Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (32)
He has a knack of continually snatching censure from the jaws of triumph by gauche remarks. Will Donald Trump win despite his susceptibility to Trump-baiting? Love conquers all, so they say. In this case, the key to Mr Trump’s success is his mutual love affair with the so-called poorly educated.
Hmm, the poorly educated? What a fatuous label. It suggests there is a relevant disparity between those without tertiary educations and those whose minds have been sharply honed by the towering intellects within academia. Always shaky, this pedestal has been completely levelled as the average intellectual acumen of academics has plummeted; that is, if their pitiful, politically-correct, mangled-English utterances are any guide.
In any event, commonsense was always far more important than education in arriving at sound decisions. Of course, commonsense and higher-education are not mutually exclusive. At the same time, campuses peddling safe spaces, victimhood and microaggressions can do no other than put commonsense at risk. Commonsense was recently on glorious display in the UK.
Once you take out the Scots and nationalists in Northern Ireland who had their own agendas, the self-serving financial set in London, and the young (under 25s) whose brains are still developing, the Brexit vote was much more decisive than the overall figures suggest. Despite getting riding instructions on what was good for them, a large proportion of the ‘poorly educated’ had the good sense to decide that they wanted to live in a country which has the right to determine who can enter and whose legal jurisdiction is not circumscribed by a foreign court.
Looked at another way, the vote for Brexit was a vote for putting the UK first. It resonates with Trump’s campaign. Trump is also relying on the commonsense of ordinary people. This will prove to be a sound strategy; though he has hurdles in his way.
Over ninety percent of African Americans will dutifully vote for the party which has made so many of them dependants. In the land of identity politics, assiduously nourished by the Democrats, a large majority of Hispanics will also vote for Hillary Clinton. To almost cap it all, the Democrats have a powerful electoral machine and an unscrupulous ground game. But to absolutely cap it all, Trump has to overcome Trump.
He refuses no opportunity to be asked questions by journalists; and, unlike politicians, he actually tries to answer them. Almost to a man and woman these journalists are university-educated rampant liberals. They probe waiting for his mistake and then inflate the misstep.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails were hacked revealing a conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, replete with crass and tasteless accompanying language. DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was forced to resign. A gift for Trump? Think again. For some reason it was speculated that the Russians may have done the hacking. In a to-and-fro press conference, Trump clearly tongue in cheek (I saw it) said he hoped Russia would “find” the 30,000 emails that Mrs Clinton deleted and let the press see them. The beat-up followed.
Trump was encouraging Russia to interfere in America’s domestic politics it was claimed. Some went so far to suggest it was treasonous. Though it is entirely unclear why revealing personal emails which Clinton said she deleted because they were all about yoga and stuff would put American security at risk. Leave aside media like the far left NYT and Washington Post; consider our own supposedly conservative-leaning newspaper The Australian. “There is no justification for Mr Trump to turn to Mr Putin for help to discredit Mrs Clinton,” whined the editor (July 29). It is enough to make a person with commonsense throw up, but that is the world we are in and which Trump has to deal with.
Also Trump doesn’t appear to understand the current age’s rules of the game. A conservative cannot say anything negative about any victims, even those who enter the political arena and sling personal insults. John Howard had this down pat; for example, with his refusal to wrangle with David Hicks’ father no matter what barbs came his way.
A Muslim couple whose son was killed in 2004 while serving with the US military in Iraq had a spot at the Democratic convention. Their job, prosecuted by the father, Khizr Kahn, was to stick it to Trump. And Mr Kahn did so in no uncertain terms and quite unfair terms. In the aftermath Trump tweeted: “Am I not allowed to respond?” The answer is no. And certainly not without great care; and certainly not by speculating, as an aside, that the scarfed mother might have said nothing because of her secondary status in a Muslim household. “She had nothing to say…Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
Clinton may be able to send no help and to sleep while her ambassador is being killed in a lengthy fire-fight in the American embassy compound in Benghazi; to barefacedly lie to the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, killed in the engagement, by blaming their death on outrage over a video; and then continually deny that she told them that – as she did again as recently as last Sunday when interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News. But, the fact is, such licence is available only to Democrats.
