"People must really hate those Washinton politicians!"
Posted on 08/02/2015 5:54:55 PM PDT by Mariner
"He can't possibly win the nomination," is the phrase heard most often when Washington insiders mention either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Yet as enthusiasm for the bombastic billionaire and the socialist senior continues to build within each party, the political establishment is mystified.
They don't understand that the biggest political phenomenon in America today is a revolt against the "ruling class" of insiders that have dominated Washington for more than three decades.
In two very different ways, Trump and Sanders are agents of this revolt. I'll explain the two ways in a moment.
Don't confuse this for the public's typical attraction to candidates posing as political outsiders who'll clean up the mess, even when they're really insiders who contributed to the mess.
What's new is the degree of anger now focused on those who have had power over our economic and political system since the start of the 1980s.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
"People must really hate those Washinton politicians!"
Occupy was a George Soros funded fraud... same with 'blacklivesmatter'... bought and paid for by white liberal elite George Soros.
And Bernie? The left just wants more stuff given to them that's been taken from others. It's 'dem- heavy' rather than the the usual 'dem-lite'...
It’s a CPUSA Operation.
The American marxists won’t go away by themselves, or through the electoral process.
This is how the “Ruling Class” is dealt with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
From its beginning, the new military government implemented harsh measures against its perceived opponents.[8] Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.[9][10][11]
Under the influence of the free market-oriented neoliberal “Chicago Boys”, the military government implemented economic reforms, including currency stabilization, tariff cutting, opening Chile’s markets to global trade, restricting labor unions, privatizing social security, and the privatization of hundreds of state-controlled industries. These policies produced what has been referred to as the “Miracle of Chile,” but critics state that the government policies dramatically increased economic inequality.[12] Chile was, for most of the 1990s, the best-performing economy in Latin America, though academics continue to dispute the legacy of Pinochet’s reforms.[13]
Pinochet’s 17-year rule was given a legal framework through a controversial 1980 plebiscite, which approved a new Constitution -Wiki
He’s one part right and 9 parts wrong.
Reagan was the first outsider to win the presidency, which is why he generated so much hatred and admiration.
The GOP elites since George Bush have claimed said mabtle and ran for 20 years as insiders pretensing to be outsiders.
Nobody buys their act anymore.
It was true in the days of the railroads and canal companies back in the early 19th Century. Heck, doing eminent domain deals for private companies is how Lincoln became a Senator.They don't understand that the biggest political phenomenon in America today is a revolt against the "ruling class" of insiders that have dominated Washington for more than three decades.
Congressman, I assume you mean. Lincoln was defeated in a bid for the Senate in 1858.
They are elected to govern but think they are there to rule.
Americans fought the revolution to boot out the rulers and replace them with a government.
The rulers have returned and need to be booted out again but I don't see that kind of gumption in America today.
What happens when the Tea Party is given power?
“What happens when the Tea Party is given power?”
Good question. What should happen is that most administrative agencies should be eliminated. Those that remain should become functionaries (eg, a CEO running a VA hospital) or advisory. Government employment should be systematically reduced to a fraction of what they are now. Congressional grants of law making power to administrative agencies would become unconstitutional (they were until the 30’s). Federal spending for things not within the enumerated powers would become unconstitutional (as it was contemplated in the Constitution). Those are some examples. The general principle would be “give us power so we can leave you alone and systematically reduce our own power to exercise power.” Taxes would be greatly reduced at the federal level and states could choose whether to make up that difference.
In the real world, it won’t be that good. But those are some of the things I would like to accomplish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.