This wouldn't bother me in isolation, but I've seen numerous comparisons between the two. Jackson was a thousand times the man Donald Trump thinks he is. Jackson came from poverty and never forgot it. Trump was born into the upper middle class and is convinced he's seen hardship. Jackson never supported a war he wasn't willing to fight himself. Trump wants to send young men off to die when he actively evaded the same fate. The article claims that neither "owed anything to anybody", which is laughable. Of course, this is an accurate thing to say about Jackson. Leaving home at age 16 after his entire immediate family perished in the War for Independence, Jackson didn't have a penny to his name. His judgeship, military career, business success, and ultimately Presidency were built by him. He didn't even receive any help the government offers like Great Society programs or business stimulus, since it was the 18th and 19th centuries and that didn't exist yet. Without knowing much about Trumps background, I can still safely say that Trump didn't even approach that. He was born into money. Not as much money as he has now, but still enough money that his father was able to finance his early businesses. I'd also like to note that Trump wasn't nearly the businessman Jackson was. One of Jackson's lesser known achievements was that he ran several successful businesses from The Hermitage. He ran a distillery, a cotton plantation, and a small operation in slave trade (yeah, that one's kinda awkward), and not one of them had to file for bankruptcy, as opposed to Trumps four bankrupt corporations.
The assertion that Trump is a populist is a joke. There are no Jacksonian populists anymore. You could argue that Sanders echos the principals that William Jennings Bryan espoused, but Bryan (who, let me make it clear, I am mostly fond of) was a far more watered down populist than those of the 1820s-40s.
Trump and Jackson would hate each other if they ever met. Remember what Trump said about McCain? Yeah, Jackson was a POW during the revolution, and watched his brother die in a camp. Trump's life of luxury is in keeping with everything he hated about the Adams family. Furthermore, Jackson hated the notion that we must rely on the rich. He would've been drastically opposed to the fundamental assertions of GOP economics. Remember, "In the day of danger the wealthy enjoy too much ease to court danger. The poor knew hardship and danger from their daily lives. When the nation called, they were the first to answer. A republic that relied on the poor would survive. A republic that relied on the rich? Perhaps not."
And if you don't want to read my mini-essay (my first draft was at least twice as long as this), here's my opinions in one concise tweet:
The far majority of Biden supporters list Clinton as their second choice. Hillary Clinton now has an insurmountable lead that there is no way for Bernie to overtake.
I'd love it to happen, but the reality is he is unlikely to be the VP choice either. Clinton needs someone popular in a swing state (at least in conventional political wisdom).
Sanders has repeatedly said he wouldn't take the VP spot, which is for the best. He can do more in the Senate than as VP.
But, yeah, he doesn't stand a chance against Clinton now. Maybe I'll pay attention to local politics this election. I can't in good conscious vote for someone who will keep us in Afghanistan, there's no Senate race in MA, and my Rep is running unopposed. Unless I have a stake in the City Council or State Legislature, I have no reason to go to the polls.
The only thing I fear for the people of Afghanistan more than us staying is us leaving.
Pretty much, if your concern is the citizens of Afghanistan, us leaving will pretty much cause a out and out civil war where the Taliban pretty much takes over again and everything sucks. Us staying there causes a lower level civil war where people have safe area's they can get into to generally be safe but things still kinda suck. So it's more of Afghanistan is just F'ed view. The best thing we could have done was just bomb the crap out of them after 9/11 and call it a day and went home and watched some football. Everything after that is just a giant cluster that will take a few generations to sort itself out. USA USA USA.. Gooooo Team.
The longer our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq lasts, the more I think that the US just isn't capable of nation building and that the Marshall Plan and what we did in Europe and Japan after World War II is just an aberration.
When was the last time nation building actually succeeded?
Post world-war 2, we engaged in a full scale occupation with complete control of the government. It wasn't democracy exported: it was a US military autocracy with little direct oversight and wide parameters.
The longer our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq lasts, the more I think that the US just isn't capable of nation building and that the Marshall Plan and what we did in Europe and Japan after World War II is just an aberration.
When was the last time nation building actually succeeded?
There are other lesser known cases like South Korea, Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. The biggest problem is the leadership has to exist of some sort on the inside.
So, we're okay with murdering thousands of civilians because it protects civilians? I don't see the logic here.
Ok clearly you can't see anything here but black and white and 1 and zero here so I can't really help you understand Rym or my position.
I see you and Rym saying we should stay in Afghanistan with no qualifications. I assume that means you support our current policies, which features the deaths of thousands of civilians. This was why I asked Rym to elaborate. If there is more nuance to your stance than "keep doing what we're doing", you didn't present it.
