Sad

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 am, February 9th, 2017 - 109 comments
Categories: afghanistan, us politics, war - Tags:

For Trump supporters right now surely you’re feeling pretty good? You were joyous Hillary lost. You may have hailed the Muslim-dominant country ban as basic common sense. Perhaps the responding chorus of complaint from Washington institutions and experts and other know-it-alls like judges, academics, corporate leaders, foreign governments, and former government officials is what you’d expect from losers. A new sheriff is in town, doing the business, so suck it up right?

His broad assault on an out of touch and unaccountable elite resonated really well with lots of voters. Surveys consistently showed a sizeable percentage of the American people wanted less military intervention, and were deeply sceptical about global economic arrangements that favoured a rich few.

In fact if you were not able to face a Hillary Clinton presidency, and wanted Trump simply because he would deliver smarter, more self-interested, more restrained, and above all more successful foreign policy, you should be deeply worried. Why? Because in just three weeks he has squandered the biggest opportunity of a modern president to put American foreign policy on a more solid footing. He has also united and empowered opposition at home and abroad in ways that would have been hard to imagine just months ago.

A President Trump that delivered what he promised would now be on the path to a more restrained and effective U.S. foreign policy. He could have affirmed his complete opposition to Bush-era “nation-building” military interventions, and wind down the drone strikes and targeted killings that have done little to reduce danger from terrorism.

He could have concluded that Afghanistan was a losing proposition, and stated when and how he would get the U.S. to disengage.

He could have set out an actual logic and a plan for decreasing tension with Russia, including decreasing armed border presences and nuclear arms.

He could have set out an actual plan to get Europe and parts of Asia to take more of the burden for their own defence.

He could have simply said to the entire Middle East that he was no longer their perpetual traffic cop and social worker and dealer, and re-set to neutral the U.S. stance between Saudi Arabia and Iran – and in doing so re-set U.S. tacit favouritism of one kind of Islam over another which drives so much Middle Eastern sectarian rage.

He could have told Israel that if they want one-state apartheid that badly, they will deal with the consequences on their own.

If he’s done any of that, he would have delivered on his promise of clearing away establishment beltway positions. After the foreign policy, diplomatic and military leadership had finished fainting, the U.S. would have stayed on an even keel and he might have been well positioned for re-election in 2020. Save us all.

Instead in three weeks he did none of those things. He picked several useless fights with China. He badgered the Australian Prime Minister, despite Australia supporting the U.S. from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan shoulder to shoulder. He picked a pointless fight with the Mexican president. He rolled out an unlawful ban on Muslim immigrants, and did it on Holocaust Remembrance Day, as if a reminder of what a really strong state feels like again. He started sabre rattling with Iran. He had a nasty little hit in Yemen, even though no one can tell who’s good or bad there. He went even more incoherent on Russia and Putin.

Inside days, U.S. enemies have been handed powerful new arguments with which to embarrass, delegitimise, and undermine America’s image and reputation. It’s pretty weird to share this sentiment with William Kristol, David Frum, or Eliot Cohen.

Trump was supposed to be the one to sweep away the old, tired establishment triumphalism of the old era. For your entertainment, this is a personal neocon triumphalist favourite of mine from G. W. Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft, where he really Let the Eagles Soar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbU9BZYcg1Y

Some of Trump’s supporters – both left and right – flocked to Trump because they were tired of the failed strategy of presumptive U.S. hegemony, and were worried that Hillary were going to repeat those same mistakes. They aren’t getting the fresh, restrained approach they were hoping for.

I would say it was “Sad!”, but it’s just tragic.

109 comments on “Sad ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    9 February 2017 at 8:51 am

    Or then again, maybe those who have for years commented on the fine raiments of Presidents are finally being forced to confront nakedness…

    Trump wasn’t supported by people on and of the left. Clinton wasn’t supported by people on and of the left.

    Now we have a non-politician as the most powerful politician on the planet. And he’s not really doing anything new…just building or extending and expanding on the past legacies and policies of those well presented and (supposedly) finely clothed former Presidents.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      9 February 2017 at 11:52 am

      +1

      Exactly.

      • emergency mike 1.1.1
        9 February 2017 at 8:12 pm

        Both sides howling to the moon about the other’s lies, hypocrisy, ruthlessness, subversion, warmongering, and general sociopathic behaviour. Both sides not quite psychologically ready to accept that they are both right.

  2. TheExtremist 2
    9 February 2017 at 8:56 am

    It’s actually pretty scary now. Imagine if there was a Military Coup in the US? That would be terrifying. Or if China and the US went to war? That’d be bad for us here and in Aus given our major diplomatic partner is the US but biggest trade partner is China.

    The scariest thing is that these outcomes are no longer philosophical – they are reality.

    • Andre 2.1
      9 February 2017 at 9:03 am

      Personally I’m actually less panicked than I was two months ago. Because the Chump is such a cartoon caricature he’s clearly highlighting the necessity of strong independent institutions than can and will say “no”. Which helps the people in those institutions do the right thing.

      • Morrissey 2.1.1
        9 February 2017 at 9:07 am

        The way they said “no” to the aggression against and destruction of Iraq? The way they said “no” to the drone assassination campaigns in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Gaza and Syria?

        I really hope you’re right, Andre, but I don’t share your optimism.

        • Wayne 2.1.1.1
          9 February 2017 at 12:52 pm

          Morrissey,

          When has the US ever used drones in Gaza?

          I know that you are opposed to drone attacks, but in a war against terrorists, how do you arrest people in places that do not have active governments in much of their territory.

          For instance the US and the UK could not have arrested “jihadi” john, the executioner, since he was deep inside ISIS territory. He was therefore targeted in a drone strike as the most effective means of stopping him.

          I would also note that drone strikes are typically much more precise than the bombing campaign by Russia in Syria.

          The courts are not going to start running military campaigns. That is why the courts do not tell the US president how to run foreign policy or military strategy.

          • Ad 2.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2017 at 12:56 pm

            You’re a lawyer aren’t you Wayne?

            What’s the legal basis for US drone strikes?

          • Morrissey 2.1.1.1.2
            9 February 2017 at 12:59 pm

            When has the US ever used drones in Gaza?

            The U.S. pays for and diplomatically supports every drone killing carried out by the Israelis.

            For instance the US and the UK could not have arrested “jihadi” john, the executioner, since he was deep inside ISIS territory. He was therefore targeted in a drone strike as the most effective means of stopping him.

            You will therefore be supportive of any drone strikes carried out against U.S.-domiciled terrorists—Cheney, Rice, Bush, Obama, Trump—by forces, governmental or non-gvernmental from, say, Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Somalia or Yemen or Honduras or Venezuela or Libya.

            I would also note that drone strikes are typically much more precise than the bombing campaign by Russia in Syria.

            Nonsense.

            The courts are not going to start running military campaigns. That is why the courts do not tell the US president how to run foreign policy or military strategy.

            The courts can, and must, determine whether or not the executive is acting lawfully or not. The President is not a law unto himself, even though this one seems to think he is.

            • Psycho Milt 2.1.1.1.2.1
              9 February 2017 at 1:45 pm

              Nonsense.

              Just a tip for future reference: if someone’s claim is reasonable and intuitive on the face of it, the response “Nonsense” just makes it look like you can’t face facts.

              • reason …
                9 February 2017 at 7:45 pm

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpzk7OdbjBw

                Drone wars ….. blowing up wedding parties and villages …. based on shit intelligence …. and impunity.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  9 February 2017 at 8:58 pm

                  Why do people who don’t have an argument always invite me to watch lengthy propaganda videos instead? If you can’t actually say what it is you want to say, don’t bother commenting.

                  • Morrissey …
                    9 February 2017 at 9:06 pm

                    Have you watched Collateral Murder yet?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      10 February 2017 at 7:25 am

                      What would it tell me that I don’t already know? This is a comments thread – if you have arguments, make them. Telling me there are compelling arguments but they’re concealed somewhere within an hour of video is the same as saying “I have no argument.”

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    10 February 2017 at 11:42 am

                    By the looks of things pointing out that the US’ drone strikes have killed thousands more of innocent people while targeting only a few tens of people wouldn’t really make any difference to you. You simply seem to be trolling.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      10 February 2017 at 4:02 pm

                      The claim in dispute here is:

                      I would also note that drone strikes are typically much more precise than the bombing campaign by Russia in Syria.

                      Maybe somewhere in that video is evidence that drone strikes are in fact not more accurate than Russians dropping 1000-pounders from fast-moving aircraft, but it’s unlikely and I’m not wasting an hour finding out. Reason’s comment amounts to “Drone strikes are bad, m’kay?”, which is not really in dispute – if you want to accuse people of trolling, start there.

          • Poission 2.1.1.1.3
            9 February 2017 at 1:20 pm

            I would also note that drone strikes are typically much more precise than the bombing campaign by Russia in Syria.

            You have little information,other then supplied by the pr departments of AQ or ISIS inc.

            • Wayne 2.1.1.1.3.1
              10 February 2017 at 9:12 am

              Poission

              I follow this particular issue, so consider myself quite well informed.

              But even a small amount of knowledge would tell you that a drone strike, typically using a Hellfire missile with a 9 kg warhead is not going to have anything like the collateral effects of a 1000 kg bomb that is typically used by the Russians.

              These are unguided bombs dropped from manned aircraft travelling at 600 mph, hence the reason they utterly destroy multistory buildings and everyone in them.

              In contrast a drone strike travels at 150 mph, with lots of close up video and radar, making the targeting quite precise.

              As for Morrissey, if he/she thinks that ISIS is apparently a force for good (or at least the moral equivalent of the US, Europe and NZ), well I guess that is his/her view. On his/her argument ISIS should be able to legitimately target the NZ Parliament, since we are part of the anti ISIS coalition.

              • Morrissey …
                10 February 2017 at 5:29 pm

                As for Morrissey, if he/she thinks that ISIS is apparently a force for good (or at least the moral equivalent of the US, Europe and NZ), well I guess that is his/her view.

                Where have I ever even remotely suggested ISIS is a “force for good”? Is this kind of incendiary falsehood the sort of tactic you and your cronies indulged in when in caucus? It reminds me of the lies your former colleagues like Winston Peters used to try to destroy the reputation of Keith Locke.

                Considering that the United States and the United Kingdom have actively sponsored ISIS in Iraq, your attempts to pontificate about that come across as not only dishonest, but foolish in the extreme.

          • DoublePlusGood 2.1.1.1.4
            9 February 2017 at 3:45 pm

            It says everything about you that you care for what is legal, and what you can sell as being acceptably less bad than some other options and not what is the right thing to do.
            See, a decent person would have made the obvious call not to execute Jihadi John with a drone strike.

          • the pigman 2.1.1.1.5
            9 February 2017 at 7:37 pm

            “For instance the US and the UK could not have arrested “jihadi” john, the executioner, since he was deep inside ISIS territory. He was therefore targeted in a drone strike as the most effective means of stopping him.”

            Too right Wayne, remember the time the US delivered a hellfire missile to “jihadi” john, the executioner, and then ISIS stopped executing people?

            No?

            Could that be because a single person, identified on a couple of ISIS tapes and with a profile drummed up by the media, doesn’t actually affect ISIS’ campaign?

            *shakes head* And to think you were once the Defence Minister…

            • Wayne 2.1.1.1.5.1
              10 February 2017 at 9:24 am

              the pigman

              Well actually ISIS has largely stopped the lining up of people and cutting their heads off. At least in part that will be because they are being defeated, and the drone strikes have been an integral part of the strategy to take out the leaders and the key players of ISIS.

              As for my views as a former Defence Minister, has it occurred to you that successive Defence Ministers of the US, the UK and France have specially approved these strikes?

              All Defence Ministers of the anti ISIS coalition are on board with the strategy to defeat ISIS, and provide forces to back up the strategy. They have regular meetings every six months to endorse, and if necessary modify the strategy.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.6
            10 February 2017 at 11:49 am

            I know that you are opposed to drone attacks, but in a war against terrorists, how do you arrest people in places that do not have active governments in much of their territory.

            That would indicate that you shouldn’t be acting at all. You most especially shouldn’t be using terrorist tactics against innocent people which is what these drone strikes are.

            • Wayne 2.1.1.1.6.1
              10 February 2017 at 12:21 pm

              So Draco,

              Your approach would allow terrorists to set up training camps, train for missions and send people out without any intervention.

              Not surprisingly governments in the west, specifically US, UK, France which have the capabilities to counter these threats in these camps, do not see it your way.

              I was at a recent round table discussion where the Deputy Supreme Commander of NATO expressed the general view that NATO needed a joined up strategy to defeat extremist terrorism, mostly emanating from ISIS, but not just from them. He considered that an essential part of that strategy was using military force to defeat the terrorists in their safe havens.

              What would you do; just let ISIS run amok?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                10 February 2017 at 12:57 pm

                What would you do; just let ISIS run amok?

                I’d work with the governments that are there. Encouraging and supporting them to contain and remove the terrorist cells.

                Rather than using an act of war against a nation that hasn’t done anything to us and killing innocents.

                We are not and should not be the World Police.

                • Morrissey …
                  10 February 2017 at 5:42 pm

                  We are not and should not be the World Police.

                  The term “World Police” suggests at least a notional commitment to international law and justice. To describe the United States, with its blood-soaked history of destroying democratic governments and its support for the most fearsome dictatorships, from Indonesia through to pre-1979 Iran, as the “World Police” is beyond satire.

                  Please do not use that false analogy again.

                  Or maybe this is the sort of “world policing” you had in mind…..

                  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Bloody_Sunday-Alabama_police_attack.jpeg

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 February 2017 at 11:44 am

                    World Police

                    …and is a satire of big-budget action films and their associated clichés and stereotypes, with particular humorous emphasis on the global implications of the politics of the United States. The title is derived from domestic and international political criticisms that the foreign policy of the United States frequently and unilaterally tries to “police the world”.

                    • Morrissey …
                      11 February 2017 at 12:38 pm

                      If the U.S. was trying to “police the world” it would seek to uphold international law, not show utter contempt for it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 February 2017 at 3:56 pm

                      /facepalm

                      Really?
                      You don’t know the meaning of the word satire?
                      You don’t realise that ‘unilaterally tries to “police the world'” means that the US tries to force the world to do what the US wants for its own selfish interests?

        • Psycho Milt 2.1.1.2
          9 February 2017 at 1:22 pm

          The courts don’t get to say “No” to a declaration of war, and why would any of the institutions that are a check on US executive power say “No” to drone strikes against religious fascists? The targets of the drone attacks are irregular combatants, so they don’t get a lot of protection from international law. There’d be a problem if the governments of the countries involved objected to the attacks, but they don’t and the reason usually is that those governments want the targeted religious fascists just as dead as the US wants them.

          • Morrissey 2.1.1.2.1
            9 February 2017 at 4:51 pm

            The targets of the drone attacks are irregular combatants, so they don’t get a lot of protection from international law.

            Those shepherds, wedding guests, doctors, nurses and various children, as well as goats, sheep, and countless wildlife killed by Obama’s drone strikes certainly are “irregular combatants”, in that they are nearly all unarmed and innocent.

            What makes you contend that these drone killings are sanctioned by international law?

            • Psycho Milt 2.1.1.2.1.1
              9 February 2017 at 8:56 pm

              Well, when you can come up with a way of fighting these guys that can be guaranteed not to kill any civilians, I’m sure the US government would love to hear from you. Until then, consider the fact that the British government killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians while fighting some more traditional fascists, and give some thanks that the world’s moved on since then.

              • Morrissey …
                9 February 2017 at 9:04 pm

                Well, when you can come up with a way of fighting these guys that can be guaranteed not to kill any civilians, I’m sure the US government would love to hear from you.

                Stop funding them, and stop arming them, and stop calling them “opposition forces” as if they are anything other than Al Qaeda and ISIS.

                It would be more appropriate to compare German fascism to the present-day United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, rather than their victims.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  10 February 2017 at 7:22 am

                  So, you argue that the US is funding and arming Al Qaeda and Da’esh, while also committing the apparently-terrible crime of waging war against them. Even by your standards, the illogic of this claim is unusual.

