Your attitude towards Lula proves the point very well – you don’t need to like someone personally in order to vote for him/her. In fact, only the die-hard core electorate votes for a party no matter who represents this party out of sheer loyalty to the ideas that this party stands for. The moderate, the undecided, and the independent voters opt for the candidate that addresses an issue important for them in a way that suits them.
For example, if a person is negatively affected by Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), he/she will support Trump for changing it and removing the obligation to buy a health insurance or pay a penalty. If a voter benefited from this act and received assistance, then he/she will favor someone who is likely to maintain it. For example, Trump’s proposal to deduct health insurance premium costs on their tax returns is very popular. Right now, this is impossible so a lot of people consider paying a penalty or buying a compulsory service that does not qualify as tax alleviation unfair.
This applies to all key points in the candidates' programs – individual rights, domestic issues, economic issues, and defense issues. However, it is important to stress that a person might be liberal on certain issues and conservative on others.
I don’t think it is possible to have a socialist (he was an independent, not a Democrat) and a Republican on the same side but I find it symbolic that two people with strikingly different political agendas can pinpoint infrastructure, anti-globalism and raising the life standard of the middle class as key problems. Still, Sanders was too liberal even for the potential democrat supporters, and that is why he lost the primaries. At the same time, Hilary was too much for Bernie’s fans and some of them stayed at home instead of going out and waiting in line to vote.
http://presidential-candidates.insidego ... nald-TrumpThey have close results in terms of foreign entanglements, free trade, and gay rights but seem to hold very different views on other issues.
Here is an interview with Sanders.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... infrastru/Speaking of border control and refugees, Canada decided to take 25,000 Syrian refugees but implemented a very strict selection program involving security checks, fingerprinting and iris scans. They also turned away unaccompanied male refugees due to the events in Cologne, Germany. What is more they did not take people from the refugee camps but people who have a verifiable background and live legally in countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. I guess they figured out that scrutiny is the only way to prevent aggressive primitives and terrorists from entering their country. This is the reasonable approach – these people enter your country on your terms, you are the host, you set the rules.
What is more, the people who flooded Germany are not refugees but economic migrants from the entire Middle East and North Africa taking advantage of the ineffective border control and Syria crisis. They don’t want to work, they don’t have any valuable skills, they don’t speak any European languages and are unwilling to learn them, they simply want to receive net social payments. No one needs such a scum. Immigrants are good only if they contribute to the host country not when they cause troubles and rig the local labor market. Germany made a big mistake so whoever thinks that illegal immigration is not a problem should look at the situation in Germany. Their far-right is on the rise screeching about the fall of the Western civilization, ordinary citizens are shocked and angry and their institutions are toothless because they don’t have the legislation that authorizes harsher measures.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... itizenshipWell, there are many bones of contention between China and the USA so there will be much to gnaw at during the negotiations. Basically, both countries will lose if the trade war between them continues. China was sour because the TPP proposed by Obama excluded it and in fact, Obama imposed 35% tariff on Chinese tires. What is more, China is a major supplier of aluminum and steel for the US business, including the aircraft industry. China is the biggest foreign owner of the US dept so Trump might churn out some agreement, not a magical solution, not a perfect way out but something tolerable for both sides. Since TPP is no longer an option, vis-à-vis negotiations with big local players will be the only way.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /93787870/Yes, Assad hopes that Trump will take his side and together with Putin they will finish off ISIS. Still, the general public in the US was led to believe that Assad’s rule and his systemic oppression of certain communities led to the emergence of ISIS, this perspective benefited Obama administration and allowed them to claim a stake and justify their support for the moderate terrorists. Putin, Trump and the UN Security Council will insist on elections for a new government and Assad might lose them or he might not even run in them. Not even Trump can ignore the anti-Assad attitude dominating the Western media without jeopardizing the credibility and continuity of the American foreign policy. In any case, Assad will be replaced, not because he is a bad leader, (better than many others, he is educated and secular, in fact, 80% of the population supports him), but because his public image is beyond repair. What is more, the emphasis should be put on keeping Syria within its present borders, stopping any secession or partition projects fueled by Turkey and local Muslim leaders, and preserving the administration structure of the country.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... um-snowdenThe Tweeter part is important because social media are dominated by SJW (Social Justice Warriors) so I guess he pissed them off deliberately, as a way of snapping people out of their comfort zone. People start thinking only when they are stressed and provoked. In his interviews, he was much more informal and partial than in his official speeches during the campaign. I find that really innovative for the US social-political discourse – a political leader who distinguishes between his public persona (his capacity of presenting a particular political party) and his personal views that might be quite different from the standard political vernacular. I don’t think that attacking someone because you don’t like his tweets or you have overheard a private male-to-male conversation peppered with spicy jokes and empty boasts makes any sense. One can tell hundreds of jokes or anecdotes about grabbing a pussy, sucking a sausage, stupid blond women, repressed hubbies, mother-in-laws, whores and their customers, cheating spouses, gays, machos or minorities in their private conversations but if they have to deliver a public address in their administrative capacity, they will stick to the administrative officialese.
Needless to say, I hate SJWs in the guts so whoever manages to piss off that rabble will earn my profound admiration.
Well, more money is always welcome, no matter whether you are a multimillionaire or a beggar. Still, it is a good PR move. What he does with his presidential salary is the last thing that bothers me. I am interested in how much of his bold intentions the establishment will let him implement. The presidential institution is well integrated into the check-of-powers system so I expect him to concede and soften on many of his initial proposals.
