Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (28)
Last Wednesday, President Obama said “the world has never been less violent…than it is today.” He didn’t explain his precise measure but asked us to “think about” the fact that “it has been decades since a war between major powers.” I am underwhelmed by this presidential insight. In fact, it is a disturbing line of argument. Let me extend it to show how disturbing it is.
The oppression and beheadings of Christians and Yazidis in Syria by ISIS is a mere blip when put against the Holocaust. The execution of five police officers in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge is not so violent when put against the 72 officers who lost their lives on 9/11. Obviously one could go on. For example, presumably, nothing could possibly happen again in Japan to equal Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ipso facto, get real about the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami of 2011.
War, murder, enslavement and mayhem in the Middle East and North Africa; one barbaric Islamic terrorist atrocity after another throughout the world, including in the United States; millions of Muslim refugees swamping Europe — none of it compares with a world war. On that scale, Obama is right. It is when being right is breathtakingly vacuous.
The current president of the United States lives in his own relativistic world. Cops kill blacks; it’s a racially-driven epidemic; even though the data shows there is no racial bias at work.[i] Islamic violence, on the other hand, must be left unnamed and minimized by being put on a cock-eyed historical scale. The man has shown yet again why he is monumentally unfit to be president; and, just think, he might be followed by “what difference does it make” Hillary Clinton. And some people are concerned about Donald Trump. There has never been an easier act to follow than Obama.
I found it interesting to compare the initial take of Fox News and CNN to Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention. “Inspirational and uplifting” versus “dark”. “Dark”, by the way, was reiterated by Clinton. I understand other US news outlets also used the description “dark”, for example, NBC. Did Clinton simply copy the media’s language or was it more collegial?
Leaving aside my political leaning, my non-partisan take on the speech was whether you liked it or loathed it, you would be unlikely to turn it off. You gotta say the man has holding power; and for all of the very lengthy 75 minutes’ time he took. I could be wrong. I was wrong about Romney; in part, by grossly overestimating his ability to mix it with Obama and his acolytes in the mainstream media. But I think – not just hope – Trump will beat Hillary. Just a guess: I doubt his adversarial strength will be found wanting.
His campaign reminds me of Abbott’s in 2013 in its timely appeal to working people. And Abbott, too, was (and is) equally distasteful to the chattering classes. In Trump’s case his campaign is badged under making America great again by putting America first: Negotiating better trade deals, opening coal mines, reducing regulations and taxes, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, stopping illegal immigration, building up the military, insisting that allies pay their fair share of defence expenditure, crushing ISIS, stopping Muslim’s who can’t be vetted entering the US, and supporting the police; and, did you catch it, helping families with child care.
A lot of people who don’t take to the man will take to his policies. It will be enough, I predict, for him to win in November. America needs Trump. The world also needs him because the world desperately needs an America which is not weak at home and weak abroad. That said; it is understandable that those on the left oppose him. A strong America does not appeal to their national self-loathing minds. It is much less explicable why some conservatives are so vehemently anti-Trump when the alternative is so grisly.
Here is Daniel Pipes explaining why he has left the Republican Party: “Here’s why I by bailed, quit, and jumped ship. First, Trump’s boorish, selfish, puerile, and repulsive character, combined with his prideful ignorance, off-the-cuff policy making, and his neo-fascist tendencies make him the most divisive and scary of any serious presidential candidate in American history.” And that was just the first reason.
Pipes has lots more to say; some of it particularly silly when he responds to his readers comments, which broke three to one against him. Along with others like him, he pretends that his stance on Trump is not a vote for Clinton. It is sickening intellectual dishonesty, akin to Pontius Pilate’s hand-washing.
Here in Australia sanctimony drips from the media elites. They simply can’t mention Trump without using a demeaning adjective or two to show what morally superior beings they are in comparison. The Australian’s Paul Kelly and Greg Sheridan are at it all the time and they are among the best of our journalists. It is pathetic. This comment from Kelly (20 July) is tellingly remote from reality and the concerns of the common man: “…the lesson of Trump is the vulnerability of our democratic ideals and the risk that in our age of discontent demagogues can suddenly emerge with risk to our politics and society.”
