Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
I just watched Romney, what a loser and he looks so desperate for himself and the establishment, can you believe how desperate they got to do this, they will go further I am sure because Romney just made Trump a whole lot stronger the whole speech backfired.Who believes Cruz or Rubio would win if trump was eliminated I do not
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
Well the Establishment hates Trump and Cruz. They prefer Rubio in my opinion. And to hear Rubio saying that he will win his state of Fla. was comical to me since the last I heard he was around 20 % behind!
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
I AGREE 100 PERCENT SLAV!Romney where was this speech when you ran against Obama? They're spending more energy trying to take down Trump than they did trying to de-throne Obama. Which shows you Romney is part of the Establishment!
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
Enter Romney right on cue. Where's Biden? Practicing his speaking skills. He'll be coming to the limelight as soon as Hillary starts getting lit up by the indictments.
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
Romney strike one didn't work, Trump said Romney would of got on his knees to have Trump endorse him lol what an embarrassing statement for Romney , Trump was good enough for Romney at the time to endorse Romney , now Romney takes a knife and puts it in Trumps back, Now how does that look for the back stabbing 2 face non trusting Romney and his non trusting establishment Republicans. There sending a Message , don't vote Rebublicans we can't be trusted vote Democrats. I wonder what strike 2 and three will be against Trump.
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
The Republican establishment is threatened by Trump; they could take him out and make it look like an accident, have his plane go down through "engine failure" or batteries exploding onboard, or some other disaster which could be developed. Bush did so much damage to US prestige around the world though and to the Republican brand, can they ever recover?Trump, the Establishment, and the Middle ClassGary North - January 28, 2016[IMG]Reality CheckI really wanted to title this: "The Assassination of Donald Trump" But I am not looking for publicity.If Donald Trump ever becomes a serious threat to the American establishment, he will be assassinated.If you really believe that he is a threat to the American establishment, then you had also better believe that his Vice President had better be an even greater threat to the establishment. That will be his life insurance policy.That's the bottom line. That's real conspiracy theory. I am a conspiracy historian.As far as I can see, Trump is not a threat to the American establishment. Nobody is a threat to the American establishment. Ron Paul would have been, but he was never going to be vetted by the American establishment, which is what it takes to get elected President of the United States. In any case, getting elected President of the United States is of only marginal relevance, except symbolically, unless the President gets the country into a major war. I don't think this is likely.Symbols are important. Reagan's rhetoric was important. But to imagine that Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the American political system, except to make massive federal deficits a legacy of the Republican Party, is to believe in a fairytale. I liked his rhetoric, but his budget deficits overwhelmed his rhetoric. I can't think of a single cabinet level appointment the Reagan ever made that made a difference. The best appointment he ever made was David Stockman, and Stockman resigned. But Stockman was not a cabinet level appointment.So, what I say here is based on a premise, namely, that nothing the American public can do politically threatens the American political establishment. It has the Federal Reserve System. It has the Internal Revenue Service. It has gerrymandering at the state level. It sets the rules for political contributions. It controls the three dozen major universities that shape the thinking of the entire world. It controls the accreditation of American universities. It runs the show.I don't think it will run the show half a century from now. I think computerization, robotics, online education, communications, and the Great Default will combine to remove legitimacy from the prevailing American establishment. But there will be a replacement establishment. I hope that it will be decentralized, and that there will be not much communications and cooperation among the various local establishments. I think the good old boys are going to replace the old boy network.Therefore, I don't think the election of Donald Trump is going to change anything. He will not get anything through Congress that Congress doesn't want to get into law. He will face enormous hostility from the media. He cannot recruit the leadership that he will need, unless his recruits have been vetted by the establishment and the establishments system of accredited higher education. I do not see a single spokesman for Trump who has experience at any level of