Personalities

Since our last post was addressed toward an historical personality, perhaps we should extend the effort in the direction of another personality, not historical, but potentially so. . . and, that is toward the illustrious Donald Trump, a candidate for the office of President of the universe. . . or, still more!

One of the problems of our recent line of presidents is forgetfulness. They seem to forget that the office has been around longer than they have and the line of succession is longer and of more significance than the small thoughts they bring to the office; to put it another way, forgetting or deliberately overlooking the historical perspective. In that light perhaps, we should include a few more of the Republican candidates than just the cantankerous Mr. Trump. Certainly, Mr.Cruz is ambitious enough to be included in the list, and then there is Bush III, attempting to put himself into the frame of the Bush presidential dynasty = that would be a first, three members of a family occupying the first seat in a government who did not inherit the position as monarchs do.

But, then, we might say that that has already been done in view of the fact that Bill Clinton's genealogy has been traced to include him as a distance cousin of the Bush family. Does marriage carry the relation past blood lines? If so, that would include the aspiring Hillary in the picture.

But, before he's assumed the office, Mr. Trump has assumed the mantle. One comment (apologies for not marking or remembering who) on his recent spate insists that Trump is setting up new standards for campaigning. Well, he does not appear to be a person who changes his mind on whims fancies or facts, so as he behaves now, he will behave in office if elected. That means if negotiations with other heads of state do not go as he fancies they should, there will be hell to pay in response - another tantrum? Laying on the floor, kicking his heels and banging his head?

Temper tantrum is some households must be accepted if later life provides an example, some of us never grow out of bad habits acquired earlier in life. And it must be a gratification to have the resources to buy your own air time to compete with debates whose sponsors will not comply with your demands. If that doesn't work, you can always buy the station or network and rearrange its credo to suit your purposes. Smaller minds might believe that once the opposition believes you are sincere, everyone will then fall in line.

Perhaps this line of thought should shut down once the point is made. But, the man will not change if he were to attain that status. But, then, fi he does, has the office already been stained beyond salvation?

An older observer than Mr. Trump, might remember the curt reminder that Harry Truman directed toward an opponent on one campaigning occasion, "He'll do alright as long as he remembers that the office elevates the man and not the other way around." The hope here is that such sentiment still resides in office seekers, which would reassure voters that the office is still worth considering beyond the immediate concerns of some candidates with less than fully developed self-control - or voters for that matter - whose personal interests are placed before the more important community, social or civil interests. That would include anyone inciting riotous agreement from their supporters.

There is a timeliness in some social concerns that demands attention to social and ethical standards. That timeliness does not include temper tantrums or disregard for those who do not agree with us when opinions are based on flagrant and total disregard for those considered unworthy of our respect. Usually, in the long run, that display of disrespect turns against us too quickly and unexpectedly to become a weapon used against our purpose. That's the meaning of a two edged sword, if it has slipped some minds of those considering themselves too important to believe otherwise.

The beliefs that impels such behavior is not new in politicians; and, to this writer's awareness, is eventually self-destructive. Which is as it should be. A candidate who has no respect for the audience before whom he should be putting the "best foot forward" will soon discover they have no respect for him in return. But, that is a realization that escapes those engaged in unproductive diversions that undermine their own visions. If they have such convictions, the inevitable end to their dream will surface eventually.

That, too, is as it should be.

Resentment Over Hope

Americans are losing ground that they cannot regain. A lot of Americans are looking for someone to blame and Donald Trump is there to point the finger: it is Mexican illegals. It is the Chinese dumping goods on Americans.
The American economy is cartelized and monopolized. Why is this so-called economic recovery so miserable?
New companies are not creating jobs. Facebook has 10,000 employees. McDonalds has 440,000.
Without a retourn to entrepreneurship, America's economy will stagnate.
Donald Trump represents the triumph of resentment over hope.

Americans are blind

Trump is probably the best poster child that I can think of that demonstrates the massive ignorance of main street usa. We truly deserve the backlash if he is elected. Trump is a Wall St shyster. He'll say or do anything for money and power and loves those that participate in his circle jerk.
So now we have The BOJ, a significant economy, joining the EU and a few other Northern European Central banks adopting NIRP. Years of zero bound hasn't worked so they apparently think that negative will somehow work.
I think that most critics are missing the point. The purpose of QE, zero bound, 2% inflation targets,and nirp was never intended to stimulate the economy on main st. The purpose is to keep markets elevated.
Those that claim that the fed is out of dry powder are mistaken.
There are many tricks and gimmicks to keep investment banks profitable at the expense of the rest of mankind. Those that disagree need only look at the past 20 yrs.
There will be no one calling foul in Japan. Their population is old and tired. The younger ones are mostly placid and have escaped into gadget induced fantasy existence. I'm not picking on them, we're following a similar path.
Arguments have been made that youngsters will spend what's left over of their parents investments when they pass on which will cause the market to fall. Wrong. There are plenty of ways to discourage liquidation of financial assets through taxes, penalties, or perhaps forcing the survivors to accept an annuity or whatever. It doesn't matter which method is used once it is realized that the purpose of CB policy is get the population accustomed to first 30x, then 50x, maybe eventually 80x p/e.