No Republican candidate is ever given an ounce of leeway by the liberal media in the United States. But Trump in particular creates a perfect storm. They despise him particularly; precisely because he appeals to those ‘poorly educated’ people they despise. And Trump suffers from a lack of political guile which gives them ample opportunity to exploit his mistakes. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News scored this time with the Khan brouhaha. But there is a conga line of journalists and commentators queuing up to trip him up.
So he can’t win then? Well he can and likely will win because of his commonsense policies.
Undoing the corrupt Washington machine, fortifying border and national security, generating jobs by renegotiating trade deals and by lowering taxes and regulations, increasing the size of the military and crushing ISIS – all appeal to a population which is discontent with the status quo and think times are tough and dangerous. Prediction: Enough of the ‘poorly educated’ will have enough commonsense to vote for the no-nonsense guy despite him often putting his foot in his mouth. And the educated elite will sulk and bleat in disbelief.
I gather Mr Khan has close financial ties with the Clintons and has been shown to be involved in dealing in possibly questionable EB5 immigration visas to aid Muslim entry to the US. He could hardly be called an independent commentator, in fact, quite the opposite.
Well said Peter. I heard some European journalist bleat that a Trump victory in the US would upend the world. If it turns Left into Right then this is exactly what Europe and Australia needs. It would enthuse the base to restore conservative values in the Party and strengthen the search for a Conservative leader of the Coalition.
All correct, of course. Today’s progressive media nevertheless has a usefulness, for me at least. I have learned to let them make my job of identifying real conservatives a little easier. Simply take a closer look at any right-of-centre figure who is attacked by them in an over-the-top, out-of-proportion way and bingo! They have my attention. The scale of their vitriol is proportionate to the competence and potential popularity of the target and therefore the size of the threat to their New World Order. The harder they go in, the closer I look.
Examples of this are Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Nigel Farage, Tony Abbott, Andrew Bolt and Donald Trump. Meanwhile, pretend conservatives such as David Cameron and Malcolm Turnbull receive much less criticism.
A good point.
I hope you’re right. For much of the article I was reminded of the overwhelming pervasiveness of ‘rampant liberal’ thinking, so pervasive in society (despite the phenomenon of Brexit) and the article measured out a battle three quarters won (despite common sense thinking of the unwashed masses), but then followed your last two paragraphs that almost point to a miraculous transmutation; a leap of faith. I pray that you are right.
I had to look up ‘micro aggression’ and instantly wished I hadn’t: unfettered anger is seriously not good for my health.
Am I liberal or conservative? I despise the great unwashed, I don’t believe in welfare, I don’t like Islam, and i HATE political correctness and censorship.
The greatest folly of the educated elites is their belief they can impose a philosophy from the ‘top’ ‘ down.
The great western philosophers Barzun and Russell maintained all philosophy is based in emotion and is not the preserve of learned men.
The wider community lives their philosophy and philosophers simply reflect this in their writing.
That’s what is starting to happen now. The community is exerting it’s true nature and wants to be represented by people who reflect their philosophy.
The rule by the unelected and elected university trained is ending.
Donald Trump is a fool and a dangerous demagogue. I predict he will lose the US election, mostly because the Republicans are withdrawing support at a rate of knots. People will take Obama’s advice and avoid Trump. That’s probably about the only useful thing Obama will have done in 8 years.
Whilst I have my own doubts about Trump, I have to say that the Republicans “withdrawing their support” doesn’t hurt his chances in my eyes. The current crop are (mostly) a rabble of self-interested, corrupt and unprincipled cretins who, along with the Democrats, form an elitist, closed-shop establishment just like most western governments, taking it in turns to lie to us.
You have spoken about your political connections to the Liberal Party, at various times, so one assumes you are Australian; but the degree to which you are offended by dear Donald, makes one think that you have a bit of English in you, and I don’t mean the death-of-Princess-Diana-overly-sentimental Englishness. The variety I’m thinking of would find dear Donald’s apparent brashness an affront to human dignity and his homespun wisdom quite contrary to a senatorial sort of Churchillian wit. Forgive me for sounding a little personal, but one is left floundering as to why you might not like Donald.
