointing to some dangerous, polarizing ideas - that have incited violence on a small scale already and elicit tribalistic ideas of humanity- are being ignored because of a feeling that revolves around fear and anger. I'm not saying this about you specifically. It's just something I wonder about in general. It feels like the darker parts of history are repeating itself. The name of the outgroup/scapegoat has just changed a little.

 

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The current immigration policy is not "open borders."

Sure it is.  It's not written in law (yet), it's in how Obama currently enforces (or rather does not enforce) the law.  EU lawmakers have recently expressed the will to hold the course on Soro's open borders.  The Democrats here follow in their footsteps.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

I do not consider it automatic, but in this case, the anti Clinton is indeed far better than Clinton.  So your premise, to me,  makes your question a logical fallacy akin to "When are you going to stop beating your wife?".

Since when have morals of previous candidates been more scrupulous than Clinton's or Trump's?  Trump is a blowhard but his campaign is coalescing around some Conservative values, that is to say, values closer to the Church's if that is important to you.  Clinton's morals, the values of her party, have always been intrinsically questionable.....to put it nicely.

The last two major candidates were more scrupulous, plus many more before them. Clinton is mired in corruption and Trump is more than a blowhard, he consistently and almost continually objectifies and abuses other human beings once they challenge him or when doing so suits his narrative. His behaviour is sociopathic, openly so. He is arguably, in speech and demeanour, the most morally questionable major candidate in living memory. Whatever he truly is inside, he generally and normally does not present as a good or moral person. 

[BCSpace]

So, speaking of morals Meadowchik, how does one justify, in light of an approximately 20% real unemployment rate, importing low cost workers to compete with the jobless here and at the same time, enacting policies that drive down jobs and wages forcing everyone, jobless and imported workers (who remain or become jobless) into dependence on government?

[BCSpace]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The last two major candidates were more scrupulous, plus many more before them. Clinton is mired in corruption and Trump is more than a blowhard, he consistently and almost continually objectifies and abuses other human beings once they challenge him or when doing so suits his narrative. His behaviour is sociopathic, openly so. He is arguably, in speech and demeanour, the most morally questionable major candidate in living memory. Whatever he truly is inside, he generally and normally does not present as a good or moral person. 

I don't agree.  Obama, simply because of his political positions, is far more unscrupulous than Trump.  Clinton merely follows Obama.  I would certainly agree that Romney appears to have been more scrupulous than either.  But you don't really know, which is the point.

You're trying to make this about charisma and the words you like to hear and how they are expressed.  But that is the media's fallacy.  They don't want you to think too much about Hillary's political positions because they are unpalatable. The media follows Ivanka around and asks her constantly about her father's behavior with women.  But they don't go around asking Chelsea about her father's behavior with women or how her mother enabled it.

Edited July 31, 2016 by BCSpace
Addendum

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Sure it is.  It's not written in law (yet), it's in how Obama currently enforces (or rather does not enforce) the law.  EU lawmakers have recently expressed the will to hold the course on Soro's open borders.  The Democrats here follow in their footsteps.

In my experience, and our family does have experience with immigration, it is not "open." And the refugee process is quite stringent. Yes, historically, though, a blind eye has been turned on illegal immigration, but it's not fair to lay that soley at Obama's feet. The US absolutely has enforced immigration rules. I do think they could be better, but not with a big fat wall.

Btw, as the US fertility rate approaches or goes below replacement rate, we really do need more people to maintain a tax base. There are round economic reasons for allowing a steady measure of immigrants.  Humanitarian reasons too, because planet Earth is the only place people can go, and not all people have a country they can go to. Imo, if we want to maintain the inspired values and liberties we enjoy, we must live them too, regarding the neighbor and the stranger.

[BCSpace]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In my experience, and our family does have experience with immigration, it is not "open." And the refugee process is quite stringent. Yes, historically, though, a blind eye has been turned on illegal immigration, but it's not fair to lay that soley at Obama's feet. The US absolutely has enforced immigration rules. I do think they could be better, but not with a big fat wall.

Btw, as the US fertility rate approaches or goes below replacement rate, we really do need more people to maintain a tax base. There are round economic reasons for allowing a steady measure of immigrants.  Humanitarian reasons too, because planet Earth is the only place people can go, and not all people have a country they can go to. Imo, if we want to maintain the inspired values and liberties we enjoy, we must live them too, regarding the neighbor and the stranger.

