See, this what I don't get.

[the other bob wilson]

You're getting desperate now in your efforts to find something in that article which justifies your completely biased viewpoint. For me;-


"Those of us who believe in democracy, who believe that a government must be accountable to its people, must understand the scope of this challenge if we are to effectively confront it.

It should be clear by now that Donald Trump and the rightwing movement that supports him is not a phenomenon unique to the United States. All around the world, in Europe, in Russia, in the Middle East, in Asia and elsewhere we are seeing movements led by demagogues who exploit people’s fears, prejudices and grievances to achieve and hold on to power.

This trend certainly did not begin with Trump, but there’s no question that authoritarian leaders around the world have drawn inspiration from the fact that the leader of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy seems to delight in shattering democratic norms."

seems pretty transparent.

[Wales-Bales]

You're getting desperate now in your efforts to find something in that article which justifies your completely biased viewpoint. For me;-


"Those of us who believe in democracy, who believe that a government must be accountable to its people, must understand the scope of this challenge if we are to effectively confront it.

It should be clear by now that Donald Trump and the rightwing movement that supports him is not a phenomenon unique to the United States. All around the world, in Europe, in Russia, in the Middle East, in Asia and elsewhere we are seeing movements led by demagogues who exploit people’s fears, prejudices and grievances to achieve and hold on to power.

This trend certainly did not begin with Trump, but there’s no question that authoritarian leaders around the world have drawn inspiration from the fact that the leader of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy seems to delight in shattering democratic norms."

seems pretty transparent.

Do you honestly believe that? Trump is actually trying to oppose the banana republic tactics where one side stops the other from gaining power by spying on them, spreading propaganda, etc. The Democrats were using the power of the state to stop him becoming president. Do you think democracy consists of open borders, moving jobs and factories abroad, etc? The people have spoken democratically through the ballet box to put an end to it - it is called the will of the people. You seem to be morphing into lardy with your radical left viewpoints. My only concern is the rule of law, and that the people who do this kind of thing are punished. If America turns into a police state we will be next!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Is democracy any better than having the elite run a country? We all know where populism can lead and the fact that those who have the vote don't necessarily know a thing about what they are voting for. You only need to see the vox pop interviews on the street by TV companies to realise the shortcoming in a democracy.

[Wales-Bales]

Is democracy any better than having the elite run a country? We all know where populism can lead and the fact that those who have the vote don't necessarily know a thing about what they are voting for. You only need to see the vox pop interviews on the street by TV companies to realise the shortcoming in a democracy.

The elite run countries for their own benefit. There are plenty of people amongst the "populist" classes who are well educated and experts in their fields. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, so I don't think we should be rushing to your solution of ending democracy just yet! The yanks voted for "populist" policies, and they are reaping the rewards of an economic upturn, while the prior administration were focussed on rewarding themselves via all of their dodgy foundations.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

The elite run countries for their own benefit. There are plenty of people amongst the "populist" classes who are well educated and experts in their fields. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, so I don't think we should be rushing to your solution of ending democracy just yet! The yanks voted for "populist" policies, and they are reaping the rewards of an economic upturn, while the prior administration were focussed on rewarding themselves via all of their dodgy foundations.

I would wait a while until we all give Trump a pat on the back. It takes a while for any changes to an economy to take effect and, for a while, some regimes merely reap what the previous regime sowed. The long term effects of Trump are yet to be experienced.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

The elite run countries for their own benefit. There are plenty of people amongst the "populist" classes who are well educated and experts in their fields. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, so I don't think we should be rushing to your solution of ending democracy just yet! The yanks voted for "populist" policies, and they are reaping the rewards of an economic upturn, while the prior administration were focussed on rewarding themselves via all of their dodgy foundations.

I asked a question to stimulate debate. It wasn't my 'solution', as you put it.

[life on mars]

Is democracy any better than having the elite run a country? We all know where populism can lead and the fact that those who have the vote don't necessarily know a thing about what they are voting for. You only need to see the vox pop interviews on the street by TV companies to realise the shortcoming in a democracy.

Or the Brexit vote ?

[the other bob wilson]

Do you honestly believe that? Trump is actually trying to oppose the banana republic tactics where one side stops the other from gaining power by spying on them, spreading propaganda, etc. The Democrats were using the power of the state to stop him becoming president. Do you think democracy consists of open borders, moving jobs and factories abroad, etc? The people have spoken democratically through the ballet box to put an end to it - it is called the will of the people. You seem to be morphing into lardy with your radical left viewpoints. My only concern is the rule of law, and that the people who do this kind of thing are punished. If America turns into a police state we will be next!

Er, all I'm doing is using Bernie Sanders' words, they're not mine. The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that you have often tried to present a case for people like Sanders and Corbyn, essentially, being on the same side as the likes of Trump and Putin in that they are all "outsiders" to the liberal progressive "elite" as represented by the likes of the Clintons and Obama.