Um, this was directed towards the judicious Jody, not Steve Spencer
Firstly, I don’t have any English in me – except my love for that language and it’s requisite roll in my practice of the dark political arts!!:-)
Secondly, it’s not Donald’s brashness which disturbs me. On the contrary, I admire people who take risks to say what they think – whether or not I or others agree with it. The man behaves like a thug. Yes, my years in the teaching profession taught me to separate the behaviour from the individual but I’m willing to make an exception with Trump. Any man who stands before the American public making a fist at somebody, emulating punching their lights out, is a second rank bovver boy who has obviously been used to getting his own way that way. Politics is all about the possible – not the infantile, volatile or risible. And, finally, I couldn’t see myself as a figure of authority doing business with a man whose hair looks like the vestiges of a scalped native American and who purses his lips like a girl when angry. If that doesn’t cover it, how’s this:
UNPRESIDENTIAL.
Disruptive and fails to listen;
Exhibits aggression when unable to get his own way;
Significant problems with abstract thinking;
Refuses to follow instructions;
Never does his homework.
Teacher comment: Donald aspires to be head of the class but his ego and aggressive drive prevents him from taking instructions from others and formulating positive classroom relationships. Grade: C-
Phew, Jody, now that’s a vent. I suppose it’s not unlike several witnesses being asked to report on a road accident: one saw the drive slumped motionless over the wheel; the second saw him force open the battered driver’s side door and assault the bloke who drove into him; the third saw him drive off without stopping. Alright, a tad exaggerated, but your analysis only goes to show the widely divergent responses of the pro and anti Trump respondents.
The way I see it, his policies don’t echo the sophistry of a slippery, Muslim apologist Obama; a man intent on making disastrous foreign policy decisions; and more than happy to fill the US Supreme Court with activist judges, thereby relieving the public of any say in their own destiny. He doesn’t echo the testicle crushing, feministic hostility of an appalling Hillary Clinton; and may well get America out of its trillions of dollars of national debt; and may well make America great again, by keeping the world policeman back home to clean up the home-grown terrorist threat. He may well be the bloke who got out of the battered driver’s side door and assaulted the other driver, but it’s better than being slumped over the wheel.. In my opinion.
p.s. I forgot to explain the ‘slumped over the wheel’ and the ‘drive off without stopping’ bits. Obama is of course slumped over the wheel (or asleep at the wheel); and not so hilarious Hillary, with her Benghazi notoriety is the one who drove off without stopping.
You see the issue is not whether or not the alternative is appalling or not – that’s just moral relativism. One person’s unsuitability or faults cannot be the justification for another’s appalling behaviour. Both candidates are bog standard, but at least Clinton has experience in high level government.
Right now, for your homework, I want you to chill out with this – which is what I’m doing; rush to 40″ and be astounded!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTVa-w1VkZ0
Jody with her appealing home spun wisdom is correct 95% of the time but on Trump she lapses.
Yes, it’s a post-lapsarian viewpoint I know. But Trump is no God and he will not provide a path to the Garden of Eden. Would you care to lay some bets?
Eh? Are you saying the fact that Trump isn’t a god and can’t provide a path to Eden means he’s unfit for the job? Sorry, I don’t see your point. If you’re referring to the OTT passion that some of his fans display, then I wouldn’t hold that against the guy – there’s plenty of passion on display from Clinton’s camp of feminist stormtroopers, so your point (if I have it right) is moot.
I think a lot of people find Trump’s belligerence off-putting, but I try to reconcile the Trump we see in the media every day (i.e. a complete idiot) with the Trump who built a substantial business empire and who has (so far) beat the political establishment of America time after time. I can’t be sure of course, but I learned a lot through watching Tony Abbott’s time as Leader in opposition and as PM. I knew him to be a good guy and very intelligent, yet if I had accepted what the media said about him, I would have thought of him as a simplistic thug. Sound familiar?
Really? Like the way she spruiked MT as the great white hope of the Lib-Nats when he actually turned out be the great white elephant?
Can somebody please answer my question above?
I suspect nobody thought you were being serious. How on earth can one be a liberal if one doesn’t believe in welfare, doesn’t like Islam, and hates political correctness and censorship. The passion with which you express this seems at odds with the copybook description of a conservative, where reason rather than emotion is supposed to be more dominant. Personally, I find your dislike of ‘the unwashed masses’ a little puzzling. If you unpick the metaphor, then it refers to the middle Australia, the more conservative Australia, those voters who tweaked the liberal (small ‘L’) Malcolm Wormpill’s ear, and surely that’s a good thing.
