- Date published:
1:57 pm, July 24th, 2016 - 217 comments
Categories: International, us politics - Tags: donald trump
If you honestly want to understand how Trump plans to win big in the election in November, don’t read other peoples coloured “reactions.”
Watch his acceptance speech for yourself. And don’t just watch Trump, examine how the crowd responded to his specific comments. I think his team have really done their homework.
In addition to the usual Republican nonsense about the second amendment, blowing baddies up, being the toughest guy on the block, charter schools rhetoric, and macho chants of USA!, Trump talked on stage to thousands of Republican delegates from every State of the Union about:
What is Hillary going to deliver at the upcoming DNC Convention?
More Bernie than Bernie!
Full transcript for those that don’t want to subject themselves to the video.
Hi joe90, if you can give us your observations of Trump’s acceptance speech performance for the moment, that would be great.
Narcissistic bully said disingenuous shit.
Thanks for that sharp political analysis.
Can do better – narcissistic multi bankrupt chickenhawk product of the establishment con man and potential war criminal who’s spent a lifetime wringing personal profits from tax payers through crony-capitalist arrangements with politicians of all stripes and has a history of racist and misogynist behaviour both public and private threw red meat and unfulfillable promises to hateful audience.
And after your long list of sneers and smears, will he easily beat the best candidate that the Left can put forward for November?
There is no best candidate CV.
+1 The problem is, Hillary isn’t even the least worst
Bro, you have been suckered in by a celebrity politician who says he’s going to help everyone.
Yes, that has been a consistent MSM meme around Trump. That only the naive and gullible (or ignorant/uneducated) would pay him any attention.
Thats the meme because as you showed in the OP there is literally no one Trump won’t promise benefits to pre-election. Only the gullible and naive would expect him to deliver.
The Deep State runs the USA. The power of the Oval Office has significant limitations.
CV: “What is Hillary going to deliver at the upcoming DNC Convention?”
She’s probably wishing it wasn’t going to be this:
Actually I think you’ll find the media meme is …. let’s report every posssible wild crazy comment, lie, half truth, bizarre grandstanding that Trump spouts as it gets us a lot of clicks and readership… great for advertising revenue
Trump realises this, and also that he has already captured a cult following, many of who were created by the Tea Party, just ready and waiting for a real life version to voice their online putrescence.
The more you criticise a cult, on whatever grounds, the more they band together, relish their self-serving truths, and believe it’s ok to judge non-believers. Every cult leader knows this.
What makes this particularly abhorrent is that Trump feeds this burgeoning fascist beast with racial and religious hatreds that go well beyond any one liners he said about supporting LBGTQ, Blacks, Latinos, etc.
That sums trump up very well joe90.
I fully agree with every one of your sentiments joe90, and know that you wouldn’t express those views without solid well researched evidence. Unfortunately passionate disgust is the kind of reaction that would delight Trump in equal measure to the anger it would fan in his followers.
His cheerleaders on TS are few, but I imagine any emotive criticism of Trump only helps them to feel that they have the moral high ground.
Yep Joe that sums up trump and his speech
Did you watch the video of Trump?
Watched a minute – I understand his motives and methods and don’t need 75 minutes of the bullshit to know the truth.
Will be interested in what you think of Hillary’s speech next week
Jeepers don’t you realise that they all say the same rubbish to get votes. Are you really saying these speeches mean something – apart from ego, pretending, and creating additional adoration from those already smitten.
Are you suggesting it was something to enjoy CV? I watched it and felt annoyed, saddened and frightened by it.
Well, the Democratic party in the US is also annoyed, saddened and frightened by the uneducated, racist, red neck working class in the flyover states they so long ago abandoned during the first Clinton presidency when the Clinton White House repealed Glass Stegal and passed NAFTA.
The former decimating the prospects of the white collar managerial class, the latter decimating the prospects of the blue collar industrial working class. Of course it took several years for these effects to become clear. Like they are clear now.
The Democratic Party used to think they could get away with this because the working class ‘had nowhere else to go.’ Until now.
I enjoyed the video from a purely political point of view. Clinton is toast come November IMO.
Man I hate to agree with that judgement CV but I fear you’re right….
Still there’s there’s a long way to go … and it only takes one little betrayal of your followers to get them to turn on their hero
Aww, that’s one word too many
“Protecting the LGBTQ community.”
Um, no, he didn’t say that. What he did was use Orlando to push his anti-Islam/war on terror message in presumably a new way. So yeah, he’ll say he will prevent queers being targeted by terrorists, because that suits his war on terror agenda but he won’t do any thing to stop the real cause of most violence against LGBTQ people in the US, which is homophobia, transphobia etc. I’m really willing to be corrected on that, but you would need to put up some evidence that (a) he is promoting anti-homophobia/transphobia policies, and (b) that the LGBTQ communities believe him.
