Trump the Liberal?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/ths-many-ways-in-which...

"He loved Hillary Clinton; now he thinks she's the worst. He was very much in favor of abortion rights before he opposed them. And he might be running as a Republican today, but he was once a registered Democrat who called for legalizing drugs, a massive one-time 14.25 percent tax on the wealthy and staying out of wars that didn't present a "direct threat" to the U.S. In many ways, he's been to the left of Clinton and even Bernie Sanders on some issues."

(quoted):
==Abortion==
Then: On "Meet The Press" in 1999, Trump said he was "very pro-choice." "I hate the concept of abortion," he said. "I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. ... but I just believe in choice."
Now: In an interview with Bloomberg Politics in January, Trump said, "I'm pro-life and I have been pro-life." He said he believed there should be exceptions in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother.

==Guns==
Then: In Trump's 200 book "The America We Deserve," he wrote that he "generally" opposed gun control but supported an assault weapons ban and a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm.
Now: At the 2015 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum, Trump said if he became president, "the 2nd Amendment will be totally protected." He told the Web site Ammoland he does "not support expanding background checks" and said current background checks "don't work."

==Health Care==
Then: In an interview with Larry King in 1999, Trump said he was "very liberal when it comes to health care" and that he believes in "universal healthcare."
Now: During his announcement, he called Obamacare "a disaster called the big lie" and said the deductibles were so high they were "virtually useless."

==Hillary Clinton==
Then: Either Trump or his son donated to Clinton in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, he invited her to his 2005 wedding in Florida, where she sat front row, and he's donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. He also said in an appearance on the Howard Stern show in the mid-2000s that she was a fantastic senator.
Now: On NBC on Wednesday, he called Clinton "the worst secretary of state in the history of our nation" and said she would be "a terrible president."

==Party affiliation==
Then: Trump changed his party from Republican to Independent Party in 1999, and switched again to Democrat in 2001.
Now: Has been a registered Republican since 2009.

==Jeb Bush==
Then: In Trump's 2000 book "The America We Deserve," he called Bush "a good man," "bright, tough and principled," and "exactly the kind of political leader this country needs now and will very much need in the future."
Now: On Fox News's "On The Record" this week, he called Bush "pathetic" for his support of Common Core, said his immigration views were "baby stuff."

Conclusion for me:

Liberal? No.

Conservative? Not really.

Fickle, incoherent and opportunistic narcissist? Looks that way.

Hasn't this stuff been rehearsed a bit already on some other threads?

I find the whole line of attack rather odd. Not everything can be fully assessed by playing it and yourself on the conservative/liberal spectrum.

>3 timspalding: I agree, but a change in positions is always notable. I remember when Obama was against gay marriage.

>4 barney67:

Yeah. Total amnesia on the left there. Here's here 2004 Senate argument against it http://gawker.com/remember-when-hillary-clinton-was-against-gay-marriage-1714147...

The thing, I don't care what Trump is for. If I were list out all the standard positions, and my view, and then discovered that—wow!—Trump agreed with every one, I'd still not vote for him. It's the "new" positions, like excluding Muslims from entering the US, the bullying, the insincerity, the incipient fascism and so forth that determine my view. He's a monster. He must be stopped.

>5 timspalding:

My view excerpted from a post a made elsewhere--slightly revised:

Donald Trump, shall, of course, be "stopped"--in the sense you intend: That is, he shall not be elected to the presidency--because the corrupt politico-electoral system never intended that he should be elected. He's a useful foil for the single-Republican/Democratic party's _real_ candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Trump is there strictly for show and scare-crow purposes (though not necessarily as he sees it). He can run as the "Republican" "party's" candidate--he can even sincerely believe that he is and see himself as such. But in fact, he's a fixture in a set-play.

>6 proximity1:

9/11 was an inside job.

Inside my head. With the bees.

>6 proximity1: This sounds like paranoia. You're suggesting that someone put Trump in place, so to speak, in order to set up Mrs. Clinton's election.

I guess it's possible. There is a long trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. She still has fresh blood on her hands from Benghazi, so human life means very little next to her power and ambition. Revolutionaries think that way. People have to be sacrificed for the good of the cause.

>7 timspalding:
"9/11 was an inside job."

I don't believe that; your attributing it to me is a smear tactic. Your retort is simplistic and reactionary.

The Crash of 2007/8 was, yes, an "inside job."

>8 barney67:

Not necessarily. Trump could be entirely sincere in his wacky mind. That in no way proves he isn't being instrumentalized by others who know better than he does what they're doing.

P.S. I suggest nothing about any blood or violence in this. Trump isn't at risk of being "rubbed out, " for pity's sake!

>8 barney67: There is a long trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons.

Could you help me out here? Examples, beyond the tendentious case of Benghazi? Since you use the plural, I infer you also mean Bill, right? Do you have some names of victims?

The far-right has a whole list of people they think Clinton offed. Vince Foster is number one, of course. It's pretty much proof that crazy conspiracy theories about Democratic presidents didn't start with Obama. It's a long tradition.

>12 timspalding:
I'm aware of that, as a general fact, but Barney hasn't yet weighed in on who exactly he means.

Trump is running for the nomination for the Republican candidate. I don't think it unreasonable to measure him by the standard measuring-sticks for such candidates. Perhaps some of the people who agree with his "new" views might object to how he stands on the issues they've previously voted for.

I don't see the comparison to gay marriage here. Gay marriage approval ratings of Baby Boomers like Clinton and Obama have gone from 30% to 45% between 2004 and now, and in the overall population from 31% to 55%. It's not surprising that they might have changed. Even if one assumes that it was purely political, there's no reason to believe that it doesn't signify a change in how they will behave politically.

What positions will Trump taken if he's elected or even just nominated? Who knows.

>14 prosfilaes: I don't see the comparison to gay marriage here.

You don't? It's obvious. Obama was against gay marriage as a candidate, but for it as president. He's not unusual. Candidates can't fulfiull their promises if elected -- it's impossible when they promise so much.

My God. This debate is unbelievable. Unbelievable.

>16 timspalding:

Yeah? Well, I think I'm fairly grounded:

"9/11" (I hate that stupid expression! ) was just what it seemed. Nothing mysterious. The lunar landing(s) weren't faked. Obama is a U.S. citizen by birth. And I reject the "Prince Tudor" theory.

And, on topic: the Clintons are no less captives and corporate tools of the same corrupt political system that has given us every president since John Adams, no less than is Trump or than are the Bushes, the Romneys or the Obamas. There's no need that they attend secret meetings of the Bilderberg (sp?) group. These people are not and never were political liberals. Though one or two may have played at it and told themselves they were--back in their youths.

Anything else you need to know?

Washington and Adams were good, though, right? The "system" started with Jefferson?

I agree that the Clintons and everyone else are necessarily beholden to those with money and power. That's always the way it's been throughout history. Money and power mean control. Not everyone is going to have equal amounts of money and power. Some have more, some less.

I don't know that our system is as corrupt as anyone else's. In fact, quite a bit less corrupt when I look at places like Mexico or South America.

I have a problem when people toss around easy generalizations like "the system" "society" "The Man" "The Establishment" "The Elite" "The Status Quo" because I don't know exactly whom they're talking about. Everyone here does it. When I ask for clarification or specifics, they get angry, in part because they don't have anyone specific in mind. These are imaginary boogeymen. You can't hate in the abstract anymore than you can love in the abstract.

I reject that no one in our system has set political beliefs, beliefs that differ from each other. See The Supreme Court. Those judges have opinions -- they render opinions all the time, opinions that have nothing to do with the status quo, the system, the establishment, whatever. Their opinions conflict with each others'.

I've never been one to take the anarchic view "throw the bums out because they're on the same side and they're all corrupt." Corruption is part of the human condition. It's not exclusive to Washington.

>18 timspalding:
Tim,
you mock me-- right?

Adams was a crypto-monarchist who eventually dropped the "crypto" aspect.

>20 proximity1:

Oh, I thought you said "since." So, Washington was okay by you?

>21 timspalding:

You're right that I wrote "since" when I really meant to include Adams as thoroughly corrupt--so I ought to have written "since Washington." Washington "okay"? Everything is relative. Compared to Adams, sure. Compared to Jefferson, in some respects as good, in others, worse.

There has never been a U.S. president by whom I felt well-represented. Every single one of them since I was politically aware--so, since and including President Lyndon Johnson, not exactly the worst in history-- fills me with some degree of shame and disgust ( the same goes for every 19th and 20th century president). The fact that other nations and their leaders have usually been as bad or worse is, for me, neither an excuse nor a consolation.

I agree with your point as a matter if general principle. But as a practical matter in these two specific cases (i. e. contemporary U.S. & U.K.) the real differences between Cameron and Miliband or between Trump and Hillary Clinton--or Bill, for that matter--are exaggerated while the difference between any of them and either Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders is significant.

(Sorry: this is in the wrong thread & I cannot delete it. ;^( )

>19 barney67:

(As always: "IMO") Sanders-- let's get this formally out of the way--while "not perfect," is significantly better and not nearly so 'beholden to "money" ' as the others are.

>24 proximity1: Why is that?

The Republican Party is in chaos and it is the Party’s own doing. By selecting Ms Palin as McCain’s VP in 2008, then encouraging and financing vulgar Tea Party extremists in 2010, 2012, and 2014 (i.e., making common cause with them to win mid-term elections), the Republican Party made a Faustian bargain with the worst collection of political kooks and nuts imaginable. Now the Devil, in the guise of Mr Trump, is claiming his due. The pitchforks are asserting their right to select the most right-wing candidate as the Republican presidential nominee, one who stands no chance of winning the general election. Republican politicians’ romance of the likes the blackface Missouri State Fair Rodeo Clown and bandits like Cliven Bundy has been repaid by the rightward tilt of the Republican electorate towards Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, and away from so-called "moderates" like Jeb!, Christie, and Kasich. Shameless lies about the selling of baby body parts, incessantly repeated by failed CEO Carly Fiorina, resulted in three dead and six wounded in Colorado. Fox News continues to poison the political atmosphere with conspiracy theories and a Chicken Little worldview. Fear- and hate-mongering talking heads quite naturally find their distorted vision of reality reflected in Mr Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims and proposed Hadrian’s Wall along the Mexican border to keep out the southern Picts. Klansman David Duke took positive notice and offered his endorsement.

The 2016 GOP Convention could be the equivalent of the Democrats’ disastrous 1968 Convention in Chicago. It is very likely that violence will break out if the GOP Establishment fails to support one of the rhetorical flame-throwers at the head of the race at this point. If nothing else, it will make for great TV and a massive dollop of Schadenfreude for rational people everywhere.

A more apt label for the spectacle of Mr Trump is nativism, which captures the spirit of his campaign more accurately than dubious liberal or conservative labels (since the meaning of liberal and conservative is relational and changing). A nativist tradition has always had a presence in US political culture, at times lurking beneath the calm waters of regular electoral politics, at other times crashing through like a Kraken intent on the destruction of the nation. Since 2009, the Republican Tea Party has been that mythological sea monster, initially awakened by Mr Trump’s birther fabula. Now these Republicans have again turned to Mr Trump in large numbers in the primaries. His campaign represents their best fears and worst hopes for America.

>26 theoria: By selecting Ms Palin as McCain’s VP in 2008, then encouraging and financing vulgar Tea Party extremists in 2010, 2012, and 2014 (i.e., making common cause with them to win mid-term elections),

Would you elaborate on this, how it's the Republican Party's own fault for courting vulgarity?

I've read that a lot of Trump supporters are Reagan Democrats and other populist types.

And while I'm on the subject of vulgarity, there's a certain Marxist feminist in these forums who can't seem to write a sentence without dropping the F bomb.

You do bring out the best in people.

>19 barney67: I have a problem when people toss around easy generalizations like "the system" "society" "The Man" "The Establishment" "The Elite" "The Status Quo" because I don't know exactly whom they're talking about. Everyone here does it. When I ask for clarification or specifics, they get angry, in part because they don't have anyone specific in mind.

No problem with easy generalizations like "everyone here", though. I'm pretty sure statements like this are not helpful to discussion, thought demonizing all your opponents can make it easier to feel you've won.

What I meant was everyone generalizes. It's difficult not to in a debate forum.

On a specific person's poor attitude, I can't use names because that would be a personal attack. If you're interested in fairness, you might want to read comments that have beeen made about me. I don't recall any insults from you.

Well, Barn, let me add a name, I, Rick Harsch am a sort of Marxist and a feminist, let's say an anarcho-socialist, or at least an economic socialist and social anarchist, something like that. I think you can probably survive the TOS watch dogs by saying of someone 'She appears to be a Marxist feminist'. It's not an insult.

