True to form, Trump announced in a one minute statement that he agreed with the British referendum on leaving the EU, but then spent 10 minutes talking about how great his golf course was and how the Brexit vote would increase his golf course income and how the financial collapse from Brexit would be a great opportunity for him and others like him to make lots of money. He was totally insensitive to the destruction and pain happening around him, but comfortably focusing, as always, on self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. Sanders and Warren have tried to warn us about our nation's growing wealth all going to the uppermost 1%. Americans, like the Brits, are feeling left out and are angry about it. But they're listening to the wrong politicians and directing their anger in the wrong direction. They're blaming the liberals, who are warning them about the problem and asking for voter support in fixing it. The conservatives are supporting the 1% who are the ones responsible for the inequity in the first place, and the ones who desperately want to keep it as it is. Supporters of Trump are misguided. Trump is the living example of that 1%! Everything he says and does shows his insensitivity toward those less fortunate than himself. He will NEVER agree to do anything to help average Americans get a larger portion of the economic pie. To fix this, somehow we have to legislate a change in the way wealth is distributed in America--something to include the middle and lower classes. The anger out there is real and deservedly so. Right now it's focused in the wrong direction, but eventually, even if never corrected, it'll boil over and create civil conflict that none of us want to happen. And remember, the outcome of civil conflict is always unpredictable. Vote in November for people like Sanders or Warren, who are already on track to help that redistribution of wealth to include the lower 97%. No Republican will ever attempt to correct this problem, because they are part of the 1%.
I did not know Sanders and Warren would be on the ticket in November. What ticket are they on, the Unicorn ticket?
why are the average Americans that are with the 51% aren't working anyway pay no taxes and are on state and government handouts deserving a large portion of the pie? they dont even contribute too it the whole anyway, see where i am going there is the REAL workers like me 6 days week at time on the road, then theirs the average slug out there..
Here's more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-shrinking-of-the-liberal-order-1466549077 OPINION COLUMNISTS POLITICS & IDEAS The Shrinking of the Liberal Order ‘We want our country back’ is a slogan that holds for Trumpites and Brexiteers. Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, speaks in Gateshead, England, June 20. ENLARGE Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, speaks in Gateshead, England, June 20. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES By WILLIAM A. GALSTON June 21, 2016 6:44 p.m. ET 167 COMMENTS Whatever the outcome of the “Brexit” vote—the U.K.’s referendum Thursday on remaining in the European Union—an era of Western history is ending and a new one is struggling to be born. The liberal internationalist project of the past seven decades is on the defensive, while ethno-nationalism (often illiberal) is surging. The optimistic assumption that history’s arc is linear and progressive is being challenged by the older, darker view that order is locked in a perpetual struggle with chaos, security with danger. If liberal means are no longer adequate to guarantee order and security, say the challengers, they become niceties we can no longer afford. In the U.S., support for the country’s postwar role as the lead guarantor of peace and the liberal international economic order is weakening. The Republican Party’s presidential nominee has rattled governments around the world with his frontal challenge to America’s military alliances. Leaders in both parties have rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, despite President Obama’s compelling geopolitical argument that if the U.S. doesn’t write the rules for East Asia in the 21st century, the Chinese will. Long-suppressed ethno-nationalist sentiments within America’s aging, shrinking white majority have found their public voice, blocking long-overdue immigration reform and questioning the loyalty of American Muslims. In Europe, illiberal majoritarianism is on the rise. Hungary’s Viktor Orban was the earliest example of this trend, which intensified with parliamentary inroads last year by the extreme-right Jobbik party. Many other countries have followed in Hungary’s wake. Meanwhile, support for the EU, the world’s most conspicuous example of liberal internationalism, is waning. A survey released this month by the Pew Research Center found that the share of French citizens with a favorable view of the EU has declined to 38% from 69% during the past decade, lower than even the U.K.’s 44%. In Germany, the linchpin of the European project, support has declined to 50%, while disapproval has risen to 48%. There are specific complaints behind these trends. Overwhelming majorities throughout Europe fault the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis and its response to the aftermath of the Great Recession. But the objection goes deeper. The founding document of what became the EU pledged signatories to “lay the foundation of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.” For decades, leaders believed that the cure for the continent’s ills was “more Europe”—the progressive deepening of economic and political integration. Today, support for more Europe has all but collapsed. In every country Pew surveyed, a majority or plurality said that some of the EU’s current powers should be returned to national governments. In no country did more than a third of citizens want more national powers given to the EU. MORE POLITICS & IDEAS Where Clinton and Trump Agree on Terror June 14, 2016 A Political Earthquake in Israel June 7, 2016 Sex and the Citizens: Trump Edition May 31, 2016 Clinton Is Still the Favorite May 24, 2016 If European integration must move either forward or backward, as many analysts believe, then the most likely outcome is the latter. A British vote to leave the EU might trigger similar referendums in other countries. This brings us to the U.K., the epicenter of the current crisis. The Remain campaign, led by major corporations and financial institutions, has emphasized the economic benefits of EU membership and the risks of leaving it. But survey researchers and on-the-ground observers have cast doubt on the adequacy of this strategy. For much of the public, the key issues are threats to British sovereignty from Brussels and to British identity from immigrants, whose movement from the EU to the U.K. cannot be regulated as long as Britain remains a member. A former Conservative member of Parliament summarized these objections to the New York Times: “People want to vote for the people who make our laws and set our taxes; they want to talk to them and be able to throw them out; and they don’t want to give up sovereignty, independence, and democracy to Brussels at any price.” There is a sense of loss of control that many find deeply troubling. Immigration crystallizes this sentiment. Longtime residents complain about the impact of unchecked immigration on schools, health care and social services. Many link immigrants to what they perceive as rising crime and increased competition for jobs. But more than that, they fear a loss of their national identity, their traditions, their history. One resident of Essex told the Times that “other people can’t understand our way of life as well as you can living in your own country.” Another put it this way: “A lot of people feel exiled in their own country.” The slogan of the UK Independence Party—“We want our country back”—has spread widely. These sentiments could have come, word for word, from supporters of Donald Trump. Throughout the West, internationalists are in the same boat, which is taking on water as the ethno-nationalist tide rises.