If you are trying to suggest that Trump is being smart by playing to part of his target audience, sure (maybe he’s after a small part of the conservative queer vote, and he wants to come across as more liberal for the media*). But that’s not the same as actually intending to be proactive in protecting all sexualities and identities.
I think you are trying to do the same thing with this headline. Misusing identity politics (ouch, irony) to push a political argument.
For anyone that watches the video, can you tell me if Trump says LGBTQ or actually uses the words Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer.
Edit, *he’s proably wanting to make his core voters feel less like bigots
He uses the phrase LGBTQ on stage twice, and thanks his Republican audience for their positive response to him talking about the subject.
The subject of this post is his acceptance speech and his performance of it at the RNC Convention. It is not a detailed breakdown of what policies he will come up with now that he is the Republican candidate.
Also, there is no need for you to rely on second hand reports of what Trump said and how he said it.
Sweet, I’m really happy to focus on the main part of my political analysis of Trump’s speech, which is that I think he is not intending to protect LGBTQs and that he is misusing Orlando to further his anti-Islam agenda. And why he would bother even referring the LGBTQ community, which I think is because it will enable some of his core supporters to feel better about their bigotry. It will get reported in the press and in headlines on left wing blogs and be picked up by some of Sanders’ supporters.
“Also, there is no need for you to rely on second hand reports of what Trump said and how he said it.”
Yes there is. I don’t have time to watch the speech, and I am curious about what he said. I’m happy to assume now that he said “LGBTQ” and didn’t say the words Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer. Which makes the speech a pretty interesting phenomenom.
btw, as a leftie, I don’t find any of this surprising.
Trump’s speech is designed to get votes, a lot of votes. Not to assuage the conscience of his “core supporters” – who are already going to vote for him.
Which extra votes will he get by having said these two paragraphs?
Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted LGBTQ community.
No good. And we’re going to stop it. As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me. And I have to say as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.
Not yours. He doesn’t want yours.
Obviously. You said,
Trump’s speech is designed to get votes, a lot of votes. Not to assuage the conscience of his “core supporters” – who are already going to vote for him.
Whose votes is he trying to get with those two paragraphs?
Who knows. I can’t read the mind of his campaign team, and he didn’t think to send me a memo.
So you are making an argument that his team put that in the speech to get votes based on what exactly?
go away weka. I’m tired of joining dots for you now.
“Not to assuage the conscience of his “core supporters” – who are already going to vote for him.”
You left out half of my point.
What, about Trump’s so-called anti-Islam agenda?
No, that the LGBTQ thing will be presented by some as being progressive in the hope of getting more Sanders voters.
Yes, Trump was totally angling for Sanders voters in his speech, but not using this section lol!!!
You have to understand what would appeal to the Sanders voters who are definitely not going Clinton.
“You have to understand what would appeal to the Sanders voters who are definitely not going Clinton.”
What makes you think I don’t already?
You still haven’t said which votes those 2 paragraphs were paragraphs were designed to target. Is there a reason you won’t say?
I don’t know; there may be a reason. But I wonder what it could be?
What votes do you think those two paragraphs will deliver him? You now accept that was the point of it right, not assuaging the conscience of his devotees like you originally thought.
No, I don’t. Stop misrepresenting my argument. Here it is again in full seeing as how you keep referring to only a piece of it.
And why he would bother even referring the LGBTQ community, which I think is because it will enable some of his core supporters to feel better about their bigotry. It will get reported in the press and in headlines on left wing blogs and be picked up by some of Sanders’ supporters.
You appear to be arguing that the inclusion of the LGBTQ paragraphs was an attempt to win votes. But now you say you don’t know what votes that might be. There is no point there CV, it looks like you just posted the idea without any kind of rationale behind it.
hi weka, no more spoonfeeding. I’ve put up an entire post, I’ve written a couple of dozen additional descriptive comments, I’ve told you that IMO his speech has nothing to do with making his bigot core voters feel better about being bigots.
If however you’re still set in your views that this section of his speech was just to do with making bigots feel better and you still haven’t moved from that, then I have no further interest in persuading you on this point with additional analysis.
Yeah I read the post and many of your comments. I don’t need spoonfeeding. A simple explanation of your view would suffice. I take it then that you have nothing behind the idea that the LGBTQ paragraphs were designed to get votes. If you can’t say which votes that might be, it doesn’t make any sense.