‘Risk to our society’; say that again. He just doesn’t get it. Trump does. Our society is in trouble and great risk has materialised in the here and now. Islamists are on the march wherever we look. In case there is any mistake, they don’t give a fig about our democratic ideals. They can’t be bargained with. They won’t be appeased. Accusations of Islamophobia is a weapon they wield to undermine resistance among our legions of dullards.
They want us converted, subjugated or dead. Take your pick; they are indifferent to our choice. They want Islam to rule the world. And, come the dénouement, all those moderate Muslims living in the West, who we hear about ad nauseam (you know those moderates who never renounce one, not one, hateful Koranic verse), will line up behind them. Doubt that? Ask yourself what you would do in their place.
Meanwhile those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make them mad. Back on Planet Obama, John Kerry is explaining that global warming is the real threat to our way of life. Wannabe president Hillary is planning on closing coal mines while promising miners imaginary jobs in the renewal energy economy; on wind farms maybe?
In sight is a completely politicised Supreme Court, assiduously undoing constitutional protections; a weakened military; emboldened Islamism; more racial division and identity politics; increasing inner-city crime, more dead cops, more debt, more unaffordable health insurance, more Muslim enclaves, more like Kate Steinle being gunned down by illegal Mexican criminals living in ‘sanctuary cities”; and, to ‘relieve’ the doom among the damned, more food stamps. Welcome to an irredeemably enfeebled America and to a very dangerous world without a strong cop on the beat.
However dystopian this potential future, Pipes has made his pathetic point and gone home with his bat and ball. The mainstream commentariat in America, and in the West more generally, no doubt feel morally justified in trying to save American society from the awful possibility of that tasteless Trump winning the presidency. Welcome to Sanctimony City. And don’t worry about its inhabitants, it’s a gated community. Pity about the poor sops who have to live outside in the real world.
[i] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/07/truth-black-white/
Courageous and insightful piece Peter Smith … right on the money as usual. Feels like I’ve been immersed in slowly heating water (for twenty years) and things are all approaching the boil together. Trump and Brexit maybe a breath of oxygen to the drowning man … but can they stop the boiling left wing hallucinations – is the majority with us? – can the majority wrestle back power from the defeated institutions? The new moral aristocracy runs through western democracies like cancer and the uncorrupted are few.
I would only say we should exercise extreme caution about a leader, or potential leader, who has simple answers to complex problems. History has shown where that leads.
1. Complex problem: The seemingly unstoppable triumph of fascist power in Europe. Leader proposes a simple answer: “We shall fight them on the beaches … We shall never surrender!”
2. Complex problem: The threat of international communism. Leader proposes a simple answer: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
3. Complex problem: An enervated post-imperial society with a terminal economy. Leader proposes a simple answer (in the form of a diagnosis): “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
God save us from another potential leader with simple answers!
Richard don’t want to get inbetween your dialogue with Jodie, but I have to say that I liked your comment – might use it in one way or another in future, if you don’t mind.
Likewise. Was a very good response Richard.
However much, or little, one cares for Trump, the reversing of the anti-Trump slogan would seem eminently appropriate: “Anyone but Clinton” That alone ought to be reason enough to support Trump. – Another excellent article Peter.
Bravo Peter! Those in the commentariat, a la Cameron Stewart and Hedley Thomas, who strive toward objective analysis are a vanishing crowd. Mike Seccombe in the Saturday Paper last week joined the throng of those unjustly featuring Pauline Hansen as propagating fear and racial intolerance.
Sustained unfettered immigration is hugely compounding infrastructure deficiencies. A failing education system is corruptly associated with immigration. The flawed concept of multiculturalism is adversely influencing a whole range of government policies. The property industry is out of control due to Howard Government legacies. The Productivity Commission is virtually involving in social re-engineering by promoting wiping out of essential infrastructure based on economic rationalism.
John Stone has exposed some major government failings in these areas in this forum; but nowhere in the mainstream media do we see any of the higher paid scribblers targeting fore-mentioned issues that are vital to national integrity.
The media herd seems to respond to diktat from a faceless ‘inner sanctum’ in Canberra that generates political correctness.
‘Go Donald Trump/Mike Pence’.
