No Sex, Please, She’s Skittish

hillary goggle-eyedWe know who doesn’t want Trump to win. Hillary for one, along with the Democrats in general, the infamous 47% of tax-hoovers (who have probably grown to around 55% by now), to which, strangely, you can add many, if not most, of the wealthiest financial institutions across the world. There is then the media, and not just the journalists and reporters but the owners who are all-in for Hillary. And there’s a large proportion of the Republican Party which must include the #NeverTrumps who are the supposedly right-side conservative writers, bloggers and columnists, but who are part of the political establishment with no obvious allegiance to small government and the preservation of the American Republic.

And, of course, there are the dead citizens and non-dead non-citizens who will also be lining up to vote her in, along with those who vote early and often. Not to mention those who will vote for her because she is a woman irrespective of any other considerations whatsoever.

Formidable, almost impossible odds facing Donald Trump, in other words. Even after a flawless presentation against his Obama-clone opponent, in which he took Hillary apart despite each and every effort by the laughably “impartial” moderators, the bad news is that Donald Trump remains no better than 50-50 to win. But that is also the good news. He has not yet lost and might yet emerge victorious.

And why that is so is because he represents the last chance for the United States to save itself, and approximately 51% of the voting American public know it.

The supposed killer issue was a 2005 tape made of Trump discussing in crude terms his approach to women. And possibly in anyone else’s hands, this would have been the death blow it may still turn out to be. But for Hillary Clinton, married to a genuine sexual predator, this is an issue that can only be used carefully, as the blowback is so enormous. Whatever Trump has done is as nothing in comparison with what Bill Clinton has done, who was protected by Hillary in quieting the many and various “bimbo eruptions” (her term). I regret to have to deal with this, but since you’d have to have been born before 1980 to have an active memory of any of it. I will deal with only one, the story of Paula Jones, and I will include it only at the end.

I find all this repulsive, and the Paula Jones story is the least disturbing among the stories that surfaced at the time, and it is plenty disturbing since it was only one instance of what must have been nuch more common at the time. What is more repulsive is listening to others go on about Trump, as if Clinton were not orders of magnitude worse. But what is actually significant is that bringing that tape to light has enraged Donald Trump so that we ended up with the single most devastating, one-sided debate in American political history. With Bill’s past once again in everyone’s minds, Hillary could not truly exploit the tape to the full extent she might. Trump’s was a cold anger, but it was devastating.

Donald Trump had two tasks before him. The first was to demonstrate Hillary’s immense hypocrisy in even bringing the tape into the conversation. Trump said that his misdeeds were words, but Bill Clinton’s involved deeds. Whatever Hillary might say about Trump it applies with immensely more force to her husband.

The second task was to insist that all of the above was a distraction from the real issues a presidential election should be about. He then forced Hillary to deal with policy issues — and on each of these the substance of the argument was entirely with Trump. There was not an issue that at the end of the debate one could say Trump had not shown a better understanding of the complexities, and that the policies he intended to put in place were not superior. This, in particular, I found quite remarkable. It is Trump speaking.

“These are radical Islamic terrorists and she won’t even mention the word, and nor will President Obama. He won’t use the term ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name. She won’t say the name and President Obama won’t say the name. But the name is there. It’s radical Islamic terror.”

And just as Trump had said, she would not use those words. But irrespective of the words one chooses, there was no denying, as Trump repeatedly pointed out, that Hillary was deeply complicit in creating the problem we now face in ISIS, and he made that point very well. In discussing the Middle East, and the “stupidity” of US military strategy, what may have been the most remarkable part of the debate came when Trump disagreed point-blank with his running mate, Mike Pence, over the use of the American military in Syria. Pence thought America should. Trump’s reply: “He and I haven’t spoken and we don’t agree.” Not only did he show decisive leadership, it was an answer that ought to quieten at least some of those who worry about Trump leading the US into war. It was also the right answer politically, since the controversy that has occurred since has been over the disagreement with Pence, not whether Trump had the better answer.

What must, of course, be included is this, which is for the ages:

Hillary: You know, it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

Trump: Because you’d be in jail.

What he said is that he’d appoint a special prosecutor to look into the many scandals that have surrounded her time in politics, not least the email server she illegally used during her time as Secretary of State. There is much more that could be said, but at the end, what matters is that Trump is back.

The obstacles are formidable, but at least it is possible. And there is still the third debate to come.

  • Another View

    The thing that I’m finding really interesting is that Trump is displaying the same level of outrage that many taxpayers throughout the Western World, have towards those who are making a motza on our hard earned! (Not to name names, but the ones that really get on my quince are those paragons of all that is acceptable in society at the ABC & the HRC). Why should we be borrowing $480M a day to pay for their do nothing globalist BS!
    Trump gets how hard it is to make a quid, and that is why people are supporting him.

    • lloveday

      You sound like an Australian because of the mention of ABC and HRC, but “borrowing $480M a day”! If you are referring to Australia by “we”, get real – that’s $175 BILLION per year and not even Turnbull is that irresponsible.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com

    The establishment will employ all possible means – fair and foul, but mainly foul – to prevent Trump from winning, so his task is immense and victory would/will be a monumental achievement. To his opponents, one of the most terrifying aspect of a Trump presidency would be to see their wicked princess wearing orange jumpsuit instead of pant suit.

    • pgang

      I think that’s the point though Bill. There are enough voters out there now who have had enough of the establishment con-job. Of course there are still plenty of Jody’s who are happy to pretend that they are in possession of some sort of moral high ground and secret insider knowledge (the useful idiots), but I think the West is moving towards some sort of awakening era.