Congratulations Michigan

Non establishment candidates prevailed yesterday. We'll have a tough time doing the same in Ohio next week. Kasich is the favorite among establishment republicans, Trump is the favorite of formerly non party affiliated right leaning people that will vote for him in next week primary (in probably record numbers).
Hillary is defiling my state at this time either pandering to older poor black voters that are still stuck in 1966 or rich white suburban woman that pay big fees for Yoga class that they drive to in their BMW. Younger educated black and younger educated white women support Sanders.
I'll vote Sanders (even though current "establishment" polls show him at less than 10%).
I have to backtrack on my previous comment from the 1-29-16. Thank You Mitt Romney for reminding America that there is nothing substantially different between you and Lady Clinton. My current sentiment, like many others, is that I'll vote for Trump in The General if my choice is between Clinton and Trump. People are fed up with the establishment. The war is not Trump supporters vs Sanders supporters.
I guess we should thank our current potus for that. He fooled a lot of supporters. Such a shame that our first black potus turned out to be a WASP.

The beltway doesn't get it

Neither party, along with the msm, doesn't understand that this current election cycle has little to do with republican or democrat loyalty.
The vast population of the voting age population in this country is actually independent with some leaning conservative, some liberal, but most supporting a combination of ideologies from both.
People are tired of politicians who enter office with modest wealth land up being multi millionaires. The problem is not limited to either party. Both are guilty. You don't receive 600k + dollars from Goldman Sachs for a few speaking engagements for nothing. You can't claim the economy is recovering just because you adjust the method of determining unemployment. The vast majority of the population does not have income to invest in the market so the S&P 500 could be 20,000 but that would not reduce the number of people receiving food assistance. You can't claim the USA has the moral high ground when we brag about our not so secret torture detention centers. Most of the world knows that the USA, along with other western European countries illegally invaded Iraq and a million plus died. Why has no one been prosecuted for this?
Obama said today:
"Obama To GOP: Stop Blaming Me For 'Creating' Trump" "While admitting he shares some blame for the widening partisan divide during his term in office, President Obama dismissed the notion that he's responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, who has harnessed voter anger during his presidential run, urging GOP elites to do some "introspection" about the how "the politics they've engaged in allows the circus we've been seeing to transpire."

"I'm not going to validate some notion that the Republican crackup that’s been taking place is a consequence of actions that I’ve taken..."
The circus is not only in the republican party...the current frontrunner may be indicted for federal crimes before November.
It's not just the GOP Mr President. The establishment democrats are up to their neck in filth too.

The democrats are next

Dear Duffminster members. Please let me know if my political commentary is inappropriate for this forum. I have the highest respect for all of your opinions and I value your input considering this matter.
Please note that neoh is originally from Cleveland, Ohio...we're born with thicker skin than most!

The following article by Michael Krieger at Liberty Bltzkreig sums up, what I sense (at least locally), how America is moving away from the two political parties that have dominated national politics for the past half century +/-.

It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding
"Whichever side emerges victorious, both Republicans and Democrats should face up to a much bigger truth: Neither party as currently constituted has a real future. Fewer and fewer Americans identify as either Republican or Democratic according to Gallup, and both parties are at recent or all-time lows when it comes to approval ratings. Just 39 percent give Democrats a favorable rating and just 33 percent do the same for Republicans. Not coincidentally, each party has also recently had a clear shot at implementing its vision of the good society. If you want to drive down your adversary’s approval rating, just give him the reins of power for a few years.
Political pundits throughout the land are tripping over each other to compose the latest bland, uninsightful screed proclaiming the death of the Republican Party. This makes sense, because the primary purpose of a political pundit is to state the obvious years after it’s already become established fact to everyone actually paying attention.

Yes, of course, Trump winning the GOP nomination marks the end of the party as we know it. After all, some neocons are already publicly and actively throwing their support behind Hillary. While this undoubtably represents a major turning point in U.S. political history, many pundits have yet to appreciate that the exact same thing is happening within the Democratic Party. It’s just not completely obvious yet.