government. He is, more than anyone I have ever seen in American political history, a one-man show. This is why, if he ever does become a threat, the show can be stopped. It will be stopped.Trump has no backup. He has a one-year constituency, but this constituency has no political experience. He has great appeal to millions of Americans who rightly understand that they have been blocked out of all aspects of leadership in American life. This especially applies to politics, but it surely also applies to education. They are people without much money, much experience, much self-discipline, and much willingness to do anything except go to the polls. America is not going to be transformed by people who come out for the first time to vote in the Republican primaries, and then come out to vote next November. When the voting is over, they will still be locked out. The American establishment will still be in control.This assumes that Hillary Clinton does not get the nomination, or does not get indicted, and does not win the election. I think she will get the nomination if Obama lets her avoid being indicted. The betting sites still have her as the winner in November. So, what I'm saying here is mostly hypothetical.AMERICAN POPULISMPopulism. The word is common, but most people's understanding of populism in American history is virtually nonexistent. I am aware of it because I studied it in a graduate student half a century ago, and I have studied it intermittently ever since.Do a Google search for two words: populism, Trump. There is a large body of material regarding the connection between Trump and populism. Political commentators of all ideological commitments recognize that Trump's candidacy is an outgrowth of populism. I would go further than this. This is the most important manifestation of populism since the three-time candidacy of William Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908.Bryan's candidacy was directly the result of agrarian populism. That populism is long gone, because only 2% of America's population is involved in farming today. That was not true in 1896.The populist movement in 1896 was about 25 years old. It was socially conservative. It was part of the rural South and the Midwest. There was a strong degree of anti-Semitism in it. There was a strong commitment to fiat money -- anti-"cross of gold." There was also a strong commitment to government regulation.Bryan was the most politically liberal candidate in the history of the United States. This is not to say that there have not been liberal candidates since him, but the disparity politically between Bryan and McKinley was comparable to the Grand Canyon. When Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater, we were all aware of the disparity, but by the time Johnson was elected, he was no longer considered to be a far Left politician. He was simply an extension of the New Deal. McGovern versus Nixon was analogous. McGovern's political roots were pretty much the same as Bryan's had been: agrarian populism. But by 1972, populism was urban, not agrarian.Here is what is rarely discussed: the alliance between populism and maverick elitist politicians. It began during the Stamp Act Crisis, 1765-68. It brought on the American Revolution in 1775. What is significant is this: after the American Revolution, competing regional establishments got together in Philadelphia to hammer out a Constitution that would enable each of the elitist regional establishments to keep power at the expense of the voters.The South's elite was incredibly rich, and the region was hierarchical almost to the point of feudalism. There has never been an American hierarchy as rigid as the one that dominated the South, and especially the most rigid hierarchy in American history, the hierarchy that ran South Carolina. South Carolina seceded in 1860, just as it had threatened to secede in 1832. It became the representative of the South, and the common man had no say in the matter. The legislatures had nothing to do with this in South Carolina. Legally separate conventions did.The campaign of Andrew Jackson in 1828 began to undermine this consolidation. But the issue of abolitionism created two distinct political regions out of what had originally been at least six regions in 1775. The outcome of the Civil War enabled the consolidation of power in the hands of Northerners, who now regarded themselves as a single separate culture -- a new idea. The South could get back into the arrangement only by capitulating on most issues. But the North after 1877 deferred on matters of race. From the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until about 1970, Southern racism controlled southern politics, and no other issue was central to political victory. This is no longer the case. But the South remains solid, this time for Republicans rather than Democrats. That is because Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in July. He knew this would happen, and it did. It happened before the year was over. Barry Goldwater had regional support only in the South.There was a populist resurgence in the South after Reconstruction ended in 1877. One of the most famous of its leaders was a