Good article with many good points with which I agree, thank you, Peter. However I also agree with Jody in her response above in that we must exercise extreme caution. We currently live in a reality phobic culture dominated by a reality phobic media. The reality that our culture and our media REFUSES to face or accept is [in the words of Ronald Reagan] – ‘ that government is the problem not the solution’. Donald Trump at this stage gives no indication that he thinks that government must be made SMALLER and less intrusive and that it should be restricted to those functions as outlined in the American constitution.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, I would say that strong men often achieve a great many desirable outcomes, and that Donald Trump can and will fix many of the problems you listed such as terrorism, racism and re-building crumbling infrastructure. Hitler fixed many of the social ills of post W.W.1 Germany in his time by being ‘a strong man who got things done’, but he did so by expanding government power and control. I don’t suggest in any way that Trump is like Hitler, but unless Trump actually makes government smaller and less powerful [not make the US less powerful] then there will be considerable risks if he is elected POTUS.
Again the risks to us and to the world will be less than if Hillary and the Democrats remain in charge, but unless Donald actually reduces the size and power of government he will only have succeeded in treating the symptoms and not the disease. Trump will then only be postponing the reality of the decay of civilisation that inevitably results from the lack of freedom caused by big government, and if Trump actually expands government power [which I suspect he will] the next POTUS might be truly dangerous.
To finish, I think it was a little disingenuous on your part to compare Trump in any way to Abbott. For all of Tony’s inaction on fixing 18c and many other measures I suspect that Tony is/was far less addicted to the concept of using government power to fix the ills of society than Trump gives the impression of being.
‘…I suspect that Tony is/was far less addicted to the concept of using government power to fix the ills of society than Trump gives the impression of being.’
Respectfully denandsel; Tony Abbott is a John Howard acolyte.
The Northern Territory Emergency Response Act enacted by the Howard Government was framed as a ‘national emergency’ with army troops being deployed to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. NORFORCE provided vehicles, personnel and logistic support for other governmental agencies involved. This took place in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election, in which the Labor Party under Kevin Rudd defeated the Howard Government after four terms of Liberal government.
More recently, the Abbott Government centralized control of several agencies involved in the ‘Stop the Boats’ campaign and offshore processing under a 3 Star General, also co-opting the services of a retired Major General whose fingerprints seem all over many initiatives relating to ongoing murky national security related initiatives. Out of that came militarization of the Customs and Immigration Departments, now known as BORDER FORCE.
Digressing somewhat; John Howard greatly harmed the Australian economy from about Year 2000 onwards through inappropriate and unaffordable defence spending which rolled onwards under Abbott and now Turnbull. Not that the other mob were much better, especially Kim Beazley who was like a kid playing with toy soldiers; but Joel Fitzgibbon did unsuccessfully attempt tighter spending controls. The whole defence scenario is so corrupt it would make even the Mafia blush.
By the way; I had a military career.
What are you talking about? The defence budget is less than 2% of GDP! Now their spending priorities may be wrong but you can hardly say the total is excessive and “unaffordable”.
I rather agree with PT, our defence budget is comparatively small. The corruption aspect you speak of is another matter, and with your inside knowledge, would be worth speaking up about- at length. Certainly I am thoroughly un-enamoured by the whole Marxist driven (via ‘Critical Theory’) political correctness that seems to pervade the armed services today, but that too is another matter.
In 2010, US defense outlay was about 4.4% of GDP, but that represented an astounding 33% of Federal Revenue. Australia ranks 13th in the world for actual defence spend and has not yet reached 2% percent of GDP, but presently outlays more than 8 percent of Federal Revenue; if you can believe what Canberra says they are spending. And we have the hugely costly JSF and submarine projects on the horizon, which will doubtless compound. We are going down the same overspend track as the Americans, urged along by US hegemonic influence.
Donald Trump admirably seeks to dilute the US self-perceived role as the world policeman and the overriding influence of the military-industrial complex on their economy since WW2.
Apologies; typo. For 8 percent, read 6 percent of Federal Revenue.
Excellent read. The dark ages curtain has not yet fully descended, – Quadrant ‘heads’ keep popping out from under the curtain and calling out the shysters.
BUT,
Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, et. al. already tried the Trump thing.
No nation has ever RE-INDUSTRIALISED, which is what Trump is hinting at. Will he make history or ‘sparkle’?
Reindustrialisation (‘make America great again; bring jobs home; protection), would require a new Hamiltonian program and support from America’s elites, who have, with malice, created the neo-liberal wasteland that is New England. Elites today (Trump included) make money from money, factory work is too hard.