While it might sound strange, a coronation of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary will mark the end of the party as we know it. There’s been a lot written about the “Sanders surge,” with much of it revolving around Hillary Clinton’s extreme personal weakness as a candidate. While this is indisputable, it’s also a convenient way for the status quo to exempt itself from fault and discount genuine grassroots anger. I’m of the view that Sanders’ support is more about people liking him than them disliking Hillary, particularly when it comes to registered Democrats. He’s not merely seen as the “least bad choice.” People really do like him.
The Sanders appeal is twofold. He is seen as unusually honest and consistent for someone who’s held elected office for much of his life, plus he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.” While Hillary is being forced to pay lip service to these issues, everybody knows she doesn’t mean a word of it. She means it less than Obama meant it in 2008, and Obama really didn’t mean it.

Hillary is the embodiment of a sick and detested status quo. She stands for nothing, is nothing, and a vote for her all but guarantees both murder abroad and oligarchy at home. I think a large number of Bernie Sanders supporters understand this and won’t be going off silently into that quiet voting booth to commit ethical self-sacrifice despite the terrifying prospects of a Trump presidency. I think they’ll stay home, but they won’t sit there passively. They’ll be seething inside, and many will renounce the Democratic party forever. Many rank and file Republicans already came to such a conclusion years ago, which is precisely why the nomination was wide open for a man like Trump to capture. Democrats will do the same, and before you know it, political pundits will be tripping over each other to write about the death of the Democratic Party.
It’s not just the grassroots either. This civil war has now gone all the way to the top, as evidenced by this weekend’s very public endorsement of Bernie Sanders by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Before I get into the significance of this move, let’s recap what happened.
A rising star within the Democratic ranks, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, cut herself off from the party’s establishment by resigning from her post as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.

Her position with the DNC required her to stay neutral in the primaries, but she said that “the stakes are too high.” She announced her decision on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and made a video where she explained her reasoning.

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said she knows the cost of war firsthand. “I know how important it is that our commander-in-chief has the sound judgment required to know when to use America’s military power—and when not to use that power.”
The importance of this move cannot be understated. In no uncertain terms, this gesture publicly exposes the weakness of the “Clinton brand.” She clearly isn’t afraid of Hillary or of any repercussions from the Democratic Party elite, a fact that is underscored by the fact she came out with her endorsement after he got pummeled in South Carolina.

But let’s take a step back and think about this in the even bigger picture. You don’t get to Congress by being a political imbecile. On the surface, this move looks like career suicide, particularly since Hillary is probably about to clinch the nomination. Recall, Rep. Gabbard didn’t merely endorse Sanders after a bruising loss in South Carolina, she stepped down from her official position with the DNC to do so. This isn’t merely a statement, it’s the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the Democratic establishment. So why did she do it?
While I think she genuinely agrees with Sanders on key issues, the reason she came out so aggressively is because she sees the writing on the wall. She’s playing the long game, and in the long game, Hillary Clinton represents a discredited and failed status quo, while Bernie Sanders represents a push toward the paradigm level change that will define the future.

In summary, I believe this marks the beginning of an all out civil war within the Democratic party. A war that won’t be over until someone successfully does to the Democratic Party what Trump did to the GOP.

As for Michael Krieger of Blitzkrieg

Since the sixties, the Democratic party has had problems getting their registered voters out to the polling places.

In numbers, registered democrats have been close to twice as many as registered Republicans, yet have not ridden "roughshod" over the opposition in any campaign. Krieger claims that the independents have grown to take over the elections. They have done so because the Dems have not been able to since their people sit out election night. GOP musters their troops so that the party is represented by about 80% of their registered rolls.

There was a saying which originated in the Depression a carried on for a few decades, I believe, that if it rained election day, the Republicans would win. That was due to the fact that it was preseumed that Dems were generally disadvantaged people who didn't have the automobiles or raincoats to shield them from inclement weather.

Today, it may not be that so much as the conviction that their vote will not amount to much so it's useless to get out and give up their night in front of the TV, or their night at the pub. That negative view of the weight of their vote is difficult to overcome.

What happens then is pretty much of a draw as far as party votes are concerned. Enter the independents, who are generally in better financial straights than are the average democrats. This means they are naturally suited to follow the policies of the republicans - if it has not proven too disastrous during the last term. Going in to first terms, Carter, Clinton and Obama benefitted from (1) Nixon's scandal, (2) Bush, pere's faux pas - indicating he was not cut out to be a campaigning politician, and (3) the mess that everyone recognized as Bush, fils, gumming up the works.

Unfortunately, everyone misdiagnosed the severity of the disaster and misprescribed cures and we ended up with a neophyte politician who could not convince first stringers to join or stay with his party and his terms took on the appearance of a near farce in ineffectiveness. Of course, the party of NO had some obstructive input during those two terms.

If he had the proper support from dedicated experts, O&G believes Obama might not have appeared to be such a lame duck from day one. The first thing wrong with his approach was accepting George W's invitation to the White House "to get acquainted" after winning the election. The wrong picture was created by his prancing down the aisle into the outside, ground-level private entrance to the oval office, laughing with George W - especially when one considers the damage inflicted on the economy under George's watch.

Compare that with the response FDR issued to Hoover when that invitation to visit the White House - after the 1932 election - was received, "Let's sit down and discuss issues." FDR had more experience than to bite on that bait, declined and went into the oval office with a unimpeded fresh outlook, blazing with activity to put a stop to the blood letting.

That was experience at work!

Obama may have been conscious of the near split between the Dems and Pubs vote totals and fully aware of the independents' role and their deciding votes, though misreading it all the way. Instead of concentrating on reading them as tie-breakers he should have asked himself, "What need we do to get our people out to the polls?" He should then have jumped on the opportunty and he could have made an enduring name for himself. But, he could not enlist the competent professionals needed for the job.

If you follow local elections at all, and if the MSM posts the splits, you'll find that as the 5 0r 7% independent vote goes, so goes the election. It is not a case of 51%, or 40%, or any similar votes originating fron Independents at all. . . that is, Independents can be disounted completely in areas where one or the other party dominates by a wide enough margin to allow for it.

Plus, in view of the stats presented in O&G's previous remarks above, it's hard to believe Krieger's closing statement, about the implied success of Donald Trump and the democrats need of a Trump imitator. It's a pretty firm belief from this quarter that someone other than Trump will emerge from the Republican convention with the party's blessing. Do you believe the pros in control of the Republican party will surrender their control to someone like Trump? He'd make a laughing stock of the office.

He is too weak a candidate to pin the party's hopes on. Just watch more surprises emerge as the weeks progress. . . surprises more devastating than his business failures - which have proven his business acumen is more PR work than fact.

Could you imagine Soros, Buffett, Icahn, or other successful billionaire's taking time off from making the kind of money that buys entry to the oval office when it's needed, trading that privileged entry to sit idly in office or touring the globe to visit with people they now get to see on a private, personal basis only because they own or control half that nation's output facilities or their firms supply half the needed resources?

The Presidency would be a step down for any of the first rank billionaires. For a clown, it's a different matter - accustomed as he is to ridicule.

Agree and disagree Old and Gray

While I agree that Trump is not what would traditionally considered be called "presidential material", I don't think he is any worse than our past three regimes (Obama, Bush, and Clinton). The past three executives deceptions were extreme. Clinton knew that NAFTA would destroy US manufacturing yet sold it as a great opportunity for main street America. I don't think Clinton was stupid so I can only conclude that NAFTA was passed, with support from both parties, with personal gain being the objective.
Next we had the Bush years. I truly believe he lied, then and now, when he invaded Iraq under the pretense that Saddam was stockpiling massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction. Again, he had support from both parties. Perhaps a million people died, although I believe murdered would be a more accurate description. I don't believe the intelligence was faulty. It was intentionally manipulated. I held out hope that the bush years would be the proverbial it gets darkest before dawn.
So I supported Obama. And the darkness continued. I disagree with Obama apologists that excuse his ineffectiveness on his inexperience, or calling him a neophyte. I don't think he was that weak. His most recent action of "fast tracking" the secret Pacific Trade Agreement (pretty much supported by both parties) raises my suspicion about his motives further. I imagine he'll also be commanding 200k speaking engagement fees from Goldman and others when he leaves office.
So who is the rank and file electorate going to support? Nice talking men or woman that history has shown that their interests are big corporate donors and the military complex? Rubio- no thanks, Cruz-no thanks, Kasich- no thanks, Clinton- no thanks. All of these people are saying "let them eat cake".
Yes, Trump is way out there. He sounds crazy. Almost as crazy as a small group of individuals that had the audacity to militarily challenge the world super power called England in the late 18th century. That was really a crazy thought!
There is little difference between the two parties. Even the supposedly Soros organized protest against Trump in Chicago was a rouse. Why would any supposedly left leaning billionaire be trying to help the Republican Party? Wouldn't it be in his best interest to let them implode? I suspect millionaire democrats AND republicans are the ones more fearful of Trump.

neoh, on people from Ohio. . and elsewhere!

Having spent some time as a resident of Ohio, I'd take exception to the claim that Ohioans are any more thicker-skinned than residents anywhere else. Having been exposed to a wide segment of citizens in the Western hemisphere New-World and the orient more so than most Americans, it seems proper to judge it is manifest that people everywhere feel a close tie with the habits, customs and mores of their native habitat and feel proud of their background. That adds meaning to their lives.