                  Also: new heights of false equivalence there, with your claim that the US and UK governments are closer to fascism than are groups whose stated aim is to forcibly impose a nightmare totalitarian dictatorship on the world. That’s pretty special.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                10 February 2017 at 11:59 am

                Well, when you can come up with a way of fighting these guys that can be guaranteed not to kill any civilians, I’m sure the US government would love to hear from you.

                Sniper rifle works fine. One shot, one kill.

                Or they could identify the actual terrorist compounds and send in entire commando teams.

                They most definitely should not be using a method that pretty much guarantees that 90% of the kills will be innocents.

                Of course, both of those would be difficult and expensive and I’m pretty sure it’s the latter and just not giving a shit about killing innocents that’s mostly driving the use of drones and Hellfire missiles.

                • Wayne …
                  10 February 2017 at 12:25 pm

                  Draco

                  You have misread the item. It does not say that 90% of the victims are innocents, it says that in 90% of the operations innocent people are killed. For instance in a strike on a vehicle there may be a person in the vehicle who is not a terrorist.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    10 February 2017 at 12:37 pm

                    That doesn’t really make it any better and many of those drone strikes have killed many people at the same time with only one supposed terrorist being killed:

                    “Between January 2012 and February 2013,” The Intercept reported, “U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.” That’s one campaign of many in just one country where drone killings happen.

                • McFlock …
                  10 February 2017 at 12:33 pm

                  Sniper rifles work fine in some situations. If you can covertly deploy your person into the area, get a good angle, the person you want to shoot comes outside, the day isn’t too windy, there are no guards or dogs in the area, it’s not raining, etc etc etc.

                  And they sent in a commando team this time – killed a whole bunch of people, including civilians, and it generally went pear shaped. And that’s assuming there’s more than a semantic difference between “terrorist compound” and “village that the person happens to live in and lots of households have guns”.

                  I don’t have a problem with the method. It’s actually pretty accurate and limited in the damage it causes. I have a problem with their targeting policy, but that’s another issue entirely.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    10 February 2017 at 12:52 pm

                    Sniper rifles work fine in some situations. If you can covertly deploy your person into the area, get a good angle, the person you want to shoot comes outside, the day isn’t too windy, there are no guards or dogs in the area, it’s not raining, etc etc etc.

                    Getting the sniper in and out again is certainly the big problem there.

                    And that’s assuming there’s more than a semantic difference between “terrorist compound” and “village that the person happens to live in and lots of households have guns”.

                    They say that they can identify these compounds with satellite imagery.

                    If it’s going pear shaped then it’s probably due to bad planning and underestimating the strength of the compound.

                    I don’t have a problem with the method.

                    I’d have less trouble with the method if it killed less innocents than terrorists and the governments using it didn’t then lie about those that they had killed.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2017 at 12:59 pm

                      Some compounds can be identified via satellite. But the very nature of asymmetric warfare is a lack of precise identification.

                      If civilians are killed by a drone and the terrorists aren’t, then that’s a planning and targeting issue, too.

                      a 20lb hellfire is a shedload better than the 500lb bomb they dropped on Zarqawi. Don’t confuse the method with the targeting.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  10 February 2017 at 1:25 pm

                  They most definitely should not be using a method that pretty much guarantees that 90% of the kills will be innocents.

                  There are lies, damned lies and statistics. If you conduct three strikes and the first two kill one targeted combatant apiece while the third one hits a family gathering and kills 18 people, you can say that 90 percent of the casualties were civilians but that doesn’t tell us anything useful about the merits or otherwise of the programme.

                  The sniper idea is strictly for action movies, and the commandos one was just carried out by Trump and proved to be worse than the drone strikes.

                  • McFlock …
                    10 February 2017 at 4:12 pm

                    Dunno about “strictly” for action movies, but definitely for narrow criteria.

                    There was a Syrian general shot by the Israelis, for example.

                    But a clearer example was after the Beruit baracks bombing – the yanks really wanted to make it expensive for the most likely suspects. One intelligence organisation suggested simply firing a bullet through the receiver arrays of a couple of rather expensive air search radars that were keeping the Israelis at bay. Plausible deniability, and would put massive strain on the alliance with the folks who supplied it to people who evidently couldn’t even provide an effective security perimeter.

                    I mean, they eventually went with a bombing campaign because yanks, but I always quite liked the elegance of that idea. Huge strategic damage inflicted for the cost of a bullet.

  3. Morrissey 3
    9 February 2017 at 9:03 am

    People who care about the quality and morality of political candidates of course rejected Hillary Clinton. To suggest that means her opponents were Trump supporters is beyond satire.

    This opinion piece is simply nonsense.

    • TheExtremist 3.1
      9 February 2017 at 9:07 am

      It works both ways – people who were anti-Trump, like myself, were frequently bashed as being Clinton supporters

      • Morrissey 3.1.1
        9 February 2017 at 9:09 am

        It depends, my friend. If you, like some on this forum, recycled the Clinton campaign’s desperate lies about Russian manipulation of the election, then you were, without a doubt, a Clinton supporter, albeit unwittingly so.

        I presume you were smarter than that, however.

    • McFlock 3.2
      9 February 2017 at 1:36 pm

      in a two-party race, if you hold back one contender then you have to take responsibility for the other one winning.

    • weka 3.4
      9 February 2017 at 2:10 pm

      People who care about the quality and morality of political candidates of course rejected Hillary Clinton. To suggest that means her opponents were Trump supporters is beyond satire.