It's open. The border patrol basically stands aside now.  It's solely at Obama's feet now because he's in charge and that is the directive he's given. 

Facetious to be talking about tax base since the Democrat's policies continue to reduce the tax base at a rate that far outstrips any population based argument.  Humanitarian reasons is also a facetious argument.  At some point, people need to rise up where they are and fix their own country.  With open borders, we enable Socialists and other dictators by taking the pressure off them.  Rather, we should be exporting democracy (in the form of a constitutional republic of course) much like we did with the Arab Spring which Obama promptly destroyed by supporting all the wrong people such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I disagree with this. 

Nationalism from dictionary.com

1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4. the desire for national advancement or political independence.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

 

There is nothing wrong with nationalism.  Anything can be taken to excess but nationalism is a good thing.   It is what binds a person to their country.  It inspires a reason for a person to want to defend their country.  It instills in the citizens a desire to preserve their culture and way of life.  For Americans, America should be a first concern.  That does not mean we have to hate other nations or not be friends with other nations as we can but our first responsibility and main priority is us.

 

All I can say for the current election is that I view both candidates to be dangerous and whomever wins, half of the country will hate the president.  The best we I think can come from this is a strongly divided government.  If Trump wins, the Democrats control the House and Senate.  If Clinton wins, Republicans control the House and Senate.  That is the only way that the country can be protected from too much damage.  Strong gridlock is what our country needs the next 4 years.

I personally think that the problem lies in people thinking that being patriotic to one's government, is nationalism, when in fact it should mean being patriotic to the actual country, and what it's founding principles are based upon. Too many people keep falling for the Dem., Rep., left, right, paradigm, thinking that backing one or the other is going to create a winning strategy, while not even realizing that the left wing and the right wing are both wings of the same bird. They are both every bit as corrupt as each other, and mostly pretend to have major differences, while agreeing on the things that should matter the most, in bipartisan deals. It is simply insane to think that choosing one wing or the other is ever going to produce the savior of America, when they both constantly keep producing ever worse and worse candidates to choose from. I think the only way this country can survive is by repentance of the people, who have turned their morals so far from God's laws that we have already fallen off of the precipice and most just don't realize it because while in free fall no gravity is yet felt.

Our money isn't being created the way it was designed to be created by the founding fathers, allowing international banking interests, which have never once been audited, in charge of the issuance and contraction of our currency. This paves the way for the international corporations that grow up around these banking cartels to have a much larger foothold on our country's power, even while it infiltrates our governmental agencies in revolving door policies allowing laws to be created to protect the interests of themselves over the people. Our borders are completely wide open, mostly ignoring laws for legal immigration, which by definition creates an influx of criminals (what else do you call people who don't follow laws, even if they are only immigration laws?) We get things like the so called, "Patriot Act," (from a republican president) which paved the way for the 2012 NDAA's indefinite detention clauses (signed into law by a democrat president and is still in full effect to this day), which allows for the suspensions of all rights to any American simply accused of a crime, regardless of actual innocence or not.... No due process of law, no Habeas Corpus, no lawyer, no nothing, just locked up, tortured, or even killed indefinitely. The 2nd amendment has already been infringed upon far too much, yet they keep trying to completely disarm us more and more. People get tricked into backing these stupid things all because they think well be safer, when in reality we keep getting less safe because of the abuses of an already overreaching government. We aren't even truly sovereign anymore, with open boarders and no control of the issuance and contraction of our own currency. What exactly is the definition of sovereign anyway?

I say we need to wake up and realize we've all been had by a bunch of thugs who have so thoroughly corrupted our own government that it doesn't even resemble what that government was supposed to be doing in the first place. We need to realize that we need to be patriotic to our country, not the corrupt construct called our government, when it is at odds with the principles that this country was founded upon in the first place. The last war we had that was actually constitutionally warranted was WWII. All the others after seem to be set up to help propagate our accumulation of resources, or in preventing other countries from the devaluation of our dollar by forcing others to only sell oil with our dollars, instead of other countries' currencies. Other nations beware or else the next can of democracy might be opened up on them, while telling us the American people we are only trying to spread democracy. They are really just taking down the rulers of other countries, who want to make a fair market price on their commodities, instead of losing money by supporting the thugs who offer protection for using our currency in the sale of their commodities. It's all turned into such a Godless scam that I am almost embarrassed to be called an American. it is all going to blow up in our faces, as it has already been doing at an ever increasing rate. The only way it will change is if we go back to the same morals that this country was originally founded upon, the right to worship God, without being impeded by an oppressive government. Repentance is the only true way we can recover from this nose dive we are in. Godlessness is our real downfall.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Too many people keep falling for the Dem., Rep., left, right, paradigm, thinking that backing one or the other is going to create a winning strategy, while not even realizing that the left wing and the right wing are both wings of the same bird.