man known as Pitchfork Ben Tillman. It was all fake. He was a wealthy landowner. But he was the most popular politician in South Carolina. He was elected governor. He was elected to the Senate. He hated Grover Cleveland. He hated the gold standard. He hated anything remotely resembling a free society. He once said that he would have been happy to participate in a lynch mob. Lynch mobs in South Carolina did not lynch whites.The most successful American populist politician in the 20th century was Louisiana's Huey Long. He was a dictator. But he was smart. Wikipedia reports:As chairman of the Public Service Commission in 1922, Long won a lawsuit against the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company for unfair rate increases, resulting in cash refunds of $440,000 to 80,000 overcharged customers. Long successfully argued the case on appeal before the United States Supreme Court (Comberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al., 260 U.S. 212 (1922), prompting Chief Justice William Howard Taft to describe Long as one of the best legal minds he had ever encountered.Huey's style of politics ended with his assassination in 1936.The populist Greenbacker, Ellen Brown, whose views I have dissected in a department on this site, has recently praised Bernie Sanders as a populist. She sees European socialism as populist. Populist rhetoric is experiencing a revival.SAM FRANCIS'S 1996 ARTICLETo understand why Trump really is a populist politician, you would be wise to read an article, written 20 years ago, by Sam Francis. It is here. In recent days, it has received a lot of attention, primarily because Rush Limbaugh discovered it, wrote an article about it, and talked about it on his radio show. Limbaugh connected this article with Trump's campaign.I knew Francis. He was very smart. He had a Ph.D. in history out of the University of North Carolina. He was a very good writer. But he was truly alienated from politics.He made a crucially important observation about the American middle class. In my opinion, all political analysis of the middle class in the United States should begin with the following summary:Middle Americans, emerging from the ruins of the old independent middle and working classes, found conservative, libertarian, and pro-business Republican ideology and rhetoric irrelevant, distasteful, and even threatening to their own socioeconomic interests. The post-World War II middle class was in reality an affluent proletariat, economically dependent on the federal government through labor codes, housing loans, educational programs, defense contracts, and health and unemployment benefits. All variations of conservative doctrine rejected these as illegitimate extensions of the state and boasted of plans to abolish most of them, and Middle American allegiance to political parties and candidates espousing such doctrine could never become firm. Yet, at the same time, the Ruling Class proved unable to uproot the social, cultural, and national identities and loyalties of the Middle American proletariat, and Middle Americans found themselves increasingly alienated from the political left and its embrace of anti-national policies and countercultural manners and morals.Pat Buchanan echoed this sentiment this week.Republicans in power not only failed to roll back the Great Society but also collaborated in its expansion. Half the U.S. population today depends on government benefits.Consider Medicare and Social Security, the largest and most expensive federal programs, critical to seniors and the elderly who give Republicans the largest share of their votes.If Republicans start curtailing and cutting those programs, they will come to know the fate of Barry Goldwater.This means that the Republican Party must submit to the New Deal. It has. It does. It will. So, it does not matter who is elected in November if we want a roll-back of the welfare state. The welfare state will be with us until the Great Default.Then why get excited by Trump? Entertainment, yes. Any other reason? Not that I can think of.Francis blamed Buchanan in 1996 for not being sufficiently populist. He had no use for the Beltway conservatism of the think tanks. He didn't have any use for Richard Viguerie's direct mail operation. Here is the advice he gave to Pat Buchanan in 1991.I recall in late 1991, in the aftermath of a wall-to-wall gathering at his home to discuss his coming campaign, I told him privately that he would be better off without all the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids, marketing and PR czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutes the backbone of all that remains of the famous "Conservative Movement" and who never fail to show up on the campaign doorstep to guzzle someone else's liquor and pocket other people's money. "These people are defunct," I told him. "You don't need them, and you're better off without them. Go to New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, an America Firster, but don't even use the word 'conservative.' It doesn't mean anything any more."Here is the point that Francis missed. With the exception of the Goldwater campaign, which came out of nowhere, the conservative