Posted on 02/10/2016 3:04:07 AM PST by SunkenCiv
full title: "Scarborough: Trump & Sanders Represent Rejection Of Everything Bushes And Clintons Built Over The Past 30 Years".
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
"What do Bernie and Trump have in common?" asks MSNBC's Joe Scarborough about the two victors. "They both are against unfetterred free trade. Neither are taking money from Wall Street. Both against the Iraq War." "They are basically both against what the Bush family and the Clinton family built over the past 30 years," he contnued. "And they're blowing it up."
No Bush is a conservative,
NO Clinton is worth a floating turd.
Both families are, in essence, evil. They are bad for U.S citizens.
They both represent a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The idea of scapegoating other countries for our economic problems is right out of Nazi Germany. And the idea that our economy is doing any worse than the rest of the world is just wrong. The average person in any country would come here to improve their economic situation in a heartbeat.
Conservatives know what we need to do to improve the economy. Lower taxes, lower government spending, lower the debt, create school choice, end Obamacare and other welfare programs, repeal tons of regulations. Trade deals help our economy because they create cheaper goods, lifting burdens on the consumer.
He is not “scapegoating” other countries, he is calling out our “leaders” for their willingness to give our country away, for their 30 pieces of silver.
Broken Clock/Blind Squirrel report from “Intern Joe”.
wow -ain’t America great! voting for a blowhard and a communist!
Hillary Clinton got 4,000 votes fewer than Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders got almost 40,000 more votes.
These particular individuals would still be rejected by the voters even if they were named Butch and Cassity. Hillary is a liar and is corrupt as sin. Jeb(?) sticks his d@&@ in his orafice every time he speaks (dumb as dirt). And Neither has offered a plan to start recovering from all the damage of the past seven years. Put simply, these two are objectionable on their own with or without any connection to prior presidents. They’re just such obvious losers
Oversimplification. Trump supports free trade. He just wants it on an equal playing field. He opposed the Iraq War because he felt it would destabilize the Middle East. Don’t necessarily agree but the way Obama handled it, it turned out that way. Crony capitalism and Wall Street and Big global corporate money is the enemy of Democracy and free enterprise. They use money and connections to strangle our rights, small business and small entrepreneurs and promote a one world globalist agenda - common core, Agenda 21, global warming, open borders, etc.
Sanders’ supporters (and some of his detractors) claim “at least he’s honest” except he uses wiggle room to soften his claim of being a Socialist, er “democratic socialist” independent.
The man is a pinko with a loving embrace of Cuban and Soviet Communism.
His politics are extremist and his past associations should be political poison if the media was worth a spit.
In New Hampshire, yes. No surprise there. Someone at work had CNN streaming; an older woman who identified herself as a Democrat was nonetheless hanging with Republicans (they were probably all neighbors). When asked, she said she didn’t support the Republican candidates, but couldn’t support the two current Demwit leaders. Sounds like she’s waiting for Biden or Gore or one of the other empty suits.
There were only two major Dem candidates. The Republican votes outnumbered Dem votes, but were fragmented among many candidates.
Well said! Exactly.
My real fear is that there is still an impulse to elect a strong-man as president, and this is after 8 years of the first emperor in US history.
Whereas I agree with many of your statements, this one IMHO overstates the concept of economics as a ‘science’ or as a ‘discipline’. Economics is not a hard science, and even the supposed ‘experts’ are in large measure just giving best guesses on what they think will happen.
Also, whether any particular economy is ‘healthy’ or not depends upon what outcome measures one uses. Ultimately, IMHO, the average purchasing power of the citizenry is a good measure of how an economy is doing in general, and in that context trade deals can be a two-edged sword. If manufacturing is sent abroad to countries with cheaper labor, yes, consumers can benefit from lower costs for those products. On the other hand, if a significant number of citizens lose their jobs on this basis, their overall purchasing power goes down, even in the face of cheaper products. This does not strengthen the overall economy, unless there is a commensurate increase in exports and jobs associated with those exports. This doesn't automatically happen, thus the ultimate effect of trade on the citizenry depends significantly on how well and fair trade deals are negotiated and enforced. I agree with the general premise that we haven't been very good at negotiating trade in a favorable manner for the US.
You’re comparing totals from a two person race for the Dems with a 7+ person race for the GOP.
Duh-hhhh, Joe! Ya think?
The “unfortunate”? How about “lazy-ass slackers and unwed baby machines”?
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.