>31 RickHarsch: You dirty Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyite, Sorelian, Bakuninian, Council Communist.

I am not, and have never been, a Council Communist, and neither was my pal, Sterling Hayden.

I've read that a lot of Trump supporters are Reagan Democrats and other populist types.

The Democratic narrative is that this is a Republican problem. And, indeed, there's much to say for that. But while 66% of likely Republican voters favor Trumps no-Muslims policy, among independents it's 45% / 39%, and among Democrats 30% / 55%. And while I still think he's doomed in the general election, there are definitely going to be Democratic crossovers.

I don't mean to diminish Republican culpability here, but I find the independent and Democratic numbers even more scary. It worries me the way Obama's massive expansion of government surveillance worries me. These ought to be no-brainers.

>25 barney67:

The "hedge-fund & other" crowd of high finance won't aid Sanders. He's kryptonite to them. So his sources are almost all small individual donors. He's a _democrat_, unlike the others.

>26 theoria:

Just as are the supposedly distinct "Democrats," the "Republicans" are split--routinely (this is not exactly new)--between a very well-established part which is entirely comfortable with Hillary (and Bill) Clinton (as their first choice) and another part which wants a much more radical right-wing party.

You might agree that much of U.S. politics since LBJ could be understood as the battle to subsume the Democrats into the fold of centrist Republican ideology--forcing out the last vestiges of a real alternative to one or another vision of Republican ideology and making national politics a basically intramural Republican party affair. There is, of course, the nominal Democrat party but it has become the captive creation of one of the main seams of Republican orthodoxy.

Thus, when these "two 'parties' " square off in electoral events, what we're really witnessing is a squabble among those firmly on the political Right-wing. Until the surprising advent of Bernie Sanders, with the exception of occasional comet-like appearances such as Paul Wellstone's, there was and is no political "Left" in the U.S.

By this analysis, Trump, however sincere he may be in his candidacy, is, wittingly or not, useful to those Republicans who want most to see Hillary Clinton's election. That should represent for them the reconfirmation of their unrivalled control--since they also chose Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

I can't tell if you're a libertarian or a Marxist or both.

I would have to check somewhere to find out if anyone in finance supports Sanders.

>37 barney67:

If my word means anything on that matter, I have zero sympathy for "libertarians" and only slight sympathy for certain marxists--but that's such a broad and vague term that it depends on what you mean by it.

A few iconoclastic financiers may donate to Sanders but the financial elite in general don't.

Who are the financial elite? Would you name them?

>39 barney67:

Sure. Start with mega-billionaires (see Forbes magazine for the listings of the world's wealthiest people); bearing in mind much overlapping, add the senior management of the financial members of the top 50 (or your favorite arbitrary cut-off) Fortune 500 firms--banks, insurance, pension funds (public & private), all manner of money-market traders and lenders--the top tier of these. Then add majors in public and private corporate bonds (apart from aforementioned banking); next add institutional and individual speculation in currencies, large commercial real estate developers and commodity futures dealers--again, those at the top--multibillionaires. These people, give and take a few make up a significant part of the financial elite. We haven't touched on other power weilders in manufacturing, transport, R&D, mega-agriculture, mining and chemicals or arms manufacturers.

Forgive me. You asked for individual names. But behind the types of operations I named are individuals. People like the Koch brothers, Carlos Slim, the heads if Goldman Sachs-- Lloyd Blankfein--unless cancer has taken him.

OK, so you hate the healthy. Nothing new about that.

You probably hated the bailouts of 2008. Interesting fact about those bailouts which I didn't know until I read it in the World Almanac. I encourage everyone who is interested in What's Happening to get a hold of a copy. Here's a book that gives me a lot enjoyment, a book that I can learn from. The next time someone blurts out a generalization, you can check whether their facts are correct.

Since 2008, "the federal government has spent more than $615 billion to bail out more than 900 institutions severely affected by the financial crisis." That's the part many people hate. But the government has recouped some of the loans to the point where it has earned a profit of $56 billion. That sounds like good news for everyone, keeping aside the negative consequences of the crisis itself. If you can make that much money on a loan, the loan was successful. At least it didn't contribute to the budget debt.