A newcomer moving into any area, should be careful of the presumptions he/she makes about the sensitivities of the locals and not say or do anything that might provoke offense especially from a new transplant.

Not that there's much difference between all us residents here on earth; matter of fact O&G believes not(!) - except for the fact that the local thought everywhere prevails, "I've lived in this area all my life; are you telling me I wasted any of it? What makes you so high and mighty?" Call it the competitive spirit on top of personal pride.

And why not? We need some ties to our neighbors even if we have negative thoughts about them more often than not. . . . And, that is a little dose of "rugged Individualism" mixed in with "community spirit". Which, all told, makes for a very complicated mixture of personal and community values: such as the thought that, yes, we are all Americans, but don't tell me how to live my life!

Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, and an economist recently attempting to inject a modicum of the human spirit into economics, appears in a commercial on the 'net in which his outspoken summary of the human spirit is

. . "humans are emotional, absent-minded, and make some very bad decisions". . .

None of us can insist that isn't so or we don't fit the very general, sweeping, unflattering mold he lays out. But, it probably does raise body temperature a degree or two or pulse rate a beat or more - for most of us to hear about our deficiencies in what might be considered an attack on each and every one of us.

So, what does it all mean? Do we need the control of an inviolable manifesto here at Duff's to determine what path we should take?

Have you read the entry in the masthead entitled "About Duffminster"?

Duff set this up as a community sounding board, calling for civil behavior and open discussion. His original intent was that subject matter would encompass more than any one individual can possibly represent. From the beginning, it was a certainty that each of the contributors had a different spin on life, a different amount of time to contribute and a different agenda, but we joined in, had our say and most believed everything that needed saying from their point of view had been said and moved on.

Out of the large list of initial participants, we have about a half dozen persistent die-hards who still follow developments and have seen the results of decisions that have been made, promulgated and met Richard Thaler's short list of criteria for being human, and we still bleat about it.

There are a number of ways that summary can be taken, but it's offered in good spirit and a little laugh at the appearance of an overly serious face that stares back at me every morning from the mirror. I have a copyrighted poem pasted on the inside of an overhead cubby hole of my desk top which provides a laugh every time I open the door, written by a very pleasant looking young Lauren B. Smolkin, teaching in Virginia which I once contacted and asked if I could use her creation here to keep my seriousness in check which I'd like to use at this point -

Donkey, Donkey,
Old and Gray
Ope your mouth
And gently bray;

Lift your ears
And blow your horn,
To wake the world
This sleepy morn.

In response for her permission, an email was received: no words, just a photo of a smug smile on a pleasant, intelligent face, of a person it would be an obvious pleasure to know.

We all have something of value to give each other and none of us have all we need to survive alone. The only thing we should say about each other's thoughts is something firmly believed by this writer, no matter how innocent or upsetting another person's opinion might be, it could and probably will exert some positive contribution either in strengthening one's own unchanged belief or in correcting a mistaken belief or ill-expressed opinion.

As for Donald Trump's quest for that chair behind the desk in the oval office, though his candidacy doesn't fit O&G's ideal, it will be interesting to see just how this man who has only about a 42% approval rating among the GOP regulars and a recently published high ranking of a negative 56% - highest among the remaining presidential candidates - will fare at the end of the campaign and the ordeal of a convention, should he last that long.

Looked at another way, a WSJ blogsite published figures that showed 70% of Republicans are "very worried" over the economy with another 23% "somewhat worried". That's about 93% of the people affiliated with the political group Trump represents, facing off against a following showing "discomfort", at the least, with policy that the candidate would make a perfect poster child of what was wrong with the economy and who, to date, has not proposed one single correction he'd back. It's easy to see why the headline would claim these people were "worried sick" over the irreconcilable quandary in which these people find themselves embroiled.

How does one reconcile that? Party members as uneasy with the results of past policy of their party and supporting a front runner with a pronounced negative trend in the majority, who is also one of the major beneficiaries of the business trend that produced collapse from which no expert has yet adopted or proposed an accepted solution toward recovery, none of which seems to be of concern to the candidate or his party's leaders? Or, do you not attempt reconciliation, just plod ahead on the same course, trusting in faith and blind luck? Not exactly the touchstone for politics or economics.

Then, too, the last Republican candidate for the presidency, Romney, was cut from the same cloth, moved his money out of the United States where he considerd it safe and trumpeted that he was going to take over and straighten the economy out, and set out to do that by belittlingthe common voters.

How much assurance did he give the voters? To no surprise, he fell far short of being elected. I see a repeat in Donald Trump who, like Romney, makes quick, off-the-cuff judgments, is part of the establishment of elites and if he does not have the same degree of contempt for common people, what is there still shows through.

Does that work for any of us?

