"We can find". Who are you considering as "we"? Who selected Clinton and Sanders as the only Democratic candidates? I don't remember seeing any mechanism by which "we" had any part in their selection or in the choice of the initial group of Republican candidates.
Trump seems to be doing well so far...
- Thread starter Fast Eddie
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
frankdamp said:
To make is real simple, First, the person has to WANT to run for President. Then they have to gauge support. Thirdly, when they are convinced they can garner sufficient financial backing, they declare their candidacy and file the proper papers. Then they must attempt to accumulate funds necessary to travel, campaign and advertise. Finally, they have to run against others of their party to gain nomination and then they can run for President (or other office). The people who convince the person to run, the people who contribute to the campaign, the people who vote in the primary election and the general election select the candidates. "We" are all of these people whose actions put the people who first have to be interested, have to have the energy to pursue office, and have to obtain the support to get elected, put the politicians in office. Those who sit on the sideline and bitch are a totally different "we" who want all this to happen to the ideal person without lifting a single finger to make it happen. And moreso than the first "we", the second "we" get exactly what they deserve.
So if more folks took a positive interest rather than wallowing in cynical apathy, we would all get better candidates and better leaders. Instead, we get mediocre (or worse) leaders elected by the minorities willing to actually do something. You may think your puny individual vote doesn't count, but it does.
Since I'm an ex-pat Brit and not a citizen, I don't get to vote. I'm an astonished observer of just how obnoxious and obstructionist the Republicans have become. I'm no great fan of the Democrats either, but IMO, Obama has done a pretty good job - much better than either of the Bushes or Nixon.It's a pity there isn't a clone of Truman out there somewhere.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
David Brooks, the thoughtful, moderately conservative columnist of The New Your Times, had this to say;
"The voters have spoken.
In convincing fashion, Republican voters seem to be selecting Donald Trump as their nominee. And in a democracy, victory has legitimacy to it. Voters are rarely wise but are usually sensible. They understand their own problems. And so deference is generally paid to the candidate who wins.
And deference is being paid. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida is urging Republicans to coalesce around Trump. Pundits are coming out with their “What We Can Learn” commentaries. Those commentaries are built on a hidden respect for the outcome, that this is a rejection of a Republicanism that wasn’t working and it points in some better direction.
The question is: Should deference be paid to this victor? Should we bow down to the judgment of these voters?
Well, some respect is in order. Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else.
Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country.
And yet reality is reality.
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.
Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.
This week, the Politico reporters Daniel Lippman, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences. They found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.
“His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources,” they wrote.
He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants. “You can always tell when the king is here,” Trump’s butler told Jason Horowitz in a recent Times profile. He brags incessantly about his alleged prowess, like how far he can hit a golf ball. “Do I hit it long? Is Trump strong?” he asks.
In some rare cases, political victors do not deserve our respect. George Wallace won elections, but to endorse those outcomes would be a moral failure.
And so it is with Trump.
History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times. Psalm 73 describes them: “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. … They scoff, and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance.”
And yet their success is fragile: “Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin. How suddenly they are destroyed.”
The psalmist reminds us that the proper thing to do in the face of demagogy is to go the other way — to make an extra effort to put on decency, graciousness, patience and humility, to seek a purity of heart that is stable and everlasting.
The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Worse, there are certain standards more important than one year’s election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat.
Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all.
As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government. He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.
Trump’s supporters deserve respect. They are left out of this economy. But Trump himself? No, not Trump, not ever."
"The voters have spoken.
In convincing fashion, Republican voters seem to be selecting Donald Trump as their nominee. And in a democracy, victory has legitimacy to it. Voters are rarely wise but are usually sensible. They understand their own problems. And so deference is generally paid to the candidate who wins.
And deference is being paid. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida is urging Republicans to coalesce around Trump. Pundits are coming out with their “What We Can Learn” commentaries. Those commentaries are built on a hidden respect for the outcome, that this is a rejection of a Republicanism that wasn’t working and it points in some better direction.
The question is: Should deference be paid to this victor? Should we bow down to the judgment of these voters?