Sanders may be outside of the Clinton/Obama axis, but, demonstrably from his own words in that article, he sees Trump and Putin as people he would never ally with - indeed, it would appear that he sees them as much, if not more of, a part of the problem than your liberal elite.

Throughout this thread, your reaction to what Sanders wrote has been "he doesn't really mean that because I know what he is really about" - that just seems very arrogant to me.

Well done on Trump the anti banana republic candidate as well, hilarious .

[lardy]

Well done on Trump the anti banana republic candidate as well, hilarious .

There's a reason for that. The tactic is to accuse the opposition of what you're being accused of.

When trump did his tweets about how sessions should not have pursued republicans on criminal charges with elections coming up, some senators said he was treating the US as a banana republic. So it was only a matter of time before the phrase cropped up in this manner.

[Wales-Bales]

There's a reason for that. The tactic is to accuse the opposition of what you're being accused of.

When trump did his tweets about how sessions should not have pursued republicans on criminal charges with elections coming up, some senators said he was treating the US as a banana republic. So it was only a matter of time before the phrase cropped up in this manner.

The DOJ have a 60-day rule to suspend any activity regarding political fibers prior to an election.

[Wales-Bales]

The DOJ have a 60-day rule to suspend any activity regarding political fibers prior to an election.

That would be figures, not fibbers, and no it wasn't a freudian slip!

[Wales-Bales]

Er, all I'm doing is using Bernie Sanders' words, they're not mine. The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that you have often tried to present a case for people like Sanders and Corbyn, essentially, being on the same side as the likes of Trump and Putin in that they are all "outsiders" to the liberal progressive "elite" as represented by the likes of the Clintons and Obama.

Sanders may be outside of the Clinton/Obama axis, but, demonstrably from his own words in that article, he sees Trump and Putin as people he would never ally with - indeed, it would appear that he sees them as much, if not more of, a part of the problem than your liberal elite.

Throughout this thread, your reaction to what Sanders wrote has been "he doesn't really mean that because I know what he is really about" - that just seems very arrogant to me.

Well done on Trump the anti banana republic candidate as well, hilarious .

Firstly Senator Sanders owns three homes, so he's not the most qualified to speak about the 1%. Secondly, he took no action when it emerged the Hillary campaign had rigged the primaries. In fact, he allowed them to take control of his supporters via the DNC, and he even endorsed Hillary. What the political system needs is sunlight and transparency, on both the left and the right, and people who are prepared to challenge the status quo. It's pretty obvious that wasn't part of Sanders political agenda.

[the other bob wilson]

Firstly Senator Sanders owns three homes, so he's not the most qualified to speak about the 1%. Secondly, he took no action when it emerged the Hillary campaign had rigged the primaries. In fact, he allowed them to take control of his supporters via the DNC, and he even endorsed Hillary. What the political system needs is sunlight and transparency, on both the left and the right, and people who are prepared to challenge the status quo. It's pretty obvious that wasn't part of Sanders political agenda.

So Sanders was a maintain the status quo candidate because he has three houses and he must be an "elite" because he didn't do this and that to stop Clinton - what was the point of him running against her then if that was the case? Strange how having enough money to own three homes somehow disqualifies Sanders (net worth $460k in 2012) from being the candidate of the working man/woman and yet your boy (net worth $3.5 billion in 2017), the man who is, allegedly, "draining the swamp" and who says it's "smart" not to pay taxes is ideally qualified to do so, if you are to be believed anyway.

You've been all around the houses in this thread without coming close to addressing the points I made in the OP, so I'll take my leave from it now because there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing against your "on the fence" opinions.

[Wales-Bales]

So Sanders was a maintain the status quo candidate because he has three houses and he must be an "elite" because he didn't do this and that to stop Clinton - what was the point of him running against her then if that was the case? Strange how having enough money to own three homes somehow disqualifies Sanders (net worth $460k in 2012) from being the candidate of the working man/woman and yet your boy (net worth $3.5 billion in 2017), the man who is, allegedly, "draining the swamp" and who says it's "smart" not to pay taxes is ideally qualified to do so, if you are to be believed anyway.

You've been all around the houses in this thread without coming close to addressing the points I made in the OP, so I'll take my leave from it now because there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing against your "on the fence" opinions.

Trump donates all of his presidential salary to charity, he's not a career politician with a lifestyle that is beyond his paygrade, he made his money elsewhere. All I am saying is if Sanders was serious about being president, he wouldn't have given Hillary a free pass after she nobbled him.

[Rjk]

Presumably Sanders didn't wade in on Clinton after he'd lost because he saw her as bay far the lesser of two evils.

As for money, I have no doubt that Trump and his family will to pretty well from his current employment