Tweet
Re: Trump to win?
I think people underestimate Trump. He does nothing half-hearted.
I also think he has reached a point in his life similar to what other billionaires have experienced. Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie for example. For some reason, he wants to make a lasting impact beyond the business world, but in his own way. And lets face it, all politicians are narcissists - Trump doesn't have a monopoly on that. And that, to me, is the reason he wants to run for president - to make an impact, yet continue to fuel his ego at the same time. His persona is not one to quietly start a foundation or just donate money. He wants the spotlight so everyone sees him in action.
Think about all the other politicians. Why do they want to be president, and what are they willing to do to become president? The latter worries me more. The system is indeed broken.
He really is angry, and when he says he has begrudgingly bought politicians, and that represents a broken system, I can't argue he's not being sincere.
He's the only politician that can speak and act freely. No matter what the other politicians say, in the backrooms of the political world, their ability to do what is "right" for the country has already been jeopardized.
I think Eisenhower was the last unencumbered president. Not that there weren't others before him. But what bothers me is that it has been that long since the US has had an independent person in the White House.
Hillary supported the Iraq War and is the banking world's representative, a true Clinton Part II. Bernie is too extreme, though I often agree with his diagnoses. The Bible thumpers? They give the poor and middle class religion and then unleash their elite overlords on them.
Maybe if Biden stepped in, and did the one term Presidency promise, he could effect needed change - as that would make him almost bulletproof to vested interests.
But really, I've seen too many elections where both parties were well funded, and at the end of the day, the political arguments I had engaged in pro or con any particular candidate were ultimately exercises in futility. I'm almost embarrassed to have thought there would have been that much of a difference between the candidates.
Finally, I think it would be refreshing to see a businessman in charge and not a professional politician. The modern day professional politician is merely an extension of vested interests and "democracy" is merely a show for the masses.
Wouldn't it be useful if before every televised debate, the moderators introduced each candidate and ran down a list of their major donors? Or had the corporate logos of their major donors splattered all over their podiums? Isn't that information necessary for the voter to make an informed opinion?
I think people underestimate Trump. He does nothing half-hearted.
I also think he has reached a point in his life similar to what other billionaires have experienced. Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie for example. For some reason, he wants to make a lasting impact beyond the business world, but in his own way. And lets face it, all politicians are narcissists - Trump doesn't have a monopoly on that. And that, to me, is the reason he wants to run for president - to make an impact, yet continue to fuel his ego at the same time. His persona is not one to quietly start a foundation or just donate money. He wants the spotlight so everyone sees him in action.
Think about all the other politicians. Why do they want to be president, and what are they willing to do to become president? The latter worries me more. The system is indeed broken.
He really is angry, and when he says he has begrudgingly bought politicians, and that represents a broken system, I can't argue he's not being sincere.
He's the only politician that can speak and act freely. No matter what the other politicians say, in the backrooms of the political world, their ability to do what is "right" for the country has already been jeopardized.
I think Eisenhower was the last unencumbered president. Not that there weren't others before him. But what bothers me is that it has been that long since the US has had an independent person in the White House.
Hillary supported the Iraq War and is the banking world's representative, a true Clinton Part II. Bernie is too extreme, though I often agree with his diagnoses. The Bible thumpers? They give the poor and middle class religion and then unleash their elite overlords on them.
Maybe if Biden stepped in, and did the one term Presidency promise, he could effect needed change - as that would make him almost bulletproof to vested interests.
But really, I've seen too many elections where both parties were well funded, and at the end of the day, the political arguments I had engaged in pro or con any particular candidate were ultimately exercises in futility. I'm almost embarrassed to have thought there would have been that much of a difference between the candidates.
Finally, I think it would be refreshing to see a businessman in charge and not a professional politician. The modern day professional politician is merely an extension of vested interests and "democracy" is merely a show for the masses.
Wouldn't it be useful if before every televised debate, the moderators introduced each candidate and ran down a list of their major donors? Or had the corporate logos of their major donors splattered all over their podiums? Isn't that information necessary for the voter to make an informed opinion?
Comment