Shadow Government

Here's your biggest reason the system is rotten.

 

And people wonder why DT is relentlessly attacked from every angle on every level of gov and all throughout the power structures of our society.

All he did was eliminate the latest successors of the two most connected, powerful, mob-like families in the last several decades of our government.

DT thrashed Jeb Bush and ruined the ideal scenario gravy train for half the shadow gov and elites. His father was only POTUS and director of the CIA.

The Bush tentacles reached into everything. NeverTrumpers are nothing more than people still pissed off he laid waste to low energy Jeb and their desired carte blanche.

Then he wiped out Hillary Clinton p*ssing on easy street dreams of the other half.

The guy single-handedly ended the two-family syndicate's attempt to regain power. 20 years of POTUS ran through those bloodlines, with much deeper reach than the WH.

Now their only hope to revive the syndicate is Chelsea or Jeb's son George P. Bush. It's clear both are being groomed for major political moves in the future.

 

Not to mention DT's defeat of both power candidates torched many millions of outside money. HRC took in the most outside money at $231,118,680.

Jeb had the 2nd most with $121,750,378. Even in his brief time he took in over $46 mil more in outside money than DT's entire run.

Not sure if those numbers are accounting for funds donated to PAC's supporting Jeb and HRC, but we know they were tops in that category as well.

Bottom line is DT not only dropped a deuce in the punch bowl they'll drink out of for 4 years, but he also fleeced elites for 100's of millions with no ROI.

 

If anybody stuck with the first video, you'll probably be interested in this one.

 

This story broke in late June and has been ignored ever since.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...d-story-linking-cia-and-syria-weapons-flights

 

I'm not a big DT fan and I preferred many on the GOP side over DT , but I was very happy to see not only HRC/democrats lose, but also the Bush family dynasty. We're a country of almost 400Million and the best we can do is recycle the family names?

 

I was a NeverTrumper, and honestly, my hostility to Trump had nothing to do with being upset that Jeb! lost. I was never a big Jeb! fan. I considered him to be a generally honorable guy (like his dad and brother) but wasn't a fan of his politics and corporate tendencies and considered him very uninspiring. (See "Please clap.") I didn't want Trump to be the nominee by any means, but I didn't consider Jeb!'s defeat to be downside at all.

 

I'm with you on this, Mr. Deez. My man was Scott Walker, but he never got any traction in the campaign. HOWEVER - once it came down to the ultimate choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I voted against Hillary (and would do the same again today).

 

Funny, I voted against DJT and would do so today and thrice on Sunday.

 

The condition of our political system is crap. A local radio host has been saying for years that 90% of voters vote against someone instead of for someone. Meaning there is rarely a candidate we feel so strongly for, rather we'd take anyone over that one candidate.

That's the only reason I voted for DT, because I couldn't stand to see HRC ruining....err....running the country.

 

Way I see it is many Dems vote solely because they like a persona (Slick Willy, Obama) without knowing any of the policies. Even Bernie was riding high because of it.

Half of his loyal supporters had no idea how atrocious his socialist policies would be and what they meant in regards to their disposable income and ravaging the economy.

Reps are far more likely to vote for a platform or at the very least to reject the other.

I could care less how graceful or smooth the wolf in sheep's clothing on the Dem ticket might've been. Even if he/she was opposing a lame also-ran like Lindsey Graham.

I'd never consider enabling the radical Liberal policies their side now hangs their hats on. Back in the day when they were more sensible I did.

As much as I support the MAGA platform, I oppose radical Lib policies much stronger.

 

Update

 

Deez ... I think you were in the minority of NeverTrumpers though. I think Brad correctly outlines the disdain as it was ultimately manifest ... Trump short-circuited the two-family (party) system and for that I thank him.

Tells ya how far off I was in my POTUS prediction, eh? Nostrildamas I am not! ... unless 2016 was only a step in the game ... hmmm ...

I was convinced he ran to get her elected. I think I've mentioned this before ... anyway. I voted 3rd party ... exercised my Texas residence privilege knowing she wasn't getting Texas' 38. (although she got a LOT closer than I expected! )

I didn't vote for Trump, but I've generally been pleased with his policy work to date ... the honey moon is over, time to dump ACA and reform (tax cut) the tax code.

 

I am not sure any of you have come to terms with what your voting preferences meant. ANY and ALL of your candidates would have lost. You guys talk around this without ever actually admitting that, if you had your way, Hillary Clinton would now be the President. One of the most corrupt politicians in American history. I just do not see full and complete honesty on this reality from any of you. Which is very disgruntling since, while no one expects the liberals to be completely honest, we do have a reasonable expectation that you guys will be.

 

lighten up francis ...

If I had my way there'd be a whole lotta things different, not just the POTUS ... or are we gonna parse/cherry pick that?

I don't know how I could have been any more honest. I even admitted I was wrong about Trump's intentions (at the end game anyway, I'd still like to have a fly on the wall of Trump campaign in the summer of '15 ... but I'll never know). I even admitted to being comfortable voting my conscience in a state where #HisSilentInBengHazi wasn't going to win the electoral votes.

So ... perhaps meems is more your thing, budrow.

 

Here is a new champion for you guys who think my name is Francis.
Mark Cuban is threatening to primary Trump
Here, Carlson tried to get him to answer the question, if robots are going to kill jobs (as Cuban argues), then why allow millions of low-skilled workers to immigrate?

 

Cuban also argues for cutting payroll taxes
Carlson asks him how their entitlements would then be paid
Cuban is like "what entitlements?"

 

Seems like you dont realize this but your statements are contradictory. In any event, there is no need for you to imagine or invent. This is a factual matter. This was the largest political field in US history. You had your choice from a wide field. Which one of the other 16 major Republican candidates in the 2016 election are you claiming would have beaten Hillary?

 

I voted 3rd party because I thought Trump would revert to his liberal positions once elected. His one major liberal position, replacing Obamacare with Trumpcare, was consistently pledged by Trump during the campaign. I think Trump spends like a big government liberal and his tax cuts will be watered down. But clearly, it is much better to have Trump than Hillary.

You are right that no other candidate could have won with Trump's coalition. I think Ted Cruz could have won with the same people who elected GW Bush. But after Trump slimed him during the campaign, it would have been difficult for him to hold on to everyone. Rubio might have won against Hillary also. But probably not after he was trashed in the primary too. So you are probably right that only Trump could have won after a really ugly primary. I'm not sorry I voted for the pot-head, given the results.

 

I was Cruz before Trump got in. I even gave Cruz money. He would have run a principled, well-grounded campaign. And still lost. Why? The single biggest reason is that Ted Cruz was never going to inspire and rally those additional voters that Trump got in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and maybe Florida. In short, with Cruz as the nominee, Hillary is in the WH now. I still like Cruz but this is the reality.

 

This. The reason there Republican field was so full was because HRC was such a flawed candidate and perceived as ripe for beating. It was Trump's gutter style campaigning that took down the R opposition. I supported Kasich but I think Rubio could have beating HRC with in a head to head matchup. There were always the anti-HRC crowd looking to check the "anybody but Hillary" box. That group included many on the left (see the Bernie crowd).

 

Will this ever get old?

 

Dad gum, Joe, but you make no sense sometimes. What's contradictory about advising you your statement alleging "if (I) had my way" was incomplete? If I had my way, there'd be more than just a POTUS change. That's not contradictory, that's completing the sentence.

First of all, there weren't 16 on the ballot by the Texas Primary. There were 5. Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Carson, and Rubio. So your base point is barely 1/3 the value just to get out of the gate. I voted for Cruz in the primary.

I voted for the Constitution Party guy ... Darrel Castle ... in the general. It's not the first time I voted CP, either. Castle keeps returning. No, I don't think he'd necessarily be a dynamic POTUS ... not a "presence" in the room, necessarily ... but I find this platform is most aligned with what I support, it's kinda in the name ... so I exercised my right to vote that way and am content with my decision.

I was Cruz until he caved after the RNC theater, I mean convention. Even had his sticker on my truck ... that's somewhat like "the ring of honor" at DKR for me. I never had donned campaign logos on my vehicles before. I was engaged with his campaign to continue supporting him and his organization ... BE READY, was my advise ... be ready for Trump to withdraw at the last possible moment ... of course he didn't and Cruz proved to be more like "them" than he wanted me/us to believe and that's when the sticker was peeled off.

I fully appreciate your "reality" about Cruz' general election probability, but that says more about the electorate than it does the candidate, right? As @4th_floor said ... in the General, there was no longer anyone who I thought represented anything resembling true conservatism. That Bernie had the following he had was a klaxon to me ... "the people have simply lost any semblance of what was Declared 240 years ago" "The People want a king, not a President." 2016 wasn't exclusive in that, but to seriously have a significant following of Feel the Bern ... wow. Swirling in a toilet bowl comes to mind.

So, IDK what you expect. Honesty or patronizing fawning? I may not be 100% correct all the time, but I will share what I think/feel/believe ... straight-up ... no manipulation campaign here. Hence ... you got a rise outta me on that challenge which was met and settled.

 

You wrote "If I had my way there'd be a whole lotta things different." This is cherry-picking, by definition
Which you immediately following with the accusation "...or are we gonna parse/cherry pick that?"
Thus the contradiction.

​

The OP is about the rottenness of the US Govt. Geo W. Bush calls it "our governing class." Some of us call it the Swamp. No matter what you call it, if you want that situation to change, or even just improve somewhat, then the worse thing you could do would be to allow Hillary Clinton to become President. She is the swampiest, rottenest swamp monster of them all. Yet voting 3rd Party (or not voting at all) was effectively voting for Hillary. Which was a vote for or acquiescing in not just the continuation of the rot/swamp but the expansion of it. So, again, a contradiction.

 

No it's not ... it's simply making a statement ... that YOU started, btw. If things were according to ShAArk92 ... ... not JUST who's POTUS ... so nosir ... it's NOT cherry picking, it's completing the idea.

You continue into this notion of berating 3rd party votes. That's fine. You preach what you think/feel/believe is correct. That's part of the brilliance of our governing system. What's funny is ... #HisSilentinBengHazi isn't the POTUS, and you're still miffed about a vote for other than Trump.

Perhaps those of us in Texas who voted 3rd party also voice something ... NONE OF YA. None of ya have a mandate because we recognize there's hardly a bucket of warm spittle's difference in ya. Even Cruz proved that to be so. So, ballyhooing a decision isn't going to persuade, it's only going to bolster the strawman you've built for yourself which accepts there is only A or B ... as directed by the collusion between the DNC and RNC.

Perhaps the question you should ask me and the others you fan slapped ... if you knew then what you know now ... would you vote the same?

But ... that'd not add another pile of straw to the argument, would it?

 

I would agree about the politicians and political insiders who were NeverTrumpers. However, I don't buy the narrative that the actual voters who were NeverTrump were big Bush supporters. I haven't seen any polling on the matter, but I know about 50 NeverTrumpers. Literally not one of them supported Jeb Bush or were even particularly favorable to the Bushes. (Personally, I have never voted for any Bush as a Republican nominee for any contested office.) Most of them were erudite William F. Buckley-style conservatives. They cared about things like foreign policy and free trade and knew what things like NATO and the nuclear triad were.

Personally, I didn't vote for Trump because of foreign policy - NATO, Putin, etc. However, I've actually been pleasantly surprised with his foreign policy, because he basically did a 180. He pretty much threw the Musburgers of the world completely under the bus. I think it's because he was dumb about foreign policy and was talking out his *** and has learned more about it. Guys like Musburger think he has been corrupted. Either way, he's basically doing the opposite of what he ran on.

 

That's a false assumption.

 

This is essentially what I came to realize about Cruz' potential. He's saying/endorsing proper policy, but it's not going to get him elected. He needed to sound like Ed McMahon giving stuff away ...

Then get in there an govern like a pre 1913 Constitutional Conservative, recognizing he'd be a one-term President because we understand our Fed is SOOOO bloatedly large, it'd take 4 years to start the process of restoring it ... let alone seeing the fruits of that restoration.