In the article Paul Krugman says "the candidate [D.J.T.] continues to say disgusting things," if so then how to reconcile "disgusting things" or "no anything new" with his 100-day action plan beginning with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington? FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections? Or his "work with Congress to introduce . 1. Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act. 10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act"?
"That's a huge moral failure." Well, NY Times just published an article which says politicians are justified to be a double-talker or a con artist and they do so for good reasons. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/campaign-stops/why-hillary-clinton -needs-to-be-two-faced.html) If H.R.C. is found unchargeable then why don't allow others to follow suit? Why does the NY Times allow only her to say: "You need both a public and a private position," and no one else?
I disagree with the opinion that D.J.T. will be the leader of the G.O.P. after November because most of the party dignities do not support him but the more important reason than inter-personal terms is that he is a fierce anti-establishmentarian and no such type of a person can hold on power in any party of the establishment. In order to disestablish the authority of an outdated group of political dregs one has to organize one's own party. It's true that certain kind of contingent relationship to the G.O.P. can be laid out for mutual conveniences as it happens till now. Chances are good that a truly third major political party will finally be set up and he will figure as the leader of up to about fifty million voters and their party. Recall he was closer to the Dems than the Republicans in terms of policy issues. He has no base in any party and is a genuine outsider. He will not become an insider and much less a pro-establishmentarian by any stretch of the imagination. He has eloquently stated after breaking with the G.O.P. big shots that "It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to!" He subsequently announces that he opposes AT&T's $85.4 b takeover of Time Warner because "too much concentration of power in the hands of too few" and this represents a landmark shift from the G.O.P.'s conservative position. In fact, this implies from now on only anti-establishment forces will be true progressive policy defenders while the establishment of either party will not. Any intelligent and analytic observer of politics would have to agree that the Dems have become more conservative than before since the unshackled D.J.T. takes its center stage. For instance, the Obama administration has taken a hard-right position on North Dakota pipeline by authorizing the prosecutors to charge a documentary film maker to face up to forty-five-year in prison for filming the demonstration of the protest. H.R.C. will not be more democratic than her mentor and possibly will be worse to the extent that she will take a hard-right turn toward a radical rightist line. People did predict, although mistakenly, that D.J.T. was a Fascist a year ago, but the fact of the matter is that their prediction turns out to be right provided one puts the object of assertion right - by identifying the rightful one - the rightist Obama and H.R.C. and their establishment juggernaut.
Mark Wain
(https://www.facebook.com/andrew.colesville/)
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus