Trump

Actually, Fox News does the same thing, and for the same side -- progressivism. Because they have talking heads who refer to themselves as conservatives, and take opinions that differ in some ways from the Democrat left, they are accepted as conservative. However, the people they promote would take us to the same place that the more blatant progressives would. Realizing that Americans would not openly support socialism, progressivism in intended to bring us there by steps. Many in the Democrat Party, and some Republicans, have stepped it up recently, going so far that an admitted socialist, Bernie Sanders, is competitive with the other socialists running, who haven't yet adopted the label for themselves. Yet there are few significant differences between the agendas of Bernie, Hillary, or that other guy whose name I can never remember. The same is true of the most of those running on the Republican ticket.

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and most of the others would lead us down the progressive path to socialism, although they might take the scenic route, and throw in some irrelevant issues to keep people from realizing they are the same as the Democrats. The media and the parties help to promote a perception of rivalry between the two parties by playing up the hatred between the two parties, as if they didn't hold to the same agenda. Despite the bluster and the hatred that Democrats hold for George W. Bush, Obama continued the Bush agenda in nearly every area, and added a lot of things that a Republican wouldn't get away with. For their part, despite the bluster, a Republican controlled Congress has failed to effectively fight anything that Obama has done. Despite Republicans taking control of both houses during the last election, largely over the issue of ObamaCare, Republicans recently voted to fund ObamaCare. Oh, to keep up appearances, some bills have been filed but they don't pass, and they don't pass because there are always just enough Republicans assigned to vote the other way to assure that the bills don't pass. They know exactly how these votes are going to come down before they ever reach the floor, and you can be sure that if they needed another Republican to vote the other way, they would find another Republican to vote the other way. The two major political parties vote as a progressive tag team. Every few terms, either the Administration of the Congress changes hands because Democrats are needed to advance some part of the agenda, like NAFTA and other trade agreements that unions would otherwise oppose, and Republicans are needed to pass other parts of the agenda.

I hope that Trump's lead continues through the Republican primaries, not because I am convinced that he is a perfect candidate. He holds a lot of positions that I disagree with, and if I were going to vote for the man whose stated positions most closely match my own, I'd be rooting for Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. But both of these people have shown a willingness to bend to pressure; Rand Paul in particular, but Cruz is married to a woman who was on the board of Goldman Sachs and, until just before her husband announced his candidacy, she held a membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, a worldwide progressive group.

I am rooting for Trump because all of the bad guys appear to be afraid of him, but he may have the money, the notoriety, and the willingness to fight them effectively. The elite from both major political parties, the mainstream media (and when I say that, I include Fox), and other progressive leaders worldwide seem to be scared of a Trump presidency, and that gives me hope. Normally, the primaries are manipulated so that the candidates on both sides are progressives, so it doesn't really matter who wins or who loses. Oh sure, each of these people have personal goals and ambitions that they would like to be able to advance, so I'm sure that Mitt Romney and John McCain both really wanted to beat Obama, but as far as the global corporate interests behind the major political parties are concerned, it didn't really matter.

 

People will always say whatever might put the other side in a bad light. Sometimes, there isn't much you can do about that. Over the past few weeks, probably seventy-five percent or more of what you have heard that Trump has said or done is either entirely fabricated or taken out of context.

Glenn Beck has circulated a supposed tweet from Trump congratulating Obama on his reelection, and saying that he always picks a winner. Despite the fact that this tweet was proven to have been fabricated, and Beck has had to admit that it was fake, he continues to attack Trump as if it had been true. Another fake tweet is also circulating, but I forget what that one was about right now.

Trump speaks from his own mind. He does not enter a room or debate with a prepared speech. Nothing of what he says is on a teleprompter, unlike the current resident of the White House. He also has a flamboyant personality. As such, he does say things that seem outrageous sometimes, although he most often turns out to have been right. That is because he does have well thought out issues.

Constantly, we hear that he was a flaming liberal until he decided to run for president in 2016, yet he held pretty much the same views in 1999 and 2000, when he was running for nomination for the Reform Party. His views on immigration are the same. His views on the Second Amendment are the same. He was pro-choice in 1999-2000 but, from interviews he made then, it was clear that this was not an easy choice for him, and that he found abortion to be repugnant. So the signs of an eventual change in positions were in evidence then. Given the advances in technology over the past fifteen years, his change in position on this issue is believable.

Liberals fight for mandatory minimum wage hikes while, at the same time, being in favor of uncontrolled immigration, and they wonder why their policies don't seem to be working. If we had better control over our borders, and if we limited immigration to case-by-case basis, letting in only those people who would benefit our country, there would be jobs for Americans of all races and religions, and employers would have to compete for employees. The real reason for uncontrolled immigration is not compassion, but to keep wages down. In the case of Syrians and other Middle Eastern immigrants, the real reason might differ, and it probably has more to do with keeping people afraid and willing to give even more power over to the government.

Sensible immigration makes sense, and no one else is talking about the issue with any credibility whatsoever. As long as we are at war with people who are of Middle Eastern descent, who tend to be Muslim, it makes sense to put a stop to the flow of these people into our country until we can find a way to figure out a way to vet these people.

I believe that most people are aware that there is something very wrong with our government, and many have noticed that however many times we might switch the political parties who are in control, nothing significant changes.

You may have also noticed that everyone who is elected to the office of president ages rapidly once they are elected to office. Is this because of the stress involved with the duties of the president? In some cases, that may be, but I believe that this has more to do with their learning, after being elected, that they are not in control and that, while there may be some minor projects that they will be allowed to pursue while in office, the real decisions are made by someone else. Who that is, I'm not sure, but I think that it's the same people who control both major political parties as well as the mainstream media.

Our country has been following an agenda leading to socialism for many years now, and it doesn't matter whether we have a Republican president with Republicans in control of both houses of congress, or if the Democrats are in complete control, that agenda doesn't change. Issues like abortion, while important to me and to some of you, are simply distractors as far as the overall agenda goes.

The political elite in both major parties want to make sure that both the Republican and Democrat candidates for president are committed to continuing that agenda, or are people who can be bought, so that the outcome of the general election doesn't really matter. That is why, despite the fact that the pressing issue among Republicans in 2008 was immigration, the GOP nominated John McCain, the author of an immigration bill that most Republicans found abhorrent. In 2012, the pressing issue was ObamaCare, yet the GOP elite maneuvered the primaries so that their candidate was Mitt Romney, who was instrumental in setting up pretty much the same thing while governor of Massachusetts.

Yes, they have also been at work in determining who has a realistic chance of being elected to Congress or being successfully nominated to the Supreme Court but, given recent developments that allow the president to enact laws without Congress, that body of government is all but irrelevant today.

Upon leaving office, Eisenhower warned us to beware of the military-industrial complex. He may have been referring to the same global corporate interests who I believe are in control of both of our political parties, as well as the mainstream media, which includes Fox. Without pretending to know all of the facts, I believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated because he was unwilling to follow the agenda, and that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated because he stood a good chance of being elected, and was also unwilling to follow the agenda.

These are the people who appear to be afraid of Trump, and I can only believe it is because they are afraid that he will follow his own agenda, and not theirs. By no means am I convinced that they will be unable to bring Trump around, nor am I saying that I am in favor of Trump's agenda, but I do believe that nothing can be more dangerous than following the agenda we've been following, and that is why I am for Trump.

 

Bankruptcies have become a way of doing business and, as a business person, I would expect Trump to use all of the tools that he has in his box, bankruptcy being one of them. Sometimes it makes sense, from a business standpoint, to buy a failing company, request bankruptcy protection, and restructure the company so that it can be profitable, either as a company or to stockholders. Bankruptcy laws are unfair to creditors, I understand, but the quarrel there is with the law itself, rather than with those who would use it to their benefit. If we can't use the laws to our benefit, we're not likely to succeed. The same is true of eminent domain. I hate the fact that someone can take someone else's land just because they can persuade a town council that they'd be able to generate more tax income with it than the current owner. I hate that, but the Supreme Court did that to us, and no one in Congress has made a move to undo it. If the laws are bad, we need to change the laws rather than criticize people who follow them to their benefit. Besides, there are no other candidates running on a platform that includes undoing bankruptcy laws and eminent domain, so these are non-issues as far as this presidential campaign is concerned.