In the Almanac you can find a shortened list of the 900 companies, including, in bold type, those companies which haven't yet paid back the money, such as GM, Chrysler, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.

Another interesting chart in the latest Almanac (2016) is the amount of campaign funds collected by each candidate, as of the end of Sept. 2015.

In first place, getting more money than any other candidate, was Hilary Clinton, who received slightly over $76 million in contributions. Second place goes to Bernie Sanders, who was given $41 million for his failed run. Ben Carson, MD, next at $31 million.

Farther down the list, Donald Trump is tenth, having been given $5.7 million, then Lindsey Graham and John Kasich both around $4 million.

Opensecrets.org reveals the amount of money given by the biggest contributors, the sort of people that proximity and so many others hate. One caveat from Open Secrets:

"These are the top individuals and organizations spending their money to influence your vote. That is, these are the top DISCLOSED donors. Some categories of outside spenders, such as 501(c)(4) groups, are not required to disclose the identities of their contributors."

This list describes who gave what to whom. For example, in first place, Robert Mercer of Renaissance Industries gave $13.5 million to conservative candidates. In second place, Thomas Steyer of Next Generation, in San Francisco, gave liberals $13 million.

I'm going to continue this in another thread.

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=D&goal_id=megadono...

The claim here was made that Bernie Sanders has little or nothing to do with the "financial elite."

Top contributors to Sanders for the election cycle 2016, according to Open Secrets

Alphabet Inc
University of California
Microsoft Corp
Apple Inc
Mr
Amazon.com
US Postal Service
Kaiser Permanente
US Navy
Ms

>41 barney67: Since 2008, "the federal government has spent more than $615 billion to bail out more than 900 institutions severely affected by the financial crisis." That's the part many people hate. But the government has recouped some of the loans to the point where it has earned a profit of $56 billion.

But it's not the money spent that liberals hate about the bailout. It's that so little was done to help the individuals who lost their homes in the foreclosure crisis. The gov't bailed out the powerful institutions who caused the crisis but failed to help the powerless individuals who were it's main victims. The fact that the gov't didn't lose money is beside the point for liberals, although it may make conservative critics of the bailout feel better.

"OK, so you hate the wealthy. Nothing new about that."

So that's your way of dismissing the critique? Ascribe an irrational hatred to those who take seriously the systematic thwarting of a just democratic order? Dismiss them as cranks and malcontents. Thus you salve your conscience?

Well, as someone wrote: "Nothing new about that."

You can sit this election out if it's a "race" (LOL!) between Clinton and Trump: your heroes, organized wealth, have all the bases and all the exits covered.

My heroes? I don't recall saying that. Nor did I say your hatred was irrational. The wealthy have always provoked jealousy, resentment, and hatred. That sounds quite human to me. When in history has it been any different? I wasn't dismissing your comment. I was trying to establish an assumption.

You can assert "the systematic thwarting of a just democratic order" but if you want to convince anyone, you have to prove it.

>47 barney67: That doesn't make any sense. Irrational hatred is completely human.

>47 barney67:

Yes, your heroes. You defend them and their work. So what do you call them?

RE

"You can assert 'the systematic thwarting of a just democratic order' but if you want to convince anyone, you have to prove it."

You want proof that a just democratic order is systemically thwarted? For that, I'd require from you a number of solemn engagements--these would constitute some discussion ground-rules you'd promise to respect. That's due to my impression that you are a very bad case of self-delusion--you lie to yourself for the usual reasons so many do this. It's a form of psychic defense against having to face extremely unsettling facts.

Otherwise, (i. e. absent such an agreement) for proof, you'll have to wait until you can open your (°#@ò%!£) eyes and mind--as others have done. It's clear you don't want to do that.

Here, for example, is your latest effort at closing off debate:

"When in history has it been any different?"

In other words you accept this staus quo--wealth does and always has and shall predominate--fatalisticly. If we take this for granted, we're left with nothing to discuss except perhaps the most effective means to destroy one's adversaries since, in such a set of circumstances, it's kill or be killed. I know my preference.

