An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Trump on Sanders as VP pick: "Oh wow, that's a great question" https://t.co/41R5TDElcm pic.twitter.com/yNZOfy9UKO— The Hill (@thehill) May 20, 2016
Trump on Sanders as VP pick: "Oh wow, that's a great question" https://t.co/41R5TDElcm pic.twitter.com/yNZOfy9UKO
He needs to try and get Bernie on board. #AnyoneButHillary. If a Populist Republican and a Populist Progressive can work together, anything is possible.
Sanders would tell Trump in a nice way to go F himself.
Sorry, but #anyoneButHillary is outside of Bernie's comfort zone.
If Bernie doesn't run, all we're left with is Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. And she is a climatalogy crank, and he is balanced-budget wanker. Perhaps it's being too ideological and should just be practical and support Hillary. I don't know.
Neither of those two have the party infrastructure to rule or hold power in any significant way anyway, need better organisation and support first. Until Americans accept that thy have to do something to change things instead of being lazy and giving up to the current power structures nothing will change.It's possible to create your own infrastructure, look at the European system... and people is willing to fund you (ie. Sanders) if you get enough traction. Both Sanders and Donald should have split from the major parties, as that would have been the seed of destruction for the two-party system as it's happening in Europe, but instead they decided to try change the status quo from within, something never happens.OFC splitting off the consolidated mainstream parties is just the first steep, before the real fight starts, also as seen in Europe. But is the steep in the right direction.What we see now is 'hope and change' redux, and it will fail, again.
The ability to effect change requires a group of elected leadership that shares common goals. A president has the ability to pursuade the population and set the legislature agenda. Obama was difficult because his ruling style is from the Chicago school of government where there is more stick and less carrot. Contributors are rewarded by not being shut out and prosecuted. Cross them or dare to be on the other side and there is no compromise. Government agencies aren't used primarily for policy but to ensure party loyalty. It was auch higher level of dysfunction and corruption than we've ever had before. Now that his methods have been used in the federal government, we'll have to see if the Republicans use similar tactics when they take the Whitehouse next.
Obama was difficult because his ruling style is from the Chicago school of government where there is more stick and less carrot.You mean run like the mob.
Post a Comment