My political analysis of what 2016 will bring.

Fiorina and Bush could change bodies and no one would know the difference if they listened to them speaking. Fiorina is more mainstream than almost any candidate out there except Bush. Their stands on immigration are pretty much the same: no pathway to citizenship but legalization for illegals. Children of illegals will become citizens, and the Birthright Citizenship law will stay on the books.

Both of them are adherents to total corporate anarchy; and the "trickle down economy" motif that says let corporations do whatever they want and that in turn will enrich the masses. This was a disaster for the masses when Reagan tried it, was a disaster again when Bush ll tried it, and it will be a disaster again under Fiorina or Bush. In fact, Fiorina and Bush's love of illegals stems from their desire to suppress wages to their lowest possible denominator.

Fiorina should be careful to not underestimate the masses when it comes to wanting the borders closed, wanting the deportation of illegals, and wanting an end to Birthright Citizenship; and don't underestimate their disdain for the politics-as-usual crowd.

All Trump has to do to stay on top is to consistently remind people that both Bush and his conjoined twin Fiorina, and Carson too, are in essence, pro-illegal immigration. Trump should mention during the debate that Fiorina suggested that Birthright Citizenship was nothing more than a "shiny object" distracting voters from the real issues. In fact, it is a shiny object, but not to voters-- to illegals who come here, plop out children, and are thus ensured cradle-to-grave welfare. By saying that, Fiorina insulted the intelligence of most of the GOP base. She is an 'intellectual' and corporate snob; and I would never vote for her. If it came down to Fiorina and Sanders, I would vote Sanders.

 

Politician make promises with their mouths that the arses cannot not keep.

 

I'm not a soothsayer, nor mind reader.

 

Hillary to the right of Barack Obama? LMAO....

 

You really think Hillary is to the left of Obama?

 

I've always believed that if the GOP were more leniant on social programs, that she'd rejoin the GOP as she was a Young Republican. As far as her corporate and pro-war policies, they really are mostly the same. (Has anyone forgotten "We came, we saw, he died"?). If anyone would reduplicate the Bush years, it's her. Which is why her excuses for the authorization vote is laughable.

She'd make that vote then, and now and probably always. When she made her comments on possibly nuking Iran back in the 2008 campaign, I knew to stay the hell away. Knowing now about her international corruption and selling of secrets to foreigners, I'm not sure why she isn't in prison let alone campaigning. But safe to say, I wouldn't vote for her.

You and I are both largely independents at heart, we'd both want Plutocratic Washington to undergo a massive transformation to once more serve the people of our country. And while it is yes, true that the POTUS is technically a lame duck while Congress would remain in control I am of the everfast belief that more and more Americans have realized Washington's plutocracy, and more and more are tired of the norm.

Time is never eternal, every political movement that has believed in its immortality was actually dooming itself to its collapse. Especially when the political regime ignores the wishes of its people. When we saw how the approved budget gave billions in tax breaks, the far left and far right joined together in opposition.

Today's politics is truly a spectacle to behold. And the winds are changing. Even if those changes don't occur in 2016, a pebble will be moved. And more pebbles will be henceforth coming. Washington only has itself to blame for its contempt, for its arrogance and believing that the guard could never change. The power of the vote is much more powerful than the sword. The spoken word can't be blocked. We still live in a country where we can decide our own destiny. Most people chose not to. They're choosing to now.

 

If not Left of Obama, just as ideologically Left. Remember Hillary is an Alinsky acolyte.

