has to come from a Republican, not a Democrat (sound of crickets chirping) — and a Republican regarded as an ultra-right-wing populist, at that.

You should read up on the Iron Law of Institutions.

The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

they can be replaced and replaced they will be. 2 years into the Presidency insurgent/outsider candidates will rise in the house and if possible the Senate... and in 4 years.. those in power now.. may find themselves no longer viable. The advantage the insurgents will have is that their funding will come from the masses.. they won't have to spend 6 hours a day calling the plutocrats and corporate's for cash... leaving their hands free to do the work of the people they represent.... making good on their promises..... IF viability is the goal of the establishment.. well, it will be short lived.

I think he was just playing one on TV to get the Republican nomination since their base is racist. It just doesn't seem to me that you can grow up in New York and do business in New York dealing with all kinds of people from all over the world and continue to be a racist. It would be a hard slog anyway.

he's against U.S. imperialism is that he supports the false narratives that are the lifeblood of U.S. imperialism. That makes it difficult for me to envision Trump doing anything but continuing imperialism in all ways. He supports torture, he's said that, wants to bring back waterboarding. Even said he'd kill terrorists' family members. The war OF terror is a fraud, it's all been manufactured, engineered, stage managed, to provide a neverending enemy the imperialists and the MIC can rely on to keep their trains rolling. Trump supporting torture shows he supports the fraud that is the war OF terror designed to enable the New American Century. It just doesn't wash.

Then there's the "wall" between Mexico and the U.S. He's said terrorists come across the border, etc., again, false narratives that just are not true meant to scare the bejesus out of the lemmings so they'll acquiesce to the police state and continued imperialism. That doesn't wash either.

He's talked about the U.S. meddling in other country's affairs, regime changes, etc. But the supposed need for his wall is because of U.S. meddling, regime changes, outright economic war in Latin America. We're seeing that clearly now in Venezuela and Brazil. If the U.S. stopped it's meddling in Latin America, if the U.S. had not done what's its done down south in the past, we wouldn't have huge numbers of people wanting to escape and move to the U.S. for better opportunities.
So that doesn't wash either. For the Trumps and racists that support him, there wouldn't be a need for a wall if the U.S. would stop its imperialism in Latin America.

I think Clinton is worse than Trump, but referring to him with anything related to Peace is inaccurate and disturbing.

Being a Woman and a Democrat softens her past actions, don't ya think, in the eyes of her supporters? Indeed, these two umbrellas Hill hides under have let her get away with a sh#tload of damage and hurt and stupid.

We have the chance to stand up and say, “No! Not in our name, please. Thanks for telling us honestly that you think that, but it’s wrong.”

Now, what if someone doesn’t tell us what they honestly think. Instead they pay lip service to agreeing with us and being against the evil thing, while at that very moment they have lawyers somewhere thinking up secret justifications for it. They go ahead and do it, declaring the whole thing classified and a state secret. Much later we find out and complain, at which point they circle the wagons and protect the underlings who did the evil thing. They bury the evidence, give a damage-control speech, call us condescending words, and go right on doing the evil thing anyway, while denying that it is continuing.

Which “someone” has more integrity? Which is preferable? More moral? Are they equally bad?

Personally I think the first “someone” has more character. You can have a discussion before any of the horrible criminal practices, shady legal memo-writing, and granting of immunity to hired sociopaths have occurred.

If I choose the second “someone,” I’m basically saying, “Go ahead and lie to me. I want to be lied to. Then I’m off the hook. I can pretend I didn’t know what the plan was, what was going on in the camps.”

Perfect it.