Short and Sweetly Bitter...

Most people opposing Trump claim to have done research on him but can't utter a single fact. There are both Right and Left in opposition to Clinton. So much so that civil unrest comes to mind if she has the nomination. Sanders is progressing well but no one can say if he can physically go the distance. His followers want Democratic Socialism... Uncivil priority to collect pay for work not done or not good for economy and a lot of free time.
There is only one candidate capable of forcing a revival of free enterprise and doing so saves us all. It isn't funny to think of him in the Oval Office because it will be frightening but in the end, our cream will prevail and jails will be full of corruption alongside felons. That's not a good mix either.

The complacent cannot thrive in Chaos. To vote for Clinton because she's a woman, Cruz because he is a Brand Christian, Rubio because... Why vote for Rubio? Or Kaisch because he isn't Trump, or Trump because you mistakenly believe he will tolerate groups is-- nearly extinct political myopia. There is change ahead and failure. Destitute people automatically skip that pendulum swing so know for a fact... Groups in general get the axe.

Sorry Saldeck but the EU is a group no less insulated from that swing... Constant bailing without any economics condemns that Establishment and takes ours down with them.

Short and sweet by Nassim Taleb

"The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other "well thinking" members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."

If so, neoh. . .

The "people's" protest is against their own record of non-involvement in the process of selecting suitable leaders who represent a point of view that suits the voting public.

So, if they vote for Trump, they are still voting against their own best interests. Got to pick the least toxic where your welfare is concerned.

I was not yet 18 when I attended a speech by a Supreme Court Justice whose message was, if you want to succeed in reorganizing or rebuilding, the only viable pathway is through established institutions. They can be changed.

I've since added to that of my own volition: a rebellion just rips everything apart and leaves chaos behind, which is exactly what those who attack the public's interest want!

Good point Old and Gray

But what choices do we have? We've been through at the minimum of a quarter century of deceit and lies. Is rebellion (or the threat of it) to be so feared? Our institutions, including the scotus and media have been hijacked.
While I agree rebellion is indeed risky (and always messy), it is often the means to at least galvanize the public to begin thinking seriously about what has been occurring. I believe it is the way to change what you call established institutions that are now entirely corrupt. Our election process as of late, financed by financial interests, and not reported by the media that is controlled by those interests is not working.
Yes, revolution can be fearsome. None of us know what the outcome will be. Will we build a better system or will it devolve into something more sinister? The fact that it is being considered and discussed is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the violence can hopefully be avoided. Perhaps not.
Either way, you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

If eggs are to be "cracked",

If eggs are to be "cracked", my preference is for cracking them with punishments already in place - they are more than severe enough if administered with dedication. I opt for restitution and the social disgrace of incarceration. But, then, anti-social behavior is not punishable today. It should be.

I'd feel satisfied with a solution that was a firm assurance that no more pandering to the elite or favoritism for BIG were possible. Break up the "too big to be controlled" for the ultimate benefit of the entire nation rather than a chosen few. Isn't that what the democratic concept implies?

If we don't hold that view in front of us at all times, are we really serving that democracy that Washington envisioned when he turned down any consideration of a monarchy - which was seriously contemplated before we ended up with the scheme that resulted.

200 years later, we took a different view of what the USA is all about: we lie, misrepresent and steal from those among us in need, hacve no idea of how many among us are working (or are considered to be eligible for employment) skew taxes so those who steal from the system bear the lightest tax burden while they have privy council with our legislators, adjudicators and chief political executives - all out of reach for the general public. It's not even a cut and dried two-tiered system.

If you were near Cleveland in the 1960s with the black uprising that swept through other parts of the nation as well, the act of rebellion and its results should be obvious to you. I went into it (!): all I saw were older folks - who were never threatened - shaking their heads at the senselessness. 20 years later the devastation was still not repaired. Rebellion usually ends up with the rebels destroying their own world: their rented houses go first, their schools and public meeting places are next, public resources meant to serve their needs are trashed, the facilities meant to provide the service follow and after its all over those responsible for the injustices administered to the common folk go scott-free while the oppressed are forced to live in the rubble as a reminder of how futile the effort was.

So, in the end what was accomplished?

It's no the way to make your point at all. If you go after the culprits, and this is where the real penalties should be aimed, you've got to have a functional judicial system and an administrative/executive/judicial administration in place so when tempers cool off, the penalties still must be served out.

If an example is not made of the miscreant anti-socials - and visible after the disruption (such as a rebellion) nothing lasting will be accomplished. Examples must be made of those working against the aims of the society. The quick handy solution will prove nothing to the next generation of ambitious "grasping hands", the candidates for those positions are already at hand, watching to see how badly it goes for the last group and is it worth the effort to jump in and take over the role they left behind or not.