Why Hillary's Alinsky Letters Matter
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388560/why-hillarys-alinsky-letters-matter-stanley-kurtz
Sep 22, 2014 - Hillary continually pressed Bill from the left during their White House years, ... to doubt Obama's ideological credentials, when in fact the president is as ... In her letter to Alinsky, Hillary says, “I have just had my one-thousandth.

~~~~~~​

The Hillary Letters
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/
Sep 21, 2014 - Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her ...

 

Yeah, Hillary was a Goldwater girl in her young age. I supported Goldwater big time back then. What I do not like today is the polarization of Washington where compromise is a four letter word. Politics has always been the art of the possible, both parties have lost this fact. What is interesting since you mentioned independent is their rise in numbers over the last 10-15 years, from 30% of the electorate to around 45%.

As the Democrats drifted more and more far left, they left the center left Folks behind. The same with the Republicans, the further right they went, the more the center right people who once identified with that party left it. Congress reflects this. In 2006 quite a lot of moderate Republican lost to the more liberal Democrats, then in 2010 the blue dog more moderate Democrats in congress were kicked out in favor of the neoconservative Republicans. Very few are left in congress to effect compromise to keep Washington moving forward.

It is no wonder congress's approval rating is somewhere between 10-15%. Most people are looking for a congress that works. They switched to the Democrats in 2006 and gave them greater majorities in 2008, didn't like what the Democrats gave them and the people gave the House back to the Republicans. Wanting change and something that worked. That didn't happen and the people really didn't know which way to turn in 2012 and basically kept the status quo. In 2014, still looking for something that works they kicked the Democrats out of the senate.

I got news for all Americans, voting for Republicans or Democrats will not provide you with something that works and works for America. Republicans and Democrats are only interested in their party and their party's agenda. Not Americas. The problem is the two major parties have a monopoly on our political system. So we will continue to vote one party into power and two or four years later vote them out seeking to find something that works for America and not political parties.

 

There are plenty of voters in the middle and we're all standing by waiting for the clowns and wingdings to exit this race so we can figure out which normal candidate we're going to support. By "clowns" I'm of course referring to Trump and Cruz; by "wingdings" I mean everyone apart from Jim Webb and Hillary on the left and Bush/Rubio/Christie on the right.

I guarantee that your analysis is worth exactly what I paid to read it here. Civil unrest? What are you talking about? You know there are a lot of cities in America that are not named Ferguson or Baltimore. The unemployment rate is below 6%. People are buying and selling houses again. Do you really see civil unrest where you live? I see far more people working and going about their lives. Those people - the middle that you claim is endangered - they do not want to see a huge swing to the left with Sanders or to the right with Trump/Cruz/Carson.

 

According to the U-6 Unemployment numbers, it's at least as much as 10%. Washington always cooks up the numbers. But unemployment doesn't even tell the story, the shrinking labor force does. Or are you one of those who believes the economy is "growing" with a shrinking labor force?

 

Why do you think the gov't tracks unemployment? It isn't just to make the party in power feel good about itself or for the opposition party to take cynical pot shots at the administration, even if that's how it's commonly used by wannabe politicos.

The gov't tracks unemployment because it is probably the best indicator of how likely we are to see "civil unrest." If enough people are not gainfully employed, they're going to have that much more time to sit around thinking about how their neighbors or the government have screwed them, and that much more time to go out and riot about it in the street.

Point is, we are not there. We're not close to there. If you think we are then you need to go spend some time in Greece, Spain, or South Africa to develop some perspective.

 

Yipee, we're some 5 or so percentage points away. That's "not even close" to being there. Not. It's another shock or two to the system away from being there, and if you hadn't noticed(Warren and Sanders sure have), we hadn't even engaged in remotely any reforms whatsoever to actually protect the system. We just paid off the banks, lowered interest rates and "walla".(Though walla in this instance means slowed to almost nonexistent "growth") for 6 years.

I pointed you out to U-6, I pointed you out to our shrinking labor force. The Left in particular makes a point of slow wage growth. Wanna know what that's caused by? Underemployment(the other negative. The shrinking labor force means that people are taking jobs they're overqualified for.).

What, did you think the "official" unemployment rate was anywhere close to accurate? Lol. We would learn earlier this month that around 90% of our country is on some kind of government benefit, yet you think that rate is anywhere close to accurate? Addressing your naivety that we don't have bonfires around the country yet, that's why.

No one ever bites the hand that feeds them, and government is presently doing just that. But government cannot sustain that, or increase that for very long. And there's only so much physical output that can come from a minimized working as well as entreprenuial force. So yeah, there's no bonfires around the country yet, but that doesn't mean we're "home free". Not even close.

 

We are not even close to anything you are talking about. You're a conspiracy theorist. Our unemployment percentages are nothing we haven't seen in the past century. Let me know when we have real unemployment at 25% than we will talk.

 

Two things. The 'youth' are just not interested so don't participate.

Second. This is mostly a two party system but those two parties have changed and also been replaced before. Our revolutions happen legally and slowly, too slowly for some and the cause for many of our problems when activist courts make the law.

 

I suspect you're one of those conservatives who go around proclaiming that you're an independent. When was the last time you ever voted for a Democrat?

 

I don't see anything particularly conservative in his posts. Thoughtful and insightful, maybe, but not overtly Republican favoring.

I agree with those that say that both parties don't really care about the average citizen. It's all about the party and politics, not the well-being of the people. Democrats and Republicans actually support most of the same things, but pander to certain groups and avoid talking about the many similarities/

For example, both parties support:
- Massive war on drugs
- Federal reserve
- Bailouts
- FDA
- Foreign wars
- PATRIOT act
- Corporate subsidies
- Government control of Medicare, Social Security, etc
- Government-run schools
- Income tax
- Capital gains taxes
- Protectionism
- Only support civil liberties that align with their personal moral views

I mean, it's pretty striking how similar they truly are.

 

So yes the establishment candidates will eventually beat out Sanders and Trump.

I think it's going to be Hillary against Bush, Rubio, or Walker. Of the latter three I'd say only Rubio might have a realistic shot to defeat her.

 

He called the Democratic party, the democrat party, which is a right wing usage. (In fact, Frank Luntz coined it).

Beyond that, I couldn't make much out of his self imagined definition of the work Nihilist, or the way he selectively applied it, other than to get the idea that he want's to support some outside fringe candidate.

 

Frank Luntz coined the term "Democrat Party" ?.....huh?

 

You can call it whatever you'd like, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm also fine with laying out the evidence and seeing what's happening. The Fed has, of yet to raise interest rates back from their historic 0%(which is basically cheap ass buying, it's also a bad indicator meaning those prices had to be that low to even remotely CONSIDER buying.). When the Fed finally does decide to stop holding the economy's hand and we survive that shock, then I'll believe that the economy is back.

But as of now, it's all fluff. And there's no theory about our labor shortage, or about our wages declining. The wage decline in fact had been a Left issue. Are the Democrats conspiracy theorists now? Or is it just my dubious belief in the economy that makes it a conspiracy?

 

That has literally nothing to do with what the Fed is doing. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

You're a conspiracy theorists, there's no doubt about that. And we definitely do not have a "labor shortage".

 

Like I said, wait and see. I think the factors are very clearly there and until the threshold is met then people would be stupid to enter back into the market. Oh wait, some of them already did and lost money the minute an outside factor(the Chinese) came into the picture. "Consumer Confidence" cannot be established without proof of fact and right now the Fed has none.

 

Like I said, literally no clue. That has nothing to do with the Fed or them raising or not raising interest rates.

 

Did I, or did I not clearly state "outside factor"? I think I did, I think everyone else read it too. I think you're the only one who missed it. The point being, if some outside factor can damage the US Economy, what does that say about our internal workings? Because whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, wages in fact aren't growing. The job sector is incredibly weak and right now the government's just giving it a neat little paint job.

You wanna inhale that paint? Hey, fine, free country, free world. But there are some of us, who've actually physically participated in the "market"(or lackthereof) and know damn well that hiring isn't up to par. And the various factoids that have come out have proven that the country is working with very limited resources.

But yeah, you go ahead and pretend everything's okay.

 

Things really aren't as bad as you are making them. You act like we're a third world country. We're fine. We just need to get Reagan back so Republicans will start spending money again. When you destroy a million public sector jobs, these are the results one would expect. Luckily there are govt programs that allow people to withstand this Republican attack on America.