I have to disagree here.  They seem the same because they say they want to accomplish the same things, but the ways they want to accomplish it are vastly different. It is now impossible for a Conservative to be recognized by the Democrat party and so like-wise, Conservatives are thrusting out "RINOs" from the Republican party.  The two sides couldn't possibly be more starkly different in the gospel sense. A bit like Matthew 10:34-37.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  Good and evil are now more easily recognizable this way. 

Plus, there never has been any middle ground, ever (Revelation 3:16).  'Middle ground' is just a illusory construct people make in order to try to be popular or acceptable to both sides or to scratch their itching ears so to speak.  Depending on who they are talking to, they want to make it seem like they have a hand on the iron rod or a foot in the large and spacious building.

[waveslider]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

as the US fertility rate approaches or goes below replacement rate, we really do need more people to maintain a tax base

How about decentralizing the power of the Federal government, and considerably downsizing it's spending of tax dollars, giving the power back to the smaller local levels of government? There is a reason we are called, "The United States of America," not, "The State of America," The answer isn't in increased immigration as much as getting rid of the over spending wasteful, unconstitutional government.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The last two major candidates were more scrupulous, plus many more before them. Clinton is mired in corruption and Trump is more than a blowhard, he consistently and almost continually objectifies and abuses other human beings once they challenge him or when doing so suits his narrative. His behaviour is sociopathic, openly so. He is arguably, in speech and demeanour, the most morally questionable major candidate in living memory. Whatever he truly is inside, he generally and normally does not present as a good or moral person. 

At least those who try to appear to be moral, whether they are or not, show a recognition that morality is (was?) valued by society and at least somewhat modify their behaviour based on that.  Trump appears to lack that same awareness or he may be aware and just not care.  Instead he seems to elevate his own personal needs and desires to prime importance and ignore morality completely, a very poor quality in someone who is supposed to serve a nation and not use it for personal benefit.

[BCSpace]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Problem with quote function on phone!

To "Freedom:"

I agree that the current election process is archaic. In my opinion it profoundly hinders our ability to select righteous leaders as instructed by apostles and prophets. I call it the "two-party trap." This year is a glaring example of how the two party system promotes a worsening of standards for leaders rather than improvement.

I'd also like to see shorter elections but with more intense grilling for the major candidates: for down with 6 reporters specialising in 6 major areas like economy, education, health care, security, immigration, and foreign policy. Let them each grill the one candidate 30 minutes on the spot, live.  Then do another candidate the next night. Expect them to speak and respond to the issues in detail and under pressure. 

We need to promote a process that helps us reason out the competencies or incompetencies so we can better select righteous leaders. Imo

I disagree with your 'two-party trap'.  The gospel itself essentially ensures a 'two party system' (Matthew 10:34-37).  But I do like your idea for questioning candidates  The side I support would win every time if all they did was communicate basic party principles.

But I think you'd run into the same thing Annakin Skywalker ran into when he said he wanted everyone to sit in a room and be made to agree.  Who makes them agree and on what?  So like-wise, who gets to decide who is an expert in any of these fields?

[waveslider]

14 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

I have to disagree here.  They seem the same because they say they want to accomplish the same things, but the ways they want to accomplish it are vastly different. It is now impossible for a Conservative to be recognized by the Democrat party and so like-wise, Conservatives are thrusting out "RINOs" from the Republican party.  The two sides couldn't possibly be more starkly different in the gospel sense. A bit like Matthew 10:34-37.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  Good and evil are now more easily recognizable this way. 

Plus, there never has been any middle ground, ever (Revelation 3:16).  'Middle ground' is just a illusory construct people make in order to try to be popular or acceptable to both sides or to scratch their itching ears so to speak.  Depending on who they are talking to, they want to make it seem like they have a hand on the iron rod or a foot in the large and spacious building.

I'm not saying that we need a middle ground, but have you ever researched who funds both parties. It is largely the same 5 huge banking systems who fund most of their campaigns (at least until Trump decided to use his own money). I'm saying that on the surface these two parties play different sides of the fence, but when it comes down to the huge things they are the same. Like for instance Obama Care (The Affordable Care Act), The prototype for this was written and put into a test model under Romney, in the Massachusetts health care reform. They are operating in a concerted effort, in the form of puppet masters who are pulling the strings, in yet another divide and conquer strategy. The Reps, are run by wolves in sheep's clothing, who just so happen to be the same wolves running the opposing side.

If Republicans really were true conservatives with good Godly values, I would still be one. Now I am not loyal to any party, but rather try to vote my conscience based on what any candidate is putting his platform upon, regardless of being in one of the main two parties or not. I would rather vote for good instead of evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils.

[halconero]

16 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

I disagree with your 'two-party trap'.  The gospel itself essentially ensures a 'two party system' (Matthew 10:34-37).  But I do like your idea for questioning candidates  The side I support would win every time if all they did was communicate basic party principles.

But I think you'd run into the same thing Annakin Skywalker ran into when he said he wanted everyone to sit in a room and be made to agree.  Who makes them agree and on what?  So like-wise, who gets to decide who is an expert in any of these fields?

Well...a two party system is all fine and dandy when the one side is led by God and the other by Lucifer. With flawed humans usually falling somewhere in between the Supreme Good and the Father of Lies we might need some more nuance in our political system.

[BCSpace]

53 minutes ago, halconero said:

Well...a two party system is all fine and dandy when the one side is led by God and the other by Lucifer. With flawed humans usually falling somewhere in between the Supreme Good and the Father of Lies we might need some more nuance in our political system.

That would just be transitory at best, a successful third party becoming one of the two.  But, even though their polls are generally rising there are no alternatives among Johnson, Sanders, or Stein and we get Hillary anyway if any of them rise to a competitive level.  I actually like some of the nuances of Johnson, but Johnson has only given lip service to judges (whereas Trump has a Heritage Foundation style list), will not protect the border, and will gut the military.  Go ahead and vote your principles, but if that gets Hillary elected, I would say one has no principles as everything else becomes moot with a Hillary appointed Supreme Court.

Edited August 1, 2016 by BCSpace
correction

[BCSpace]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

I'm not saying that we need a middle ground, but have you ever researched who funds both parties. It is largely the same 5 huge banking systems who fund most of their campaigns (at least until Trump decided to use his own money). I'm saying that on the surface these two parties play different sides of the fence, but when it comes down to the huge things they are the same. Like for instance Obama Care (The Affordable Care Act), The prototype for this was written and put into a test model under Romney, in the Massachusetts health care reform. They are operating in a concerted effort, in the form of puppet masters who are pulling the strings, in yet another divide and conquer strategy. The Reps, are run by wolves in sheep's clothing, who just so happen to be the same wolves running the opposing side.

If Republicans really were true conservatives with good Godly values, I would still be one. Now I am not loyal to any party, but rather try to vote my conscience based on what any candidate is putting his platform upon, regardless of being in one of the main two parties or not. I would rather vote for good instead of evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils.

Sure.  But the Conservatives have been successful of late driving out the RINOs and defeating the establishment who, despite the fact that we had the power to do so, prevented the GOP majority from stopping Obama (a government shut down ala the very successful 1996 one that forced Clinton to balance the budget and gained two GOP Senate seats in the next election).

The people recognize a fighter and that's why we have Trump, warts and all.  The GOP did NOT do what we elected them to do and the strongest GOP candidates this primary, including Cruz whom I voted for in the primary, went soft on the main issues.  Even Romney disappointed by going soft this time around even though he wasn't a candidate.  Showed himself to be establishment he did.

As for money, it's going to be an unavoidable influence. One needs money to win elections.  Notice that Trump is not getting much of it and is running a shoestring campaign compared to Hillary.  That ought to tell you something reasonably good about Trump if following the money is your concern.  If Trump maintains his polls though, I predict the money will come as it does to all successful candidates.

Trump is essentially your third party candidate.

Edited August 1, 2016 by BCSpace
Spelling

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I haven't talked US politics much lately with Church members, but our stake is currently participating in a refugee service project and at least 20 percent of our current weekly attendance is made up of new immigrants.

Our friend and neighbor, a moderate Muslim from Tunisia, sees Trump as the type that would compel his home country to revolution. My friend's brother is in Colorado, thinks Clinton is coming for his guns and fears a civil war.