I don't trust the rabble of rebels for level-headedness or such things as next step in the clean-up. Mob action is without thought or reason. Nothing but catastrophe in that direction and anything good in the system is trashed and gone. History then needs a restart. Better the good part of a system be retained for continuation rather than a search for replacements.

You may be adamant in your stance, but, I think most people faced with the choice, would opt for a lasting solution and leaving something standing for the beginning of the new paradigm.

We agree more than disagree

With the exception that we no longer have a functional judicial system to provide protection against the corruption of the executive and legislative branches of government. You may remember, as I do, that there was a time when some safeguards did exist but those days are gone. There may be a chance of reversing that course (maybe) if Sanders is elected but my Friend Bernie is a long shot at this point in time.
Old and Gray, revolution does not automatically mean we start with violence. Violence is something that is used as a last resort. Yes, I remember Cleveland in the 1960's but I remember it a little differently. The "race" riots of the 1960's was part of a larger revolutionary movement that encompassed many issues. Unfortunately, in hindsight, the revolution ended with the end of the Vietnam war and the population became complacent.
Having been alive then and now, I feel that we are in much worse shape today. The problem is no longer just a national issue but a global one.
I also tend to disagree that our wealth corrupted leaders would welcome chaos. Quite the contrary, they are control freaks that love a compliant population with the heart of cattle that are easily herded. They fear any type of society that refuses to play by their rigged laws and rules. Street smarts has proven that you never engage an adversary on their chosen battlefield and you would be foolish to play by rules that are heavily slanted in their favor.
Yes many things happened during the 60's and 70's and I don't regret the outcome. My only regret is that we should have remained more vigilant afterwards.
This is not a Sanders vs Trump movement. MSM wishes to convince us that it is that but more and more people know it isn't so.
A short article by First Rebuttal:

Brutes – Brilliant
March 13, 2016Now that's heavy stuff

Kids these days….. So the Trump rally in Chicago was successfully disrupted by mostly young and socio-economic despondent protestors who have, unknowingly, been turned into pre-programmed anti-Trump warriors by the Oligarchs they claim to hate (yes MoveOn.org is fully funded by the Oligarchs, look it up). The very same mentality that naively fell hook-line-and-sinker into Obama’s message of “Change, Yes We Can”. Now many of these protestors today are simply too young to remember the 2008 Obama campaign for what it really was; the greatest fraud in the history of American politics (and wow is that saying something).

However, this time around there are millions of Americans who do have the benefit of recent history still burned into their hearts. Millions of previously naive, young voters devastated by the deceit of politics, leaving them scorned are now ready to fight the Oligarchs and the bought and paid for Executive and Legislative branches of government. Citizen soldiers are a key component of any revolution.

Remember, Trump supporters are not die hard fans of Trump per se, they are themselves warriors ready take back their nation. And I expect if push comes to shove, which apparently MoveOn.org is dead set on making happen, Trump supporters will respond in kind. And so perhaps the violent revolution begins. The unwavering wave of support against the establishment is not a light hearted movement.

And while a group of young, angry protestors, organized by those who will discard them without so much as a deep breath beforehand, appear steadfast they will soon find out what it means to be on the wrong side of right. While they are rightly ready to fight, they are wrongly allowing themselves to be manipulated in believing their fight is with Trump. For Trump and Sanders are the same movement anthropomorphized in different bodies. And through Trump and Sanders the bloodshed need be directed at the oligarchs.

I’m not a proponent of violence but in a world that has become indifferent to the horrors of inhumanity after 15 years of continuous pre-planned illegal wars paid for by US dollars it is not outside my comfort zone either. If the moment is upon us well so be it. Let’s do what we must to drive the proverbial wooden stake into the black hearts of the sociopathic psychopaths that have transformed America into their own private golden goose of money and mercenaries.

But talk like this makes people nervous and the oligarchs count on the masses’ “better sense”. That is, they have created a system that produces a perpetuity of ill gotten gains they then use to prevent any sort of uprising. But they too have read the history books and so they understand the ancestral instinct to be free. They therefore quietly pass laws that allow “dissident citizens” to be deemed threats to national security simply by uttering those words. “You are a threat to national security”.

If you hear those words directed at you by any government commander it means you no longer have any constitutional rights. A fact that was made law by way of executive order 13528 in Jan 2010 and that will have you placed as a “civilian internee” as described in the follow-on Feb 2010 Operative Manual and solidified by the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. You will have lost your right to due process, Habeas Corpus or any other protections guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights. Everyone should read the following two articles that do well to explain the matter here and here.