“If however you’re still set in your views that this section of his speech was just to do with making bigots feel better and you still haven’t moved from that,”
Stop telling lies about my views.
i get really tired of your BS weka. People can simply read your comments and my replies, and they can decide for themselves if I have represented your views fairly or not.
Nope. If you keep misrepresenting the points I am making, I will keep calling you on it.
Plus not everyone reads the whole thread.
“Plus not everyone reads the whole thread.”
speaking of Bigots
who made you the spokesperson for the views of other readers?
including the views of LBTQ community’s ?
[Weka speaks for herself. You, on the other hand, speak like a troll. Your next few comments had better add something to the discussion or your time here is up. TRP]
Why do you not find it surprising?
Hateful foreign ideology bad, hateful domestic ideology good.
The KKK endorsement was well earned.
The religious right are a core Republican interest group.
And they are supporting a candidate who just talked about the “lovely” LGBTQ community in front of tens of thousands of Republicans.
So he’s lying to the evangelicals, but really really pinky-promise will protect queer citizens from bigots, foreign and domestic, even though he only mentioned them in relation to his xenophobic fear-mongering.
The Westboro Baptist Church has tax-exempt status, despite being a hate group. Trump announced he would protect that status for groups that are even worse than WBC. Even if it’s pandering that he doesn’t genuinely want to follow through on, as you claim, it’s hardly “protecting” the LGBTQ community, is it?
Huh? How does the current Westboro Baptist Church tax exempt status have anything to do with Trump or Trump’s tax proposal, that has more to do with Obama and Obama’s inability to enact anything to stop Westboro.
And how did you conclude that Trump is “lying to evangelicals”???
All throughout the primaries he made it explicit that he was not a church going fundamentalist like Cruz and the other candidates.
You’re not that dim, surely.
Political views regarding homosexuality, for example.
If he’s not going to repeal language that removes tax breaks from folk even worse than WBC, then he’s lying to evangelicals.
If he intends to give tax breaks to folk worse than WBC, then he’s not protecting LGBTQ from domestic bigots, only the foreign ones.
Regardless of whether he’s religious himself, the fact is that in this speech he made contradictory promises to two opposing groups. And you’re saying ‘it’s ok, he doesn’t mean it for crowd A, he means it for crowd B’. That’s the best argument you can come up with for your trump cheerleading – ‘before he was lying, but he’s not now, honest’.
It is englightening to see that CV believes him, esp given how clever Trump’s team is.
I reckon Trump threw a couple of words in about the LGBTQ community to support his new funder. One of the only brights spots in having Peter Thiel on board, imo.
And his knocking of NATO and support for Putin seems to be in the same vein
Ah, that makes sense.
You’ve interpreted them as being contradictory, but then Obama the champion of diversity has maintained Westboro Baptist’s tax free status, so there’s plenty of contradictory to go around.
Wow. Even if obama was arguing that people worse than wbc should get tax breaks while idiots were claiming he’d promised to protect lgbtq folk, how does that mean trumps promises are contradictory? Obamas policies are irrelevant to whether trumps policies are contradictory.
You brought it up as being relevant.
Not obama I didn’t. What I brought up was that wbc is currently at the limit of getting tax breaks. Trump wants to shift that limit farther into hate. That’s the guy you’re proclaiming as a queer ally.
You Mean Hillary’s recent endorsement by a current Grand dragon recently?
very fitting since the Democratic party practically founded the KKK,
thank goodness it took a Republican (Lincoln) to abolish slavery
( I’m not going to google the links on your behalf – (just in case) because I’ll bet I know the answer you’ll give regardless in attempt to smear Presidential Trump)
If you haven’t noticed a Republican “Southern Strategy” since the sixties and the Civil Rights Act, you might want to update your US history knowledge. Get something that was written since 1925, for example.
As for the various KKK endorsements, David Duke’s was based on what Trump was saying. Quigg’s was based on the idea that whatever Clinton says, she’s secretly planning to adopt Trump’s policies, lol
CV, the LGBTQ community in America needs far more protection from domestic hateful ideologies, which are mostly fostered by the right, than they need protection from hateful foreign ideology.
Almost everyone in the LGBTQ community will have suffered hateful abuse from their fellow Americans, but very very few would suffer it from hateful foreigners.
That’s why Trump’s statement is dressed up to appear supportive of the gay community, and get useful idiots like yourself saying “gee whiz, the republicans have changed their tune!” and “wow, Trump said Q!” at the same time as the republicans go around passing laws about which bathrooms people must use, and trying to prevent people getting married because they happen to have the same anatomy.
Cv is in the ABC club didn’t you know.