Lacebug, to add to Warty’s answer, the ‘poorly educated’ that I refer to are the great mass of working people who bring commonsense and decent values to guide their daily lives. “Unwashed”, I don’t think so. A great question to ask sometimes (depending on your family’s circumstances)is am I wiser than my parents. Mine had no education beyond 14-15 years of age, yet I see no basis for thinking that my extra education maked me wiser than they were.
Peter, your line, “…..yet I see no basis for thinking that my extra education maked me wiser than they were” was pure genius!
Does anybody know how I can get coffee out of my sinuses?
So I’m neither Liberal, nor conservative? I guess I just must be an extreme right winger. I never thought that about myself before.
I just went and looked at some old news footage of the Cronulla Riots. THIS is why I despise the uneducated great unwashed; the Aussie Aussie Aussie brigade. I don’t believe one needs a formal education, but I do tend to like people who have bothered to read some books and educate themselves.
Lacebug, if your definition of the ‘uneducated unwashed’ is people who take part in violent riots, then I have some good news for you – that’s probably <0.5% of Australians and they exist on both sides of politics. Look again at the Cronulla footage and you will see the "Aussie Aussie Aussie brigade" were just one side of the violence – there were plenty on the other side, too.
My personal view is that violence is not borne out of one's political position, any more than it is the product of alcohol or disadvantage. If a person is prone to be violent when stressed or aggrieved, then any number of situations will bring that violence out. This is why the majority of people with strongly-held political views are NOT violent and why, when I occasionally over-indulge in my favourite tipple, I don't beat my wife up. It is also why the vast majority of poor people don't throw petrol bombs at police.
My own observation is that the contempt for 'uneducated' people exists primarily on the Left, especially among the so-called 'intellectuals'. The Greens are infested with these awful snobs.
I hear what you are saying Steve. I feel completely torn between being extreme left (my disdain for the uneducated, my laissez faire attitude to homosexuality, my hatred of censorship, and the fact that I am an academic elitist at a university) and being extreme right (I don’t believe in welfare, I hate Islam, I don’t like political correctness in any form, and I believe that tax is theft). This makes me feel like an outsider from both camps. It’s lonely out here! I enjoy the writings of Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Clive James, and Barry Humphries. Does that get me in anywhere?
Skip the comments and fluffy analysis.
All we need to know is which one of the appalling choices gets the top job?
1. Brash, unpoiltical, ruthless businessman Trump, or
2. Kleptocrat and unconvicted congenital liar Clinton.
That’s it. There is no third choice
So! Which one then, O en passant? Do you hope for the Trump thuggery, or the waspish congenital liar? Perhaps you’ll now settle for the simpering Shady Alsuleiman appeaser, Wormpill, back here in Australia: he doesn’t sound to bad, going by some of the comparisons above.
I choose Trump as the lesser of two weevils and for providing some hope.
At the last election I got exactly what I wanted. A minority (or wafer thin Reps) and in my 31 selections below the line for the Senate I did not vote for any member of the ‘Turdbull Team’, Short as a Plank or a Green.
As I have said on this blog I resigned from the Liberals after 31-years and am now seeking a Conservative Party. The commentariat lamented that such an outcome would make the country ‘ungovernable’. Good! The less government the better. No Super Tax on my saved monies (I played by the rules, pollies pensions do not), Death to the Climate Con, etc. The government must cut spending not screw us for more.
Peter isn’t Trump all about undoing the establishment methodology? I see your point about his response to questions he shouldn’t answer, but I would counter that by suggesting that this is one of the reasons he has been so successful – because he is breaking all the PC rules, taking it to the liberal media establishment, and playing it his way. For every anti-Trump story in the media there are, as you suggest, millions of Americans privately vomiting their disgust.
As for The Australian, that is a disappointing media outlet that I hardly waste any time on these days. They have never seriously engaged in the climate change debate, taking the official non-stance of allowing CGW the ‘benefit of the doubt’. Nor have they ever honestly appraised Australian politics. Now they are simply drifting with the current of liberal attitudes towards the USA election and providing nothing intelligible whatsoever.
pgang, only just alerted to your comment. You might be right in the sense that I doubt Trump would have been the Republican candidate if he’d followed conventional advice. So I don’t know, but still feel you have to avoid certain conflicts were the left and the media can easily tag you as racist or as being disrespectful to those who have lost children in wars. I feel that now is the time for Trump to be nasty to only one person – called Hillary (and Obama at times). There is plenty of material there without him needing to stray.