I see you and Rym saying we should stay in Afghanistan with no qualifications. I assume that means you support our current policies, which features the deaths of thousands of civilians. This was why I asked Rym to elaborate. If there is more nuance to your stance than "keep doing what we're doing", you didn't present it.
Thousands of innocents, if not more, may die even if we leave.
I see you and Rym saying we should stay in Afghanistan with no qualifications. I assume that means you support our current policies, which features the deaths of thousands of civilians. This was why I asked Rym to elaborate. If there is more nuance to your stance than "keep doing what we're doing", you didn't present it.
Thousands of innocents, if not more, may die even if we leave.
Its a dammed if you do dammed if you don't really.
The longer our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq lasts, the more I think that the US just isn't capable of nation building and that the Marshall Plan and what we did in Europe and Japan after World War II is just an aberration.
When was the last time nation building actually succeeded?
I think the biggest issue is that the countries in the middle east and Africa are not "natural" countries, but rather colonial territories with borders designed to keep the people in them divided (and also look good on a map). If we had a rational redrawing of the borders of the whole area I think there would be a much better chance for everything to work but it will never happen due to entrenched power structures and the politics of the region making instability more desirable for everyone except the common people.
I think the biggest issue is that the countries in the middle east and Africa are not "natural" countries, but rather colonial territories with borders designed to keep the people in them divided (and also look good on a map). If we had a rational redrawing of the borders of the whole area I think there would be a much better chance for everything to work but it will never happen due to entrenched power structures and the politics of the region making instability more desirable for everyone except the common people.
Europe only seems more stable because of a thousand years of neverending warfare and the extermination of entire cultures. Those borders were the result of genocide.
I wouldn't say genocide, purges yes, religious wars, but not genocide. Its a tricky matter with a dick ton of debate going on around it so its hard to come down with a blanket statement.
Though yes our stability comes from smashing the shit out of each other for 1000 or so years. It works remarkably well strangely enough, we have moved beyond the whole "hurf durf lets go to war" and instead be dicks to each other and politic each other to boardom.
Bernie has started doing "contrast messaging," which is the polite way of saying "going negative," against Hillary. That is something that (1) he pledged he wouldn't do and (2) he hasn't done in a while.
That's a pretty strong statement. I'd tell you to back it up with a wager, but I think it's illegal to bet on in the US.
Trump is far from unlikely to get the GOP nomination. Jeb is all but out now. I'd bet real money Trump or Carson gets the nomination.
No one running on the Democratic side has even a tiny fraction of the support needed except Clinton and Sanders. Sanders is so far behind, and falling now thanks to Benghazi and Biden's exit. Barring a miracle, Clinton has the nomination and nothing can stop her.
In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton easily beats Trump, and has a good lead on Carson nationally. Statistically, the GOP would be unlikely to win even a fraction of the few swing states it would need to even have a chance.
That's a pretty strong statement. I'd tell you to back it up with a wager, but I think it's illegal to bet on in the US.
Trump is far from unlikely to get the GOP nomination. Jeb is all but out now. I'd bet real money Trump or Carson gets the nomination.
Trump won't get the nod. My guess is that he will get bored and bow out on his own at some point. Carson will get kicked out once the establishment figures out who they want as their candidate.
Jeb also has a shit ton of money, more than enough to stick around until March-ish. He's also one of the more "reasonable" GOP candidates, so the establishment won't through him away that quickly.
Smart money is on Rubio right now. He hasn't had any really bad gaffes yet, he's young, he's Latino, he's from Florida, and he can get the crazies and the establishment behind him. He will have a fight against whomever gets picked from the Trump/Carson/Fiorina wing of the party, but he will probably come out on top.
the ridiculous sideshow that the GOP put on with the Benghazi hearings cemented Clinton's position as the next president.
I think you're too optimistic on that. The hearings were good for Clinton, but they didn't do enough to lock her in as the next president. She still has a public perception problem that one good showing won't fix on its own. And there's the FBI investigation to consider; regardless of whether you believe she did anything illegal, if the FBI brings charges against her then her campaign is done.
There's also the (50% possible) December shutdown to consider. Depending on which party is seen as having the blame, that could negatively impact her campaign by a lot.
There's also the (50% possible) December shutdown to consider. Depending on which party is seen as having the blame, that could negatively impact her campaign by a lot.
There is no chance that the Democrats get blamed for it. They never have been. Every single time this has happened in modern political history, the GOP has instigated and the GOP has been blamed popularly.
There's also the (50% possible) December shutdown to consider. Depending on which party is seen as having the blame, that could negatively impact her campaign by a lot.
There is no chance that the Democrats get blamed for it. They never have been. Every single time this has happened in modern political history, the GOP has instigated and the GOP has been blamed popularly.
True, but I'm making no assumptions until it happens.