      This opinion piece is simply nonsense.

      You really haven’t been paying attention Morrissey. I know people in RL who rejected Clinton on the basis of morality and quality and who supported Tr*mp. I also saw plenty of people on TS in the past year saying the same. This doesn’t mean that all people who reject Clinton are pro-Tr*mp, but it’s an idiocy to say that no Clinton opponents were Tr*mp supporters.

      There are left-wing people who support Tr*mp. Time to wake up on that one.

      • Morrissey 3.4.1
        9 February 2017 at 4:45 pm

        There are left-wing people who support Tr*mp.

        Could you name just ONE please? I’m really intrigued by this one.

        • weka 3.4.1.1
          9 February 2017 at 4:50 pm

          I’m not going to name the people I know in RL obviously. Do you not believe me?

          • Morrissey 3.4.1.1.1
            9 February 2017 at 4:53 pm

            No left wing people support Trump. You’ve made an incredibly contentious statement, and you need to back it up.

            • weka 3.4.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2017 at 4:56 pm

              How could I do that?

              • Morrissey …
                9 February 2017 at 4:58 pm

                By telling us the name of ONE left wing person—i.e., someone who is tolerant, liberal, well read and who believes in social justice—who supports Donald Trump.

                I cannot think of one. Can you?

                • weka …
                  9 February 2017 at 5:00 pm

                  My friends Bob and Tony.

                  Edit, although to be fair they might not be supporting him any more, but that’s recent.

                  • Morrissey …
                    9 February 2017 at 5:01 pm

                    They’re not left wingers then.

                    • Peter Swift …
                      9 February 2017 at 5:26 pm

                      Weka says they are, and as they’re her friends, that should be proof enough and the end of it.
                      Thin ice to imply a moderator is a liar.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2017 at 5:26 pm

                      Just so I’ve got this right, you claim to know the beliefs and actions of all left wingers, and then when someone says hang-on, I know LWers who don’t think/act like that, you say that they’re not really LWers then, because they don’t agree with you, even though they fit the definition of LW you’ve just given?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      10 February 2017 at 7:08 am

                      They’re not left wingers then.

                      Today’s logical fallacy is called “No true Scotsman.”

            • swordfish 3.4.1.1.1.2
              9 February 2017 at 8:28 pm

              For me the “incredibly contentious” argument from weka is

              ___________________________________________________________________________

              I also saw plenty of people on TS in the past year saying the same.

              (ie Lefties who not only rejected Clinton but positively supported Tr*mp)
              ___________________________________________________________________________

              Care to name and link. weka ?

              I’m scratching my head to think of more than 1 Left-leaner who advocated voting Trump. And even CV explicitly qualified his support on several occasions.

              So I’m intrigued to know precisely who these people are and to see the evidence that apparently damns them.

              • Morrissey …
                9 February 2017 at 8:53 pm

                There’s no doubt a select club of these “left leaning Trump supporters.” I suspect it’s about as big as the following clubs: Mexican Trump supporters, Feminist Trump supporters, Black Panthers Who Support Trump, Beauty Queens for Trump, Disabled Reporters for Trump and People in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Immediate Family Who Support Trump.

                • swordfish …
                  9 February 2017 at 10:10 pm

                  Yeah, weka appears to have deduced a bit of an incipient conspiracy developing … one where a whole lot of white heterosexual male kiwi Lefties (apparently holding deeply conservative views on both women and various moral issues) have become emboldened by their intellectual Gurus – Don “The Donald” Trump, Christopher “”The Trotsky” Trotter – along it seems with various doyens of the alt-Right – to unmask and vigorously pursue their true (presumably hitherto secret ?) retrograde agenda …

                  From weka over recent days

                  But the anti-IP stuff that is coming up not just with him but with others, that’s lefties taking their memes not just from the like of Trotter but from the alt-right. I find it concerning and it does look to me like these are predominantly white men who are emboldened by the US election result.

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-07022017/#comment-1297046

                  That’s what the whole anti-IP is starting to look like. The false framing of what IP is, and the push from lefties who also support Tr*mp.

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-07022017/#comment-1297062

                  That alone is enough to make me have less than zero respect for people running pro-Tr*mp/anti-IP lines. They either don’t believe there is a risk, which makes them fools, or they do but they think the risk is worth it to make gains in their political agenda. There is vindictiveness there too, even outside of the US stuff. I think in NZ there are lefties emboldened by Tr*mp’s victory and the nasty just raised a notch.

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/the-dynamic-of-vindictive-winners/#comment-1297621

                • Brutus Iscariot …
                  10 February 2017 at 4:10 pm

                  Trump won around 30% of the Hispanic vote, actually.

                  • Morrissey …
                    10 February 2017 at 5:17 pm

                    Thanks Brutus. What I meant to write was Mexican Trump supporters with an I.Q. above room temperature.

  4. esoteric pineapples 4
    9 February 2017 at 9:13 am

    “Some of Trump’s supporters – both left and right – flocked to Trump because they were tired of the failed strategy of presumptive U.S. hegemony, and were worried that Hillary were going to repeat those same mistakes. They aren’t getting the fresh, restrained approach they were hoping for.”

    And yet nearly all the 10 to 12 left and right wing Trump supporters I personally know continue to support him and I know they will continue to do so. It’s best to approach them with a certain level of cynicism.