movement was never a serious threat to the American establishment. The American establishment has vetted all roads to political leadership and social leadership in this country. This process began early. It began in the 17th century in most regions, and it has consolidated its power ever since 1788.TECHNOLOGY VS. THE MIDDLE CLASSThe populist movement of agrarianism after 1877 was doomed from the beginning. It was doomed for a very specific reason: technological improvements. Fewer and fewer people had to live on a farm in order to feed America and much of the rest of the world. The extraordinary increase in agricultural productivity that began the later than 1840 doomed the small farmers. They desperately cried out for financial support from the federal government, but they never got it. By the time the new deal gave support to the farmers, these were large farmers. Agribusiness took over American farming, and the populist movement disappeared. It disappeared as a separate political force after 1908.The same thing is happening to the American middle class. It is not a matter of tariffs. It is not a matter of immigrants. It is a matter of technological progress that has displaced the traditional employment of the working class, and now these same forces of technological progress are replacing high wage jobs among the middle class. Nothing can stop this. Nothing is going to stop this. As surely as the farmers were displaced by technological progress, and were forced to move to the cities, so will computerization, robots, and the constant decline in the price of information replace traditional middle-class occupations. There is no way to avoid this.The voters who re-elected Roosevelt in 1936 in order to secure their welfare state goodies became addicted to these goodies. So did the whole nation. Their heirs will never turn loose of them voluntarily. The Great Default is going to pry the goodies out of the hands of the great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of the people who voted for Franklin Roosevelt. He was the pusher who addicted the masses, and the masses remain addicted.These pathetic souls really believe that voting for a particular candidate is going to in any way slow down the forces of technological progress which are eliminating their careers they can also not avoid the great default. It is going to happen, and anyone who looks at the figures knows it is going to happen.TRUMP AS TEDDY ROOSEVELTTeddy Roosevelt was the first politician in the 20th century who understood how to manipulate the middle class. He was not simply a Harvard graduate. He had actually been a member of Porcelian, the secret society that was founded a generation before Skull and Bones at Yale. Roosevelt's choice for president in 1908 was William Howard Taft, whose father was a founder of Skull and Bones. But of course none of this gets into the textbooks.Roosevelt was an elitist's elitist. But he used the rhetoric of the middle class to get elected in 1904. He was wildly popular, and he remains popular.His cousin Franklin understood what Teddy had done, and he adopted a similar strategy in 1933. Both of them were famous for their broad smiles.The only significant difference between Donald Trump and the two Roosevelt is that he is famous for his scowl.Neither of the Roosevelts was openly ideological. Neither of them was openly liberal when they first got elected. But they always used the language of democracy. They positioned themselves as representatives of the broad masses of America's voters.Teddy was overwhelmingly elected in 1904, and that was the last gasp of the old gold standard, low-tariff wing of the Democratic Party. That was the Cleveland wing, and almost nobody remembers who the candidate was who went down to defeat as the representative of that link. You can look it up.Donald Trump has no ideology. Neither did the two Roosevelts. Donald Trump appeals to the masses with rhetoric against the elite. So did both of the Roosevelts. Donald Trump is a member of the elite. So were both of the Roosevelts.Donald Trump came out of the Wharton business school University of Pennsylvania. This is one of the Ivy League schools. He did not work his way up as a member of the working class, or the middle class, or any other class except the ruling class. He was the son of a multimillionaire real estate developer.I don't think Donald Trump has the makings of a dictator. Congress is not going to allow it. The Supreme Court is not going to allow it. And if he is ever seen as a threat, he's going to be assassinated. But I don't think this is going to happen. He is not a threat.He has shown up the Republican establishment. The old boy network does not like to be shown up. He is one of their own, in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt was one of their own. The Republican establishment really hated Roosevelt. They referred to him as "that man." But the Republican establishment never went away, and it has never made a serious attempt to repeal the New Deal.The New Deal is going to be repealed by the Great Default, not by the Republican Party.What I'm saying is this. Don't be misled by vague rhetorical appeals about