My parents are lifelong Republicans but just began what they say are the first of many donations to the Clinton campaign.  Dad says that Trump gives him nightmares. My brother "guarantees" Clinton will bring us into a foreign war.

All these people I cite are educated and informed professionals who've lived less insulated lives who have also lived abroad. They're alarmed.

These are fragile times.

What about you and yours?

 Far be it from me to be the Constitunalist, being more of an Articles guy. But if there is one good thing the US Constitution does, it prevents bad executives from doing too much harm. Alarmism about the executive branch has been unceasing since the days of Geo. Washington.

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Well...a two party system is all fine and dandy when the one side is led by God and the other by Lucifer. With flawed humans usually falling somewhere in between the Supreme Good and the Father of Lies we might need some more nuance in our political system.

No one can explain why Americans have only two viable parties. It's just the way it continues to go. But give us a few thousand more years. Maybe the people will change their minds about voting only for one of two parties that are nearly the same. Ultimately, it is this way because that is what the people want. But who knows why?

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Sure.  But the Conservatives have been successful of late driving out the RINOs and defeating the establishment who, despite the fact that we had the power to do so, prevented the GOP majority from stopping Obama (a government shut down ala the very successful 1996 one that forced Clinton to balance the budget and gained two GOP Senate seats in the next election).

The people recognize a fighter and that's why we have Trump, warts and all.  The GOP did NOT do what we elected them to do and the strongest GOP candidates this primary, including Cruz whom I voted for in the primary, went soft on the main issues.  Even Romney disappointed by going soft this time around even though he wasn't a candidate.  Showed himself to be establishment he did.

As for money, it's going to be an unavoidable influence. One needs money to win elections.  Notice that Trump is not getting much of it and is running a shoestring campaign compared to Hillary.  That ought to tell you something reasonably good about Trump if following the money is your concern.  If Trump maintains his polls though, I predict the money will come as it does to all successful candidates.

Trump is essentially your third party candidate.

Yeah, the reason the GOP had power to defeat the establishment, but didn't, is because they are corrupt at the very core, and really don't want to stop Obama, but rather only want to make a show of it so the people will still follow along thinking it is the only way to be conservative. This is why all the candidates went soft, just like they would have if they somehow were to make it all the way to the White House itself. They are all bought and paid for and can't get out from under the thumb of the puppet masters, unless they want to commit career suicide. It's all part of a smoke and mirrors type of thing, just as the whole two party system is in, and of, itself.

Trump is a wild card for sure. That is why the GOP did so much to try and stop him, because he wasn't owned by the puppet masters who they want to do their bidding. This is also why the mainstream media portrays him as a bigot and bumbling idiot. These puppet masters don't like Trump, either that or it is all part of a more sinister plan to make it look like he is anti establishment. Time will tell on that one, if for some reason the system isn't rigged enough for Trump to actually win. The reason he is doing so well is because he isn't politically correct and won't bend toward the agenda to help topple the U.S. in lieu of centralizing power even more towards a one world order under the U.N.'s, "Agenda For The 21st Century," or in other words, "The Agenda For Sustainable Growth," most commonly known as, "Agenda 21," and the people see that what he says actually makes sense for the most part. Unfortunately he still doesn't seem to grasp all that is needed to affect enough change to bring America back to it's roots enough to make it great again, and he is all for overreaching in governmental spying of it's citizens and things, but if he actually follows through with much of his stuff it will start to push us back to a better direction, probably a little too late for that though. It is unfortunate that so many Americans only believe what they hear and see on the mainstream news sources, and that so many of us are educated in highly liberal school systems creating a bunch of voters who make decisions on feel good reactions, rather than rational and logical thought out processes. Knee jerk reactions almost never work as well as well thought out plans.

Trump is definitely not being ruled out by me just yet, but I am a little concerned that he may be pro establishment, under the guise of not being establishment. The alternative with Hillary is by far a worse thought though. She and her husband are guilty of so many horrific things, and it is too bad that the establishment covers their butts so much, and that Americans seem to have such a short term memory. No one seems to remember: https://youtu.be/dqIlD8cGBAM

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by waveslider
typo

[Calm]

"This is also why the mainstream media portrays him as a bigot..."

Idon't actually watch much news.  I made my decision about his bigotry by listening to him, not to what others reported.

[strappinglad]

I think the mods should be thanked for allowing the continuation of this thread. Every once in a while we need to vent on politics and release pent up steam , particularly now after 2 fractious conventions . Of course , now that I've jinxed the whole thing... sorry.