Well, some respect is in order. Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else.
Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country.
And yet reality is reality.
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.
Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.
This week, the Politico reporters Daniel Lippman, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences. They found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.
“His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources,” they wrote.
He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants. “You can always tell when the king is here,” Trump’s butler told Jason Horowitz in a recent Times profile. He brags incessantly about his alleged prowess, like how far he can hit a golf ball. “Do I hit it long? Is Trump strong?” he asks.
In some rare cases, political victors do not deserve our respect. George Wallace won elections, but to endorse those outcomes would be a moral failure.
And so it is with Trump.
History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times. Psalm 73 describes them: “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. … They scoff, and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance.”
And yet their success is fragile: “Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin. How suddenly they are destroyed.”
The psalmist reminds us that the proper thing to do in the face of demagogy is to go the other way — to make an extra effort to put on decency, graciousness, patience and humility, to seek a purity of heart that is stable and everlasting.
The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Worse, there are certain standards more important than one year’s election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat.
Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all.
As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government. He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.
Trump’s supporters deserve respect. They are left out of this economy. But Trump himself? No, not Trump, not ever."
johnm
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,775
Danno said:
"Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (born 19 June 1964) is a British politician, popular historian and journalist who has served as Mayor of London since 2008 and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015. Johnson previously served as the MP for Henley from 2001 until 2008. A member of the Conservative Party, Johnson considers himself a One Nation Conservative and has been described as a libertarian due to his association with both economically liberal and socially liberal policies.
Born in New York City to upper middle class English parents, Johnson was educated at the European School of Brussels, Ashdown House School, and Eton College. He read Classics at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was a member of the Bullingdon Club and was elected President of the Oxford Union in 1986. Beginning his career in journalism at The Times, he later became The Daily Telegraph's Brussels correspondent, with his articles exerting a strong influence on growing Eurosceptic sentiment among the British right-wing. He became assistant editor from 1994 to 1999 before taking the editorship of The Spectator from 1999 to 2005. Joining the Conservatives, he was elected to the House of Commons as MP for Henley in 2001. Making regular television appearances as well as continuing with his journalism and book writing, Johnson became one of the most conspicuous politicians in the country. Under the Conservative leaders Michael Howard and David Cameron, Johnson served on the opposition front bench, first as Shadow Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries and then for Higher Education.
Selected as Conservative candidate for the London mayoral election of 2008, Johnson defeated Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone and resigned his seat in parliament. During his first term as Mayor, he banned alcohol consumption on public transport, introduced the New Routemaster buses and "Boris Bikes", and championed London's financial sector. In 2012, he was re-elected as Mayor, again defeating Livingstone; during his second term he oversaw the 2012 London Olympic Games. In 2015 he was elected as MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, stating that he will not seek re-election as London mayor in 2016.
Johnson is a controversial figure in British politics and journalism.[1][2] Supporters have praised him as an entertaining, humorous, and popular figure with appeal beyond traditional Conservative voters. Critics have accused him of laziness and dishonesty, using racist and homophobic language, and elitism. "
Fast Eddie
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 21,525
Yup, that's Boris.
I wasn't being entirely serious in my proposition for him being President, but then again, I assume that most sane folk wouldn't consider Trump a serious candidate either ...
Either I'm wrong, or there is a large body of insane folk at the polls ...
I wasn't being entirely serious in my proposition for him being President, but then again, I assume that most sane folk wouldn't consider Trump a serious candidate either ...
Either I'm wrong, or there is a large body of insane folk at the polls ...
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 585
DonOR said:
I take it back, having just read up on "the Truman doctrine". What a mess as far as I'm concerned. No wonder Eisenhower ranted about the military - industrial - (congressional) - complex!!
as far as Trumpie is concerned, Bernie will mop the floor with that privileged, petulant adolescent. So far his vocabulary adds up to about 120 words. He wins and I'm moving to my ancestral homeland Ireland.
Fast Eddie
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 21,525
Maybe he'll broadcast live on 1st April saying "April Fools" and go back whence he came...?!
- Status
Similar threads