  • Lawrie Ayres

    I am still confident that Trump will be successful. It is strange that the MSM is all for Hillary and their polls have her miles in front. Online polling and some of the non-MSM have a vastly different read on voter’s intention. I feel the election result will be much like Brexit where the MSM said Remain and the voters said Leave.

    Despite what Jody will say Trump will be the saviour of Western democracy, free speech and possibly scientific integrity.

    • Jody

      Would you like to make a small bet about that?

      • lloveday

        If you can better the current bookmakers’ offer of 5.00 Trump, I’ll have a large bet.

    • pgang

      Didn’t Jody nominate MT as the savior of the Liberal Party? That went well. Plebiscite anyone?

  • en passant

    Unfortunately there are enough dead voters to get the HillBillary show into the White House and the keys to the treasury.
    That anyone, even Jody, could consider voting for HillBillary is beyond my comprehension. If Trump is only 25% OK for President you would have to find the cube root to rate Hillarity and the organized crime syndicate she represents.
    The fact that Ryan, McCain and the #Never Trumps would rather lose than see Trump win says it all.
    Alluha Akbar all you infidel scum.

    • Egil Nordang

      Too good!

  • gray_rm

    Macquarie News today was quoting sportsmen in the USA saying they never use language like Trump’s in *their* locker.
    The MSM is amping up against Trump from every conceivable angle. Even The Australian is charged against Trump.
    Whilst I may wish it, I can’t see how Trump can win when every media outlet – apart from a few bloggers – is stridently pro-Hillary, and never even report on her misdeeds/criminality.

  • pgang

    More of the same ‘Trump is finished and good riddance’ rubbish in The Australian today, even from Janet. Australians are going to be in for an awful shock when he wins the election.

    • Fleetfox

      Yes, even The Australian has it in for Trump. What is going on? I WANT Trump to win! I believe he will bring about a far better outcome for his country and for most American people than will the ‘moral corrupt contender for the ‘House of Cards’ (see Janet Albrechsten in The Australian today). If elected, Hillary Clinton will spend her ‘presidency’ trying to save it.

  • lloveday

    Quote: “there are the dead citizens and non-dead non-citizens who will also be lining up to vote her in, along with those who vote early and often”

    Echoes of Australia’s deeply flawed system (“vote often, vote Labor” was a uni mantra long, long ago).
    In Australia one can vote without any form of identification, and prior to 16 April 2007, one did not even have to produce identification when enrolling, so most enrolments have never been verified, and people could, and did, enrol multiple times under different names.

    I can go to a polling booth at opening time, give my neighbour’s name and address and vote under his name, with or without his knowledge before he arrives (better still if I know he is away); I can go to each polling booth in my electorate, voting at each, up to 60, under my name, his, or someone else’s, provided I am prepared to answer “no” to the inane question “Have you voted elsewhere today?”.

    People living in a “safe” seat can change their address on the electoral roll to that in a marginal seat where their votes can affect the result. Even worse, they can temporarily “move” to an electorate having a by-election, effectively having 2 votes for the same parliament. This happened in the Norwood by-election of 1980 when up to 22 people were registered at the one address and the number of electors enrolled in Norwood increased by around 10% in the 5 months since the general election (the population of course did not). The AEC “did not want to know”.

    A SA family claimed to have voted 159 times, including 31 times by a 17 year old, in a recent election. Even the AEC, which in the past has buried its head in the sand conceded it is possible, and if it’s possible we can be sure it is done, with only the extent being in question.

    People of all political leanings can do it, but in my experience left-wing ideologues are more inclined to do so on the basis that the ends justifies the means (“Whatever it Takes”, as per Graham Richardson).

    • Bruce MacKinnon

      Slick Willy Clinton is reported to have said to one of the famous mistresses that Hilary had had more pu—y than he had. Yes, that same word. That is she is a predatory bisexual, with the accent very much on same sex. Seems to be not so much a marriage but an alliance for mutual advantage.
      Debating with any woman for a man, particularly in public,is fraught with difficulty and the female of the species is more adept at manipulating social situations, typically, then the male. They predominantly see disagreement as something of a personal attack. The foul mouthed abuse and nasty tirades she commonly delivers to her staff and especially the security detail, reported by a number, cannot be paraded on stage and she puts on the lady image.
      Both husband and wife look to me from a distance tick a lot of the 12 golden behavioural test boxes for identification of a psychopathic personality, which is born and incurable. Such a brain is a very dangerous thing to have in high public office like this when the world is potentially in the vicinity of a devastating nuclear war. if there is even a suspicion it is too much of a risk to take.

      • Bruce MacKinnon

        Re multiple voting, that would not be necessary in the US, apparently they use electronic terminals. The fix goes in at the computer. All machines are privately owned , by four companies, I recall, all of which were sated to be controlled by the US Mafia.

  • Margie Joan

    It is precisely because Trump does use the words ‘islamic terror’, that he will be victorious in November. The ordinary Americans are sick of Obama’s open door policy to islamic new-comers, and they know that Hillary will not shut that door.

    The Hillary camp can no longer count on the ignorance of the ‘middle of the road’ American voters. These voters now know that all of the islamic doctrine is violent *kill the infidels * set up sharia law * establish a world-wide violent, barbaric, jihad islamic caliphate. They also know that Obama and Hillary, and all their Left wing supporters including the powerful media, are islamic appeasers.

    Donald, not Hillary, will Make America Great Again.

  • pgang

    The Australian watch: All silent in the Oz today as the news is all bad for Clinton. Wikileaks has not been kind to her.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.