Yep Clinton is an utter disaster; a neocon and champion of the establishment status quo: rule by bankers, the military industrial complex, and the 0.1% revolving door between Washington DC and Wall St.
And trumps a unknown quantity that comes across as bat shit crazy. Some choice,glad I don’t have to vote for either.
The ABC was meant to be a bit of a joke .
“Cv is in the ABC club didn’t you know.”
Yes, but there are also things about Trump he admires. This isn’t just about Clinton.
Yep top 3 things
1) He realised very early on the depth of disatisfaction and anger within the general electorate outside of the Beltway and Coastal Elites echo chambers, and figured out how to talk to it and tap into it.
2) He has managed to effect a total outsider takeover of the Republican Party from its insider establishment, breaking multiple political paradigms on the way.
3) Top notch political, media and campaign management which speaks to both his own smarts and the fact he has chosen excellent people for his team.
Is this a case study on how the NZ Labour Party could be usurped? (Sorry couldn’t resist 😉 )
1. Yes… and horribly and reminiscent of the rise of other autocrats
2. I think you will find he has inserted himself into the crocodile’s jaws
3. The other contenders all had equally good campaign managers, they were all outdone by a swaggering TV show celebrity who simply fed the media beast
As a species, once we have moved past the special interest groups seeking protection then we’re on the right path
‘Manufactured protection’ is a falsehood
Agree entirely. IMO Trump is bringing change to the right by making it clear that the interests and safety of the LGBTQ community are a valid consideration at the top levels of the Republican Party.
But he has to be very careful about how he goes about this politically as there are many minefields in the Republican Party.
On the other hand, how well do you believe Obama performed in reducing violence against the LGBTQ community.
“On the other hand, how well do you believe Obama performed in reducing violence against the LGBTQ community.”
Note that Trump hasn’t achieved anything yet, and you’re acting like he has.
So looks like Obama has done more than any past president, and likely far more than Trump would. Hard to guess whether Hillary will be on par or not.
“CV, the LGBTQ community in America needs far more protection from domestic hateful ideologies, which are mostly fostered by the right, than they need protection from hateful foreign ideology.”
Right ,tell that to the Family’s who have Lost Soldiers & loved ones, 9/11 & Orlando , San Bernadino …… even though your more likely to be struck by lighting than caught up in terrorism or a mass shooting – bet you wont
I’m not sure what your point is. Statistically, it’s true.
Erm. He stated he was going to protect the LGBTQ community from…actually, here’s the entire thing quoted. (from around 36min and 15sec) It’s interesting. LGBTQ didn’t exactly trip off his tongue and I wonder how many people cheering didn’t know what the fuck he was referring to.
So this is extreme cynicism, but…
I wouldn’t want to be a member of the LGBTQ community in the US if Trump wins. Sounded like he could have been saying that the LGBTQ community was no good and was going to be stopped. And what better protection could there be against some foreign threat than not existing or being made invisible?
“LGBTQ didn’t exactly trip off his tongue and I wonder how many people cheering didn’t know what the fuck he was referring to.”
Interesting. Given how clever Trump’s team is, let’s assume that was intentional 😉 On the other hand, it was a dilemma, because you couldn’t really have Trump on national television using the actual words.
Oh – you kind of really need to see the second time he used the term. (36:47) It had a whole nasty fucking nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah thing running through it – in the tone of the words and the body language/facial expression.
Like – know how a wee kid might repeat your words back at you in a way that’s trying to be disrespectful and all ‘fuck you’? So Trump was aiming that kind of dismissive shit at the LGBTQ community, not the convention, the second time he used the term.
Looks like he was swallowing a rat 😉
Saying is one thing, doing is another.
Trump talks about LGBT+ rights, but I think all of that is for naught because of his action of selecting such an opponent of gay rights for his VP.
The speech is lip service, nothing more.
Interestingly, Hillary’s choice for VP is pretty much a clone of Trumps one. Both identify personally as conservative Christians in the traditional US sense.
Hillarys one is personally anti abortion, but pro-choice as he reckons its the best for America,
The real difference is that a President Trump will leave a lot more policy making to his VP than a Mrs President Clinton, as Trump will be too busy “making America great again”.
TLH: “The real difference is that a President Trump will leave a lot more policy making to his VP than a Mrs President Clinton…”
Oh I dunno: she’ll be obliged to give the First Chap plenty to do, otherwise the old dog’ll escape from the porch again. And the thought of him getting stuck into economic – or indeed any – policy again ought to scare the bejesus out of every US voter. Not to mention the rest of us….
speaking of Bigots –
How many Gays ,Trans ,Blacks ,Disabled ,Men & Woman (+Non binary)
do you think Hillary employs compared with Trump
….. have a guess
the media will never present these facts & CV’s post speaks for itself , you cant convert the uninformed …. or can you?
time will tell when the President of the US is announced
until then, speculate all you like – but remember to bring popcorn!!