“Anglo-sphere” Conservatives have lost their compass. Daniel Pipes claims to be one of America’s conservative leaders, and simply does the chicken run.Perhaps Marx nailed the failure of Anglo-sphere elites and chicken runners, some 160 years ago:
… the Tories in England long imagined that they were enthusiastic about monarchy, the church, and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent. (18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon)
Incredible!
Trump does not have ALL the answers therefore the Americans should be very careful when choosing to vote for him.
Extending this logic the voters should then vote for Clinton based on:
1. She has NO answers – a blank page with no black marks, just many blots.
2. SHE is not a HE, so that scores brownie points with the mediascum.
3. Hillary has not been convicted of:
a. Bribery & fraud with the sham ‘Clinton Foundation’,
b. Having blood on her hands over the sacrifice of good men in Benghazi,
c. Lying over Benghazi and everything to do with islam & terrorism
d. Breaking security laws by using a personal unsecured server for classified emails,
e. Scrubbing the said server and passing classified emails to her lawyers (who did not have the Security Clearance to receive or read them,
f. Whitewater Fraud that possibly lead to a suicide or murder,
g. Starting an illegal and unauthorised war in Libya,
h. Selling Uranium to the Russians through a crony for huge profits and a donation to (you guessed it) the ‘Clinton Foundation’ Bank Account.
i. Lying to coal miners that their loss of a livelihood is just a misunderstanding,
j. Lying about her ‘combat experience’ at Kosovo(?) airport where she had to ‘run for cover’. Highly paid News Anchors have lost their jobs for fabrications like that (but in Oz we elect such tall tale tellers to Parliament),
k. Showing what a feminist woman she is by sticking with Bill despite his ‘never having sex with that woman’.
l. Being the architect of Obamacare – the worst and most destructive social policy in US history
m. and on … and on … until the alphabet runs out.
Yes, American voters, be very, verrrry careful when considering who you will vote for as the next President.
At least if you (and lots of dead and dumb people) place a vote for Hilarity you know exactly what you are getting … but Trump is a risk.
Daniel Pipes doing his bit for Hillary.
Ted Cruz doing his bit for Hillary.
Since 45%+ are automatic Hillary voters, thanks to being the beneficiaries of redistribution policies,
one can only hope the truth about Hillary Clinton, “named after Edmund Hillary”…..??…. will feature prominently
during the campaign to combat the characters mentioned.
Pipes lost me as soon as I read his pathetic post.
What would Hillary’s first thought be if, as President, she got a 3am phone call?
Benghazi?
Putin?
More likely…..”Where the hell is Bill” and “Do I really have to answer that”?
We are living in particularly interesting times. It does in fact look as the proverbial is about to hit the fan in Europe, with the French and Germans, in particular, waiting for the next Islamic attack, and it will come sooner rather than later, and keep on coming. We all know that.
It seems to me that Trump is a man for his time, and the fact that he appears to speak to middle America and for middle America is just part of the picture: he appears to be willing America to stand up for itself, once again, and I think that is what Peter is intimating. This Republican Convention seemed to signal a change of gear too, and a number of previously reluctant commentators had to admit he even sound presidential. Certainly there seemed to be a new found confidence, not that he lacked that quality in the past.
The point is that the extraordinary times we are entering will need an extraordinary leader, and if not Trump, he or she will need to arise from somewhere else (and it won’t be awful Hilary).
Can I add that Hilarity’s VP pick is close to the Muslim Brotherhood and their money?
Trump’s main mantra focuses our attention on his intention to “make America great again.” Trouble is, he is running on empty re just how he thinks he will do it. But if he gets elected President, stand by for protectionism with bells on. That would make him the diametric opposite of Reagan. And a classic con man.
“…But then, of course, not listening is to to be expected. If the base they had been listening for the past year, Donald Trump wouldn’t be the GOP nominee for president of the United States — a misogynistic, racist, hate-filled, bully who ridicules the disabled and war heroes and anyone who dares disagree with him, a lying con man with six bankruptcies, and zero political experience to lead the nation of 320 million diverse Americans, be Commander-in-Chief of the American military, and most powerful man in the world. That’s not who you get to lead your party to lead the country. That’s who you cast as a James Bond villain.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-good-the-bad-and-the-_15_b_11140272.html
A fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their parents do for a living. All the typical answers came up – mechanic, business,
sales, doctor, engineer… and so forth.
However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his parents, he replied, “My father’s an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money.”
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside.”Is that really true about your father?”
“No,” the boy said, “He works for the Republican National Committee and is helping to get Trump elected, but it’s too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids.”
Ian,
As usual you are an embarrassment to your parents.
So, if not Trump at this stage of the game, who is your preferred choice? C’mon, let’s hear it – and Ted and Bernie don’t count!
Now let’s analyse your thought-bubbles and copied ideas about Trump.
“misogynistic” – evidence of misogyny, please. Sounds like the myths about Abbott now that Gillard is on Hillary’s election team. His wife, daughter and some impressive women think he is great, but no doubt you have Hilarity Clinton’s husband’s hearsay and bed talk to support your verbal?
“Racist” – saying I want to stop illegals and aliens of all nationalities and murderous Islamic Peaceniks from crossing our borders does not make you a racist. It makes you a sensible sane person! An example of his actually discriminating against someone based on their RACE, please?
“hate-filled, bully” – calling Hillary a crook (which she is) and fighting back at the slanders and insults aimed at him is neither hate-filled, nor bullying. It is robust debating. An example of a Duke-type hate statement, or other form of ‘hate’.
“who ridicules the disabled” – example?
“and war heroes” – I hope you are not talking about McCain, someone I used to admire until I delved into his case a little more than the hype. If not McCain, give me a single example of where he has actually ridiculed a real hero.
“and anyone who dares disagree with him” – I suppose that characteristic includes me in that I hardly ever agree with any of your flatulence. Ridiculing barely counts as fun as you are such an easy target.
“a lying con man with six bankruptcies”, – I have heard this before, but never saw any evidence, so references, please.
“and zero political experience – Oh! Great! What we do not need is another ‘professional’ politician like Clinton x 2, Blair, Hollande, Merkel, Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard or Shorten.
Again I ask you: If not Trump, then who?
‘En passant’ (or whatever your real name is): have a look at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34930042 re the mocking of the disabled. In that, Trump shows a remarkably infantile mentality, in keeping with his attention span, which is reportedly that of a toddler.
Now of course that movie footage on the BBC site may perhaps violate a principle of yours that the only valid sources of information are ‘conservative’ ones. If that is the case, then I’m afraid I can’t help you further; beyond asking did you bother to read the Huffpost link I supplied?
Trump IMHO is merely the latest example of that American political phenomenon captured by the novelist Sinclair Lewis in his classic ‘Elmer Gantry’. The ambitious politician who plays to the listener’s ego (eg Reagan, Trump) will always beat the one who plays to the listener’s conscience (eg Reagan’s opponent Walter Mondale, and perhaps Hillary Clinton.)
But against that we have the fact that while Trump the real estate operator has clawed his way up the greasy political pole, his little ways are just a tad too much for even honest Republicans to stomach, which is why Republican opinion is so divided on him.
So “if not Trump, then who?”
Damn near anyone.
Ian,
Are you referring me to the same truthful BBC that reported that “A Syrian refugee was killed by a bomb blast in a German restaurant”? Did they mention that he was a suicide bomber?
I will concede that you are right that Trump was tasteless in mocking a disabled reporter. Would you like to add context and remind us all how the Left treated Tony Staley, the ‘crippled dwarf’ and Liberal MP? Does that disqualify him from being President, or would the lesser crime accepting and misappropriating HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS be a problem for you?
“Trump the real estate operator has clawed his way up the greasy political pole, his little ways are just a tad too much for even honest Republicans to stomach, which is why Republican opinion is so divided on him.” You have never heard of the Clinton’s ‘Whitewater’ and you have not been watching the DNC booing the Clinton faithful? The only booing at the RNC was for that loser, Ted Cruz.
“Reagan, Trump will always beat the one who plays to the listener’s conscience (eg Reagan’s opponent Walter Mondale, and perhaps Hillary Clinton.)” You are kidding and just writing this to be annoying as no sane person could seriously join these words into a sentence. Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents the USA has ever produced. Hillary Clinton has the lied, cheated, lied, schemed and lied. I suggest you watch the actual Congressional Hearings into Benghazi, but then again, what do the lives and unnecessary deaths of four honourable and brave people matter in Clinton’s world? After all she had to run for her life in Kosovo, didn’t she. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxpJvrclIfM
I thought you just had thought-bubble, but now I realize you live in one as you failed to answer the only question that really mattered. Trump or Clinton for President? As you failed to work that out when broadly asked I will make it easy for you: they are the only choices. Roll of drums …. and the answer is: ….?