Comments
Shiny No-prize to whoever figures out what's really, really wrong with that.
This wouldn't bother me in isolation, but I've seen numerous comparisons between the two. Jackson was a thousand times the man Donald Trump thinks he is. Jackson came from poverty and never forgot it. Trump was born into the upper middle class and is convinced he's seen hardship. Jackson never supported a war he wasn't willing to fight himself. Trump wants to send young men off to die when he actively evaded the same fate. The article claims that neither "owed anything to anybody", which is laughable. Of course, this is an accurate thing to say about Jackson. Leaving home at age 16 after his entire immediate family perished in the War for Independence, Jackson didn't have a penny to his name. His judgeship, military career, business success, and ultimately Presidency were built by him. He didn't even receive any help the government offers like Great Society programs or business stimulus, since it was the 18th and 19th centuries and that didn't exist yet. Without knowing much about Trumps background, I can still safely say that Trump didn't even approach that. He was born into money. Not as much money as he has now, but still enough money that his father was able to finance his early businesses. I'd also like to note that Trump wasn't nearly the businessman Jackson was. One of Jackson's lesser known achievements was that he ran several successful businesses from The Hermitage. He ran a distillery, a cotton plantation, and a small operation in slave trade (yeah, that one's kinda awkward), and not one of them had to file for bankruptcy, as opposed to Trumps four bankrupt corporations.
The assertion that Trump is a populist is a joke. There are no Jacksonian populists anymore. You could argue that Sanders echos the principals that William Jennings Bryan espoused, but Bryan (who, let me make it clear, I am mostly fond of) was a far more watered down populist than those of the 1820s-40s.
Trump and Jackson would hate each other if they ever met. Remember what Trump said about McCain? Yeah, Jackson was a POW during the revolution, and watched his brother die in a camp. Trump's life of luxury is in keeping with everything he hated about the Adams family. Furthermore, Jackson hated the notion that we must rely on the rich. He would've been drastically opposed to the fundamental assertions of GOP economics. Remember, "In the day of danger the wealthy enjoy too much ease to court danger. The poor knew hardship and danger from their daily lives. When the nation called, they were the first to answer. A republic that relied on the poor would survive. A republic that relied on the rich? Perhaps not."
And if you don't want to read my mini-essay (my first draft was at least twice as long as this), here's my opinions in one concise tweet:
The far majority of Biden supporters list Clinton as their second choice. Hillary Clinton now has an insurmountable lead that there is no way for Bernie to overtake.
I'd love it to happen, but the reality is he is unlikely to be the VP choice either. Clinton needs someone popular in a swing state (at least in conventional political wisdom).
But, yeah, he doesn't stand a chance against Clinton now. Maybe I'll pay attention to local politics this election. I can't in good conscious vote for someone who will keep us in Afghanistan, there's no Senate race in MA, and my Rep is running unopposed. Unless I have a stake in the City Council or State Legislature, I have no reason to go to the polls.
When was the last time nation building actually succeeded?
See also: the US.
Though yes our stability comes from smashing the shit out of each other for 1000 or so years. It works remarkably well strangely enough, we have moved beyond the whole "hurf durf lets go to war" and instead be dicks to each other and politic each other to boardom.
His internal numbers must be really bad.
Biden leaving and the ridiculous sideshow that the GOP put on with the Benghazi hearings cemented Clinton's position as the next president.
No one running on the Democratic side has even a tiny fraction of the support needed except Clinton and Sanders. Sanders is so far behind, and falling now thanks to Benghazi and Biden's exit. Barring a miracle, Clinton has the nomination and nothing can stop her.
In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton easily beats Trump, and has a good lead on Carson nationally. Statistically, the GOP would be unlikely to win even a fraction of the few swing states it would need to even have a chance.
Compare against betting odds for the winner and for the Republican nominee.
According to the latter, Marco Rubio is actually the favourite to win the Republican nomination.
Jeb also has a shit ton of money, more than enough to stick around until March-ish. He's also one of the more "reasonable" GOP candidates, so the establishment won't through him away that quickly.
Smart money is on Rubio right now. He hasn't had any really bad gaffes yet, he's young, he's Latino, he's from Florida, and he can get the crazies and the establishment behind him. He will have a fight against whomever gets picked from the Trump/Carson/Fiorina wing of the party, but he will probably come out on top. I think you're too optimistic on that. The hearings were good for Clinton, but they didn't do enough to lock her in as the next president. She still has a public perception problem that one good showing won't fix on its own. And there's the FBI investigation to consider; regardless of whether you believe she did anything illegal, if the FBI brings charges against her then her campaign is done.
There's also the (50% possible) December shutdown to consider. Depending on which party is seen as having the blame, that could negatively impact her campaign by a lot.