  5. Adrian Thornton 5
    9 February 2017 at 11:25 am

    Again with this bullshit narrative, what a bizarre and deludedly blind piece of non analysis, how about this, how about focusing your attention to the still dysfunctional and rotten neo liberal co opted ‘Left’ that IS the reason why Trump exists today? …

    No, until the Left cuts the cancer of the free market neo liberal economic ideology from it’s dying body, there will be no long term answers to the rise of the extreme right in the west…. as the DNC has made plainly clear their fundamental ideology is now far more closely aligned to the Republicans than to a progressive Sanders type Democratic Socialism, and as it is pretty obvious that neo liberalism has hit the wall, we either fight to get our Left back again, or…..?

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      9 February 2017 at 12:03 pm

      It’s not just neo-liberalism that’s hit the wall – it’s capitalism. We’ve tried it every possible way over the last 5000+ years and it’s always failed. It’s always destroyed the society that it arises in as it destroys the environment that the society depends upon.

      And it’s sole purpose is to make a few people rich at everyone else’s expense.

      We really shouldn’t be surprised that it’s failed again and that it’s now going into it’s massively oppressive end game as it tries to prevent its own collapse.

      • Adrian Thornton 5.1.1
        9 February 2017 at 12:52 pm

        I agree, when I say the neo liberal free market economic ideology, I mean by extension capitalism, and capitalist ideology.

        Watching capitalism fight this rear guard action, especially over the last 12 months has been quite an experience I must say, and having all MSM basically drop any pretext of being unbiased in it’s defense of the status quo, at least leaves us knowing exactly where the battle lines lay…although why many on the Left seem to still trust The Guardian etc are for reasons I can’t fathom?

  7. Barfly 7
    9 February 2017 at 11:49 am

    Yeah Trump’s a lunatic .What a pity the neo-liberal clowns of the DNC worked so hard to screw Bernie Sanders – yet it seem the author places no responsibility on them for the Trump presidency. Is this post just a dig at Colonial Viper?

  8. Draco T Bastard 8
    9 February 2017 at 11:49 am

    Inside days, U.S. enemies have been handed powerful new arguments with which to embarrass, delegitimise, and undermine America’s image and reputation.

    Just need the first 15 seconds – but the rest is pretty good too 😈

  9. Redbaiter 9
    9 February 2017 at 1:31 pm

    As other commenters have pointed out above, Trump is only POTUS because Clinton supporters cheated Bernie Sanders out of the Democrat nomination.

    I actually had a bet that Sanders would be the President.

    I lost, because I failed to fully factor in Clinton’s crookedness and her faction’s tight control over the Democrat Party.

    So a more honest nomination process within the Democrats would probably have seen Bernie win the election.

    Whether you like Trump or not, its pretty clear that feminists and their sympathisers pushing the crooked Clinton nomination are the reason he is now POTUS.

    • McFlock 9.1
      9 February 2017 at 1:40 pm

      lol

      and a more honest electoral process would have seen Clinton as president. But sadly her camp failed to fully factor in the level of lies and duplicity that even supposedly leftist people would stoop to, let alone the alt-fact crowd.

      • Redbaiter 9.1.1
        9 February 2017 at 1:56 pm

        Bernie would have gone to Michigan.

        • McFlock 9.1.1.1
          9 February 2017 at 1:59 pm

          Clinton wouldn’t have needed to. See how this works?

          • Redbaiter 9.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2017 at 2:06 pm

            Clinton didn’t go to Michigan because it was more about identity politics (& feminism) with her than it was about the US working man.

            Democrats do not just need to know that many of their party switched their vote to Trump, they have to understand why.

            • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2017 at 2:14 pm

              Really? If it was about the “working man”, why were there so many arguments about cheese pizza?

              • Redbaiter …
                9 February 2017 at 2:19 pm

                You’d need to ask Michael Moore about that.

                • McFlock …
                  9 February 2017 at 2:29 pm

                  Ok, if it was about the “working man”, why the obsession with email servers?

                  • Redbaiter …
                    9 February 2017 at 2:49 pm

                    For the working man, it wasn’t about email servers.

                    That’s beltway stuff, and it doesn’t resonate that much with the bulk of mainstream voters. IMHO.

                    As well, men wanted their jobs back before they cared about a woman president.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 February 2017 at 2:56 pm

                      And yet you yourself referred to Clinton’s “crookedness” in comment 9.

                      If it was just about jobs, that little foxnews leitmotif wouldn’t have trickled down into a NZ blogsite…

            • red-blooded 9.1.1.1.1.2
              9 February 2017 at 10:59 pm

              Hey, Redbaiter, plenty of workers, here and in the US, are NOT men! And, BTW, there’s nothing wrong with wanting young US girls to grow up knowing that they (and not just their brothers) can become president.

      • DoublePlusGood 9.1.2
        9 February 2017 at 5:03 pm

        A competent electoral system would have seen a Social Democrat (Bernie-led) – Democrat (Clinton) coalition government…

        • McFlock 9.1.2.1
          9 February 2017 at 5:12 pm

          Anyone other than trump, really.
          And three to five main parties in the houses.

          • DoublePlusGood 9.1.2.1.1
            10 February 2017 at 1:43 pm

            Well, Trump would still have been leader of the opposition – for precisely one day before someone rolled him in the first caucus meeting of the Republicans.

        • Brutus Iscariot 9.1.2.2
          10 February 2017 at 4:14 pm

          Stop imposing your judgements about US political culture! Who are you to criticise their electoral system, that is the product of hundreds of years of history and aligns with the way their society is organised traditionally along state/local lines.