Trump or Clinton?
Gee that’s a tricky one. Let’s see…. (While I’m thinking, you might amuse yourself scratching some more through that dirt file of yours. But for that, you might have to find some sort of light down there under that rock you hide under.)
Trump if he becomes US President will have to make a lot of important decisions. But the only decisions of his that I have so far been able to find record of, all directly involve his own financial interest. I think that also may be the reason Trump has failed to gain any enthusiastic traction so far here Quadrant Online editorial level. Opinion here seems to be that he is the best of a bad pair.
But Hillary is married to former President Bill. And Bill took a magnificent decision in 1999 to withdraw the US support that the murderous Suharto regime had previously enjoyed re East Timor. That threw the balance in favour of East Timorese independence, particularly after the US Chief of the General Staff got on the phone to the Indonesian armed forces chief thug Wiranto and read him the Riot Act.
I can’t see Trump ever doing anything half as principled as that. His first question would most likely be “what’s in it for me?” Nor can I see Bill dropping out of influence anytime soon. Can you, ‘en passant’ or whatever your real name is?
So…… Suspense…………. Drum roll…………Bagpipes in chorus…………. Heavenly Choir…………
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton!
Trump or Clinton?…………….. Clinton or Trump???????
Gee that’s a tricky one. Let’s see…. (While I’m thinking, you might amuse yourself scratching some more through that dirt file of yours. But in order to do that, you might have to find some sort of light down there under that rock you hide under.)
Trump if he becomes US President will have to make a lot of important decisions. But the only decisions of his that I have so far been able to find record of, all directly involve his own financial interest. I think that also may be the reason Trump has failed to gain any enthusiastic traction so far here Quadrant Online editorial level. Opinion here seems to be that he is the best of a bad pair.
But Hillary is married to former President Bill. And Bill took a magnificent decision in 1999 to withdraw the US support that the murderous Suharto regime had previously enjoyed re East Timor. That threw the balance in favour of East Timorese independence, particularly after the US Chief of the General Staff got on the phone to the Indonesian armed forces chief thug Wiranto and read him the Riot Act.
I can’t see Trump ever doing anything half as principled as that. His first question would most likely be “what’s in it for me?” Nor can I see Bill dropping out of influence anytime soon. Can you, ‘en passant’ or whatever your real name is?
So…… Suspense…………. Drum roll…………Bagpipes in chorus…………. Heavenly Choir…………
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton!
Trump or Clinton?
Gee that’s a tricky one. Let’s see…..
(While I’m thinking, you might amuse yourself scratching some more through that dirt file of yours. But for that, you might have to find some sort of light down there under that rock you hide under.)
Trump if he becomes US President will have to make a lot of important decisions. But the only decisions of his that I have so far been able to find record of, all directly involve his own financial interest. I think that also may be the reason Trump has failed to gain any enthusiastic traction so far here Quadrant Online editorial level. Opinion here seems to be that he is the best of a bad pair.
But Hillary is married to former President Bill. And Bill took a magnificent decision in 1999 to withdraw the US support that the murderous Suharto regime had previously enjoyed re East Timor. That threw the balance in favour of East Timorese independence, particularly after the US Chief of the General Staff got on the phone to the Indonesian armed forces chief thug Wiranto and read him the Riot Act.
I can’t see Trump ever doing anything half as principled as that. His first question would most likely be “what’s in it for me?” Nor can I see Bill dropping out of influence anytime soon. Can you, ‘en passant’ or whatever your real name is?
So…… Suspense…………. Drum roll…………Bagpipes in chorus…………. Heavenly Choir…………
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton!
Oh well, Ian, I think you have made your line of thought clear.
‘en passant’:
Don’t jump to conclusions. I tried (3 times) to post a response to your rant of July 27, 2016 at 2:26 pm, each time without success. So I posted it elsewhere. You can find it at:
https://noahsarc.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/a-bit-of-trouble-at-quadrant-online/