sticking it to the elite. Don't be misled by any talk about tariffs protecting American manufacturers. American manufacturing are down to about 10% of the economy, and lots of this is going to be replaced by 3-D printers, not by the Chinese. In any case, Chinese workers are being displaced now by workers in Bangladesh in Vietnam. They can't compete.Congress is not going to give Donald Trump a round of tariff increases. Even if Congress does, and Trump signs the bill into law, the WTO will not allow it. American sovereignty on trade got transferred to the WTO two decades ago. Congress has nothing to say about any longer. In any case, Congress is generally in favor of low tariffs.It is all about rhetoric. Trump has issued no position papers. He doesn't have any advisors, as far as I can see. If he gets elected and submits people for cabinet-level candidates who are not part of the Council on Foreign Relations' circle, Congress can block the appointments. Congress can refuse to pass bills he wants. The bipartisan establishment is not about to surrender power to Donald Trump.CONCLUSIONSIf you want to know how the system works, I can do no better than to quote Jimmy Carter's campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan. Historian Douglas Brinkley reported in 2002 in The New York Times:Carter's selection of Vance to head his foreign-policy team in December 1976 surprised even his closest advisers. After all, he had run for president as an outsider, a one-term Georgia governor who wanted little to do with so-called Eastern Establishment types like Vance. "If, after the inauguration," Carter's campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, told the press, "you find Cy Vance as secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit." Both men, as it turned out, were selected for those posts, and Jordan never quit.The establishment has pushed the limits of taxation. They are not going to go through another round of tax increases. The system is pretty much set. Federal spending is pretty much set. Nothing is going to change for as long as Washington's checks don't bounce. Neither Clinton nor Trump is going to find lots of new sources of taxation. The budget is not going to be balanced. The recession is going to hit.The system will survive for as long as its financing can survive. Serious social and economic change will only begin when Washington's checks bounce. It will be politics as usual until then.http://www.garynorth.com/members/14796.cfm
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
And as for Hillary, her troubles appear to be getting worse with the FBI.But as TheBlaze.com reports, Judge Andrew Napolitano warns "She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity," adding that "they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone."Napolitano argued that the revelation that former Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s private email server in 2009, is reportedly being offered immunity means he will likely be called to testify against someone much higher on the “totem pole.”Pagliano will likely be asked how he was able to “migrate a State Department secure system onto her private server.” He then presented this theoretical question: “Mr. Pagliano, did Mrs. Clinton give you her personal Secretary of State password to enable you to do that?”“If he answers, ‘yes,’ we have an indictment for misconduct in office as well as espionage. She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity,” Napolitano added.The Judge explained that only a federal judge can grant immunity and will only do so if a sitting jury is ready to hear testimony from the “immunized person,” suggesting the investigation is well on its way to a possible indictment.“We also know they are going to seek someone’s indictment, because they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone,” he said.Napolitano admitted we don’t know who the DOJ is looking to indict, but he noted there are only about five people between Pagliano and Clinton. But as WaPo concludes...The kindest possible reading of this news for Clinton is that Pagliano was simply nervous to talk about how -- and why -- he had set up the email server, and granting him immunity lets him speak freely without any concern that he might get into trouble.Maybe. But it's my strong impression that the Justice Department doesn't go around granting immunity to people unless the person getting the immunity may be able to shed light on an important part of the investigation.After all, if Pagliano a) knew nothing or b) did nothing wrong, why would he need immunity to talk to the FBI?Keep on running...http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-0 ... r-immunity
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
This is yet another reason why they call him Slick Willie. http://nypost.com/2016/03/03/why-85000- ... -arrest/By the way, Hillary narrowly won in Massachusetts by a 50 to 49 percent margin.
Re: Who Will Be Coronated in the U.S. in 2016?
kenmurray wrote:https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoon ... 0_low.jpgI hear that there is a smoking section in the Clinton Library, just in case you like cigars.