          Bigoted quite frankly.

  10. Redbaiter 10
    9 February 2017 at 3:37 pm

    A CNN poll taken in Feb 2016, long before any news of Clinton’s email server, showed Bernie was far more likely of success against Trump than Clinton.

    60% of registered voters viewed Bernie positively, 33% negatively.

    Only 44% viewed Clinton positively, 53% negatively.

    Bernie had a 55% to 43% favourability rating over Trump.

    Clinton had a 52% to 44% favourability rating over Trump.

    The crooked Clinton faction screwed Bernie out of the nomination, and in doing so screwed the Democrat party out of the Presidency.

    Its why Debbie Wasserman Schultz their National Committee Chairwoman, resigned/ was fired.

    You can read about it here, and its not FOX News.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/

    • McFlock 10.1
      9 February 2017 at 3:48 pm

      lol
      But you’re a “working man” who doesn’t care about emails? Sanders wasn’t screwed out of the nomination. The DNC just said mean things behind his back.

      Sanders lost the popular vote as well as the delegate vote.

      • adam 10.1.1
        9 February 2017 at 5:19 pm

        Yeah, but the DNC looks iffy. Even more so after what happened in Arizona and Puerto Rico. We do know they set the vote up with the red states first to give h.r.c a good lead. Plus, that the DNC also ran hard with the whole super delegate thing.

        Also why did a no name, from no where, almost beat her?

        So at the end of the day, what is politics if not perceptions? And if the DNC had half a brain between them, they must have know that was the Achilles heel of h.r.c – the public perception of her.

        • McFlock 10.1.1.1
          9 February 2017 at 5:27 pm

          What happened in Arizona?
          Who’s the noname?

          The interesting question is what bullshit would have been thrown at sanders had he won the primaries. Cheese pizza, anyone?

          • adam 10.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2017 at 5:37 pm

            No name is sanders.

            The election itself in Arizona, or did you miss that debacle?

            Does not matter really, sanders lost.

            My point is about perceptions, the DNC made a hash of it and looked bad – not arguing if any truth in that – just arguing the whole perception was they ‘looked bad’ and h.r.c looked bad with them.

            • McFlock 10.1.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2017 at 5:49 pm

              Sanders was not a “no name from no where” by any means.

              I don’t recall a particular debacle, but people have made up so much shit over the past year that who knows what the hell you’re talking about.

              Perceptions are funny things. You say the DNC/HRC looked bad. Fair enough, with all the shit thrown at them by many different players. But shit was thrown at them not because of who they were, but because of who they were running against.

              I reckon that if sanders had won the nomination, we’d be having pretty much the same discussion as we are now but with the names reversed.

              • adam …
                9 February 2017 at 6:53 pm

                Are you being obtuse McFLock?

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html

                http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

                http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/

                http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/arizona-primary-long-lines-voting-restriction

                So your saying h.r.c had no baggage? That the DNC was pure? That trump and the republicans were winners and would have won? That dirty politics was a winner!!?!?

                The DNC knew the problems but ran with them. They know as well as you do perceptions count. They also knew how the electoral colleges work, they also knew they should have reached out to sanders supporters (here they did not – so only have themselves to blame). All epic failures, which can squarely be laid at the feet of the DNC, nearly all 1000 of them.

                • McFlock …
                  9 February 2017 at 7:21 pm

                  Nope, not obtuse.

                  Just wondering why republicans continuing their 20 year disenfranchisement drive is the fault of the Democrats who are subject to those systems.

                  Also, complaining that provisional results were called early is stupid. Provisional results are just that: fast, but able to be overturned when everything’s been counted and appealed.

                  But nice straw man – I’m not saying Clinton is pure. I’m saying that her “impurity” pales into comparison to the avalanche of utter bullshit that was thrown by both republicans and petulant sanderistas.

                  I’m saying that the Clinton Foundation is legitimate, that emails about pizza and handkerchiefs were most likely about just that, and if those two things alone are factual then they republicans would have targetted Sanders with similar allegations.

                  • adam …
                    11 February 2017 at 11:52 am

                    There perception – I just said things and you responded.None of the questions I proposed are real, or an extreme character to prove a point. Which is about perception.

                    I put them to show you how perception works. Now do that for 20 years to a individual and what do you have? h.r.c, now who cares if what she is involved with is clean, she is already done because of perception.

                    Don’t blame sanders supporters, tired and misses the point. Also it is the usual blame game that the DNC plays, blame everyone else but themselves.

                    I get sanders would have been targeted, but he at least did not have 20 years of negative perceptions built around him. And yes I agree the right are scum bags for the continued attacks on civil rights. But you have to admit, taking corporate money, and running on a ticket of conservatism, is not a winner for any left wing party.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2017 at 9:02 pm

                      And yet she still won more votes than sanders in the primaries, and more votes than trump in the presidential election.

                      If you weren’t so far up your own arse trying to be smart, you’d realise that eventually perception answers to fact.

                    • adam …
                      11 February 2017 at 10:36 pm

                      She knew the electoral system before she went to the polls. She also lost. Perceptions do catch up with facts.

                      Why are you finding it so hard to accept she lost? Why are you blaming other people, rather than looking at her as another example of a neo-con loser?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2017 at 12:04 am

                      And Sanders knew the electoral system for the primaries.

                      Hey, she could have run a better campaign. Maybe she should have just told trump to grow the fuck up during the debates.

                      But to pretend that partisan emails leaks and announcements of reopened investigations a week out of the election had nothing to do with the election result is just fucking stupid.