Really spectacular stupidity does provke me to anger. But shortly after posting the above a brief answer occurred to me. Perhaps it is all you deserve in answer. It ought to, in my opinion, convince any fair, honest person--but again.... (See above)

In any case, for others, consider: it is now recognized by economists and historians that U.S. society is once more in a state of great disparity in the distribution of wealth--again, a relative handful of the wealthiest individuals or families possess more than the rest of the population combined. That has been common over history of course. Pharoahnic Eygpt, dynastic China, etc.

But for this to be so in a nation which is so proud to imagine itself as a real democracy is nothing short of a disgrace. For one must either suppose that these outrageous circumstances of gross inequity are the consequence of a properly functioning democratic order or, conversely, one has to question the idea that there is a properly functioning democratic order.

Let us get the usual rationalizations and exculpatory bullshit out of the way:

"Nobody (i. e. "no system") is perfect." Right. No one is perfect, the world is not a perfect place and that is a lame and disgraceful response. No one is claiming or expecting perfection. The fact remains that this objection is a diversion from the point here: if there were anything reasonably resembling a just democratic order, how could such pronounced disparity be explained or justified. Briefly, in no effective democratic order do people knowingly choose to live in such disparity.

Second: the distribution of riches simply reflects the proper working out of people's desserts. Those who most merit, most prosper.

Bullshit.

Extremely few people are--almost no one is ever really-- self-made men and women. Great success typically requires lots of help from others. Once successful, once they've made their way to the "top," some people are only too happy to selectively recall how they got where they are--supposing that they really are a success rather than a modern-day buccaneer.

_____

For sources, generally, I cite:

Piketty (2015) Thomas Piketty
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
Graeber (2014) David Graeber
Debt Updated and Expanded: The First 5,000 Years
Aliber & Kindelberger (revised 7th Ed. 2015)
Manias, Panics, and Crashes A History of Financial Crises Charles P. Kindleberger , Robert Aliber , Robert Solow
Josephson, M. (1962) Matthew Josephson
The robber barons: the story of the great American capitalists 1861-1901
Teachout (2014) Zephyr Teachout
Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United
Stiglitz (2012, 2013, 2015) Joseph E. Stiglitz
The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future
Beard, Charles & Mary (passim) Charles A. Beard Mary Beard
Zinn (1980) Howard Zinn
A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present , Howard Zinn on Democratic Education
Wedel, J. (2011, 2014) Janine Wedel
Shadow Elite, Unaccountable: How Elite Power Brokers Corrupt our Finances, Freedom, and Security
Robert Trivers (2011) Robert Trivers
The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life

This is where I quit reading: "you are a very bad case of self-delusion"

Aside from the grammatical dubiousness of this accusation, personal attacks are a no-no around here. As I've said to others, when you engage in personal attacks, you've lost your argument.

Bye.

>50 barney67:

"This is where I quit reading: "you are a very bad case of self-delusion"

---too bad you quit so soon, because in doing so, you missed this essential information about yourself :

"--you lie to yourself for the usual reasons so many do this. It's a form of psychic defense against having to face extremely unsettling facts.

That is not a personal attack. It's my observation of you and your own comportment here as a statement of fact. If you could, you'd refute it by showing us that it is false. But, as you couldn't do that, you bailed out. I am _not_ surprised.

And, in _my_ book, people who fall afoul of this fault have already demonstated that they are unfit for fair, honest, debate.

So, of course you quit. Called on your refusal to deal with unsettling facts, what else would you do?

Yes, "buh-bye"!

In my opinion, if "politesse"--apparently defined as "how dare you say something I don't like?! (or for which I have no good answer?!) --is going to be the measure of all acceptable discussion, then this country, suffering so much from a refusal to squarely face difficult issues, is never going to reach even a partial resolution of issues which are wreaking havoc upon it.

Some people, in the course of being confronted with unwelcome truths, are going to have their precious assumptions severely questioned and perhaps, too, their feathers ruffled.

We can either accept some risk to comfortable entrenched biases or we can remain where we are: savaged by a pseudo-political and electoral "offer" which is, in fact, no real choice at all.

When I read the original post again, I thought about the strain of libertarianism that runs through Trump's life.

It ought not to surprise us. Some businessmen are attracted to those ideas. Pro choice regarding abortion, spilling over into pro choice regarding most everything. Freedom for me but not for thee. If it makes money, it's a good thing. The supreme individual (Rand via Nietzsche, the syphilitic madman.). Isolationism in foreign policy. Drug legalization.

Pot, profit, and peace.