Posted on 01/11/2016 2:28:44 PM PST by TBP
The big question is, is Donald Trump anti-establishment or is he more likely to save the current system, than to challenge it. If our current crisis that concerns so many is a consequence of a deeply flawed centrally planned economic system, manipulated by the Federal Reserve, a foreign policy of occupation and preemptive war and a systematic attack on our civil liberties here at home, how will Trump be helpful in finding a solution? Is Donald Trump arguing for any significant change in policy or is he advocating only a different management style? What policy does he actually propose that the current bipartisan leadership doesnât support?
Even his outlandish statements attacking the liberties of Muslims as a group through sharp criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, but in the past they have supported similar policies of FDR, Jimmy Carter, JFK and others. So, essentially they defend Trumpâs views while pretending them to be outrageous. Essentially all of Trumpâs positions have been endorsed by a majority of Republicans and Democrat leaderships. The frightened masses are flocking to this decisive leader believing that he will protect and take care of them.
Trumpâs agreement with the current establishment is never mentioned
(Excerpt) Read more at ronpaul.com ...
Nasty? Yes, your post was nasty.
Let me get this right, Ted Cruz is a fine Christian man but he attracts folks to him that rely on homosexual themes to bludgeon anyone who doesn’t shut up and sit in a corner rather than address what they see as legitimate problems.
Take your homosexual proclivities over to D. U.
You don’t have an audience here.
Yet the very folks who resort to that type of tripe expect others to believe they're qualified to recognize that their guy Ted is a brilliant lawyer.
Well, if good old Ted were half the lawyer his supporters make him out to be he'd have had the natural born citizen stuff cleared up two years ago when he was spending his time playing up how well he understood immigrants. That's two strikes on his brilliance, the expectation that getting cozy with immigrants would help him rather than hurt him, and that there wouldn't be an issue with his place of birth. Not so smart after all.
Relax, bub, you're just tense cause you haven't had a Ted speech job in a while as is obvious by your desire to worship at the feet of a candidate rather than be realistic about one.
Both the Pauls have an âus and themâ attitude, but their âusâ side is so tiny that âthemâ is everyone else.”
I was at a convention a few years ago, and the Ron Paul supporters stormed in and filled the aisles, waving their signs and so on. It wasn’t exactly a protest, but it was sort of like that. In any event, the guy closest to me was yelling something to the effect of “Down with all of you Trostskyite” something or other. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but I remember clearly that he called the “them” ...Trotskyites.
I’m no defender of the establishment. And I live in a conservative state with a decent enough state GOP.
But are they really....Trotskyite?
Seriously?!
They were off by a word. The Trotskyism is not entirely incorrect here. To explain:
The type of socialism wanted by the Democrats is internationalist socialism, as espoused by the Socialist International, an organization of leftist political parties from around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International
Unlike national socialists, Nazis and fascists, the IS could best be called “anti-nationalists”. They hate the very idea of nations, patriotism, unique histories, cultures, languages, and ethnic groups. They crave a homogeneous blend of people with none of that, living in socialist districts of economic blocs that belong to a one world government.
Unlike Leninist-Marxists, who embraced the notion of “socialism in one country”, the Trotskyites want worldwide revolution to bring about universal socialist internationalism.
But there is a “new kid on the block”. The multinationalist corporationists. These dominate the leadership of the Republican party. Their constituents are few in number of extraordinarily wealthy, many of whom belong to the 30,000 Jeb Bush donors. And these MCs find allegiance with goals similar to the internationalist socialists.
Importantly, they are not socialists themselves, and see socialism as a collective of idiots. But they can imagine a one world government run by corporations. And they adopt socialist style ideas, like socialized medicine and retirement, as money saving ideas. That is, they do not pay taxes to anyone, but they like the idea of nations paying for their employees health care and retirement.
They also embrace open borders, to provide the cheapest possible labor for their corporations. If they could, they would advocate for the return of slavery.
Make no mistake, they also abhor America and Americans, have zero patriotism, yet crave our markets to sell their products, so are very pro-free trade. In a manner of speaking, they also want “the revolution” to take over the world.
They imagine themselves as the new hereditary nobility, which is just as loathsome as anything the internationalist socialists, fascists, and Trotskyites ever imagined.
So the man did have a pretty good grasp of things, yet was off by a word.
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.