                      And no, the emails said fuck all. So the DNC didn’t like sanders: waaaa. That didn’t screw the primaries. The primaries were run by the states, not the DNC. Pizzagate was just bullshit. The Clinton Foundation is still going strong. All of this bullshit played much more against Clinton in the election than choosing to do more tv ads than appearances in some states. And yes, much of that bullshit was recycled by sanders supporters who live on complete denial that the fuckers would have made as much up about Sanders if he had won the primary.

                      Here’s news for you: JC was nailed to a cross for providing food, healthcare and saying people should be nice to each other. Sanders would have faced a similar fate after the altright was done with him as a presidential candidate.

                    • adam …
                      12 February 2017 at 7:49 am

                      You know I’m not a sanders supporter, right?

                      I get they played hard ball, but the fact remains, h.r.c and the DNC ran a bad campaign, and lost. LOST, and rather than blame sanders people, maybe they should have reached out to them. If you have a look on USA forums, they still blame sanders people.

                      They lost because the candidate was bad to begin with, they lost because they did not reach out to progressives, they lost because they were arrogant. So forget all the pizza, foundation stuff etc, because quite frankly that was bugger all votes. They lost, because they were dumb about it, and were corporate through and through, you know if you going to be the progressives, then act like it – rather than look like more of the same b.s people have suffered through the last 35 years. The DNC and h.r.c did nothing, absolutely nothing, to dispel the perceptions of her being a corporate elect.

                      I know it’s simpler to blame other people, rather than confront the fact that h.r.c was actually quite a shitty candidate – the proof, she lost to a despicable candidate. What more proof do you need?

                      I’m not arguing for woulda, coulda, shoulda’s I’m just arguing that the DNC should have engaged their brain for 1 second and released that h.r.c was a bad choice. And maybe people who think of them selves as progressive or enlightened or what ever need, to realised she was a bad choice as well.

                      And reaching for she won for the popular vote, is just denial. Blaming sanders people, is just denial. It’s been months, time to accept the fact she was a bad candidate, and lost, because she was such a bad candidate.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2017 at 12:04 pm

                      Yeah right. The main focii of the main news channel, a social media campaign and her opponent’s speeches were “bugger all votes”.

  11. adam 11
    9 February 2017 at 5:30 pm

    I don’t think a simple duelist approach to this argument helps much Ad. In that I disliked h.r.c and did not want her to be president, and I also loathed trump and did not want him to be president. I get we use opposites to help us describe the world, but in this case I don’t think it is helpful. Plus I think you missing the abject disgust with the whole neo-liberal experiment. No one knew how bad trump would be, but they had a good guess how bad h.r.c. would be – because more of the same, means more of the same heartbreak. How ironic is it that the Democrat’s are the true conservatives?

    • North 11.1
      9 February 2017 at 8:36 pm

      How earnestly and beautifully measured of you Adam. Well done ! Neither you nor I got any fucking idea what this moron could land us in…….but let’s have a little think about the article written by the Google engineer about the coup from the top down. Sorry, can’t find the link but someone will have it.

      In 20 days…….the judiciary firmly in the sights of this spoilt, unhinged child. “Oh let’s not be ‘duelist’ ” you say.

      Risible. And gutless.

      • adam 11.1.1
        11 February 2017 at 11:42 am

        What are you talking about ‘google engineer’???

        Risible and gutless, show me your scars from actually fighting neo-nazi scumbags, do you have any? Ever helped a family after they been firebombed by racist scum bags? Ever been beaten by police? Ever won a industrial dispute with your blood?

        Just another keyboard warrior – pointless.

        Piss off north, incoherent, lacking judgement and dull. Come back when you actually have your spin sorted, and somthing useful to day.

        Because it’s not black and white, and it’s not that simple. But if you want to just be abusive, go find someone else to play with.

        • adam 11.1.2.1
          11 February 2017 at 12:06 pm

          Either work out how to oppose it. Which is inclusive.

          Or end up in a merry go round of the blame game and incoherence. Because as it stands north’s argument is still incoherent, abusive and exclusive.

  12. Andre 12
    9 February 2017 at 5:42 pm

    The post was entirely about whether Trump was living up to what his supporters were hoping for from him, particularly those with strong objections to Clinton’s likely foreign policy. It barely mentioned Clinton. Yet quite a few commenters ignore what’s in the post in their rush to vent their Hillary-hate.

  13. reason 13
    9 February 2017 at 8:00 pm

    Does the fact that Trump was in charge of a death squad ( jsoc ), which killed a 8 year old girl …………… make him twice as bad as Obama ???

    …… who killed a 16 year old boy when he was in charger of the death squad ( this boy was the older brother of the girl)

    The next logical step in the evolution of presidential kill lists …… will be operations on home ( u.s.a ) soil.

    And while it may be sad for them …………… others will see it as chickens coming home to roost.

    War criminals have impunity in the u.s.a …..

  14. North 14
    9 February 2017 at 8:22 pm

    Where are you, Ivanka Colonial Viper Darling ? Dying to hear you rationalise the POTUS Twitter account being utilised to take veangence on the Nordstrom retail chain. For slighting ‘The Princess’ whom her daddy would be dating but for his being her daddy. FFS ! Enjoy your ‘victory’ CV. NZ’s supreme leftie you.

    • gsays 14.1
      10 February 2017 at 1:29 pm

      that is a cheap shot, north.

      although even in election year, the left will still save the worse it has for it’s own.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.