jimjam wrote:No doubt Comrade Donald's lackeys are already funneling cash to Schultz...………...
I doubt that. I don't think Schultz entering is a definite win for Trump, because I think Schultz would be competitive. One way to look at it is--including with Michael Bloomberg--is that the electorate didn't have a choice in 2016 other than Trump or the status quo. Schultz would present a success story much like Trump's without the baggage, which may prove attractive. He's a lot more likable than Bloomberg. The issue with those guys entering is the same with Donald Trump: they cannot be shut down by the donor class or the establishment, because they can self fund.
The issue with the Democrats is serious. The first two candidates announcing are talking straight up socialism. That is what produces Nixon, Reagan or Washington-like landslides on the other side. After the fuck-up of ObamaCare, the idea that the Democrats are just going to outlaw private insurance and cover everyone under Medicare with a $3.5T annual price tag is pretty outrageous. The tax increases alone would spawn a recession like the 1930s or late 1940s. It would make 2008 look like a walk in the park.
That is why I mentioned the Fed's actions today. Remember, I said earlier, they may want Trump gone, but if they have to tank the economy to do it, they may well be kissing globalist dreams goodbye, particularly with populism having taken hold in the UK and Italy, and on the upswing in France. The globalists with their open borders agenda have pushed things too far. Now we have potentially three billionaires running for president: Trump as a Republican (which is an oddity in itself; although, on the courts alone he has been better than either Bush), Bloomberg as a Democrat (after a lifelong career as a Republican politician), and Schultz as an independent.
I know you are not too fond of billionaires. It goes without saying that just because you are a billionaire doesn't mean you aren't a whackadoo. However, the Democrats have had funding from a number of whackadoo billionaires. Soros, for example, has nothing but bad intentions for the US. Yet, he's been considered more of a gadly until the backlash on open borders began disrupting the establishment to the point that they realize now that they may face revolution if they don't secure the border (and not just in the US). When Elizabeth Warren came out and proposed a wealth tax on the mere holding of wealth, I think that has been a wake-up call. Buffet, Gates, Bezos, etc. now have to realize that they have been sowing the seeds of their own destruction, and can ill afford to allow the AOC types to succeed--let alone become popular, which is exactly what is happening.
I honestly don't care if they are rich, but I would be happy to scare the shit out of them by supporting Elizabeth Warren's suggestion of a wealth tax just to get them out of the maudlin sympathy for the little guy to the point that they will tolerate pretty much any old crazy thing.
My fantasy scenario this time out is much more ambitious. I don't care who wins, as long as it isn't the Democrats. However, what I would love to see is Schultz enter the race and ultimately see the Democrats embrace the craziness and come in third place in the presidential election. I was hopeful that would happen in 1992, but Perot (and he was totally right about the Giant Sucking Sound) was too crazy for the electorate at that point. He was second to Bush, but they pulled out all the stops and Perot sort of melted down. It bled a lot of support from Bush, who otherwise would have one. That was the first anti-globalist revolt, if you look at it that way.
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned."
-- Ayatollah Khomeini