It appears the plutocrats themselves are awakening to their own limitations of omnipotence over the world. Their ability to falsify the economic well being of the developed world has deteriorated so sharply so quickly that what was once a threat scenario theorized by The Council of Governors has become a reality, manifesting through the likes of Sanders and Trump. But revolts can be crushed and that is the strategy of MoveOn.org; simple and utter brutishness.

Recognizing the standard program of propaganda via main stream media attacks failed to sunder the sound of revolt it was time to ratchet up the defense of the oligarchs. And so through MoveOn.org Soros et. al will corral those that depend on the state for survival and physically deploy them to disrupt the developing inertia of a larger movement. From their perspective it is fighting (the) unrefined with (the) unrefined; that is, Sanders’ disciples against Trump’s disciples with the hope that they will destroy each other in grand revolution super nova, not soon to be forgotten by more moderate cattle. Now where this will lead, who knows. But certainly the early indications are not dissimilar to the early indications of some of the great epiphanic moments of human history.

Evil Thrives Only If We Empower It

Once upon a time, Thomas Jefferson wrote this:

Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I know he was right, but I would have guessed the descendants of 1776 would have been " abolishing forms " before now.
Alas, Western Man sits, his fingers in his ears and his eyes on a flashing screen, avoiding the obvious.

Ah well.

The Ace of Clowns

Good wisdom to bad hot air, Saldeck. The greatest enemy in the United States and likely elsewhere is the lazy couch patriot. Just about every Trump hater is one. Cruz supporters would be but they go to church to buy tickets for God shows using other people's assets.

Trump doesn't need to be a leader, he is an amazing inciter and in being so, creates the greatest weapon against the Establishment there has ever been... he's a virus to it. Do you see the Supreme Court providing direction to people in need of clarity? No. Do you see Congress doing anything at all? No. Neophyte, nutcase, baloney sausage or brother from another planet-- Obama has given nearly 8 years of gross incompetence and willful misconduct. ALL OF THEM get a rather large life-long salary just for showing up on the last day... EXCEPT, that only one person can put a glitch in that machine... Trump. Stand back oh wise ones and set your eyes on broader pictures... what is happening? There is very much happening and it all bodes badly for greed running off with suitcases full of moolah.

I am concerned about Marshall Law, Drone Wars and any type of weapon used on the masses. The one thing I am NOT at all fearful of is a bevy of former Presidents buddy-loving President Trump to tell him the "score". My guess is the lot of them never get to set foot in DC again. Would he vanquish political pay because so many have done us all so wrongly since at least 2000? YEP. He doesn't need Wall Street. He doesn't need Goldman Sachs. He is Left of the Far Right and right of the Far Left. That puts him in the Middle alongside nearly 100 million voting adults in America.

He can move cheese. He will.

Ohio disappointment

I voted at 10:30 am. I had an uneasy feeling when I noticed that I, a person in my 60's, was the youngest person in line with the exception of nursing aids that were assisting with oxygen tanks and helping the older folks with the ballots. Certainly not the type of people that would have the energy to participate (generally speaking) in stressful activism.
I was hoping that I would see more younger people since they are the ones that have decades left on this Earth. And maybe there were, but not at my precinct.

Politics Has Failed Miserably

Politics has failed to deliver on nearly every promise it has made since the 1960s. It is time to hold it to account.
What were people in 1960 hoping to get out of politics?

1. A solution to the race problem
2. An end to a pointless war
3. A solution to the Middle East problem
4. To improve education
5. A solution to the problems of poverty and welfare.

People, who were seeking these things, truly wanted the world to be better. And they worked to make it happen.
We now live in a world of all politics, all the time. And so, half a century in, we need to take a hard look at the results.

The race problem.
Where racial tension survives and thrives these days is in the realm of the political and because of political actions. Politics is keeping racism alive.
Verdict: fail

Pointless war. Verdict: fail

The Middle East problem
Israel, the Arabs, bombs, terrorists, dictators.
Verdict: fail

Education: fail

Poverty and welfare
Armies of political operatives would lose their jobs if these problems ever went away.
Verdict: fail.

We have all seen them. Still, reality is what is. And this particular slice of reality is that politics has failed. Profoundly.
We can either face reality or fight against it. But if we really care about the state of the world, we need to face the truth. Politics has failed miserably. 50 years of failure.
Young people are sowing seeds of discontent.

Need more discontent

In Ohio,the votes went to Lehman Bros alumni Kasich and Goldman crony Hilary. Hell, those two might as well cut a deal and run on the same ticket!
While I don't expect everyone to subscribe to my anti establishment/revolutionary leanings, I sure as hell don't want to hear my fellow Ohioans, who voted for those two, complaining about how our nation has been hijacked by big money interests. Hijacked by buttocks. You surrendered the ship before a single shot was fired.