Putting America first and making it great again – lol
How is he going to do that cv with cc and peak oil – answer is he isn’t and you know that
Agree. Name the US Presidential candidate that will, please.
The one nominated by a party that at least accepts the reality of climate change and the need for something different to business-as-usual has a chance, however small, of not driving us all over the cliff.
Hillary Clinton as something other than the establishment’s business-as-usual candidate?
Interesting take on her.
You forgot the K
He wants to power up the coal industry, and previously I think he’s talked about scrapping the Department of the Environment. Great.
Yes Trump is committed to ramping up US energy up full bore including coal. Clinton had to back away from her earlier claims that she was going to shut down the coal industry in the US.
Lesser of evils is useful.
Great long term strategy, it’s exactly what has delivered Trump the environment he can now thrive in.
As an aside, most people don’t seem to recognise the total takeover of the Republican Party from the inside that Trump has pulled off.
It’s not a long term strategy.
“As an aside, most people don’t seem to recognise the total takeover of the Republican Party from the inside that Trump has pulled off.”
Maybe you could explain that instead of cheerleading Trump. I’m sure people would be interested.
People are free to discuss the point if they like. I’ll kick it off by saying that traditional Republican power brokers have found themselves more isolated and less relevant than they ever thought that they would ever be, in the face of Trump’s campaign.
And your alternative cv is to advocate a vote for the coalboy. Are you just a pretend carer of the environment and motherearth?
I think he’s actually arguing identity politics, that the working class (white male) should take precedence over whatever Clinton represents. Which is a worthwhile thing to look at, although I will still come down on the side of the whole of life.
It seems to me he is saying that trump will go hard on coal and that cv is okay with that even though cv continually says cc is happening and we must do something about it – apparently that something is voting for a guy who wants to promote and invigorate coal – riddle me that cos it seems uncomputable to me.
With plummeting oil prices and a glut of natural gas Republicans know full well there’s no way coal is making a return so I reckon he’s pandering to a constituency with absolutely no intention of ever following through.
We can say of Trump:
Hes standing for POTUS so will say whatever he thinks is necessary to win the votes. And with almost no intention to follow thru.
Whereas we can say of Hillary:
Shes standing for POTUS so will say whatever she thinks is necessary to win the votes. And with almost no intention to follow thru.
Just looks like some kind of bizarre anarchistic/nihilistic malice to me.
I guess the argument is that in terms of the larger strategy of getting the US to take climate change seriously, Clinton and Trump are as bad as each other, so may as well vote for the one that will do the least damage in general. For CV that’s Trump.
Trump owns a lot of property in Florida, New York, etc. which will be severely impacted by climate change. I think despite what he says now, that personal impact on his finances will make a difference.
So self interest. Funny you think he will stand by his word on so many things but not what he says on this.
Hi mm do you only understand people one dimensionally?
Trump is more a Democrat than a Republican. Doubly so because he is from that strange liberal melting pot phenomenon known as New York City. Remembering that makes analysing his strategy a lot more interesting.
Yep well he HAS built his vast wealth from self interest so no great surprises there and yes your salivating at his very name is noted. Does trump believe that cc is happening?
Don’t know ask him.
Ah yes. The educated liberal intelligentsia like yourself would never be so base.
I’m asking you because you have seemed to express concern about this issue and you are an advocate for trump. Have you not looked at his position on this vital area?
It’s okay I’ve checked – trump does NOT believe in CC. Trump and his supporters lol let’s make America great again yeah!!! Fuck we’d better all become doomers now.
US coal mining is inconsequential to CC at this point.
Put another way, IMO there isn’t even 5ppm between Clinton and Trump.
“US coal mining is inconsequential to CC at this point.”
Acceptance of CC as being real is consequential though.
That would have made a difference 25 years ago in the lead up to Rio. Today, at this date, if that’s all there is, its neither here nor there.
If you want people to make changes they have to believe in CC. Having a president who doesn’t makes that less likely.
even better, he’s not a republican but will reform the Party & the US at the same time – I’m restraining refuting every MSM parroted Meme, misinformation & Slurs about Trump, but really your doing a great job , I don’t wish to come across as a troll or sock puppet .
but a great read for anyone who has a moment to spare about why Trump will win – here is a must read
“Sanders Supporters Forced to Swallow Red Pill- Will Deeper Awakening Follow?”
People will focus on whichever component of the speech that appeals most to their own slanted world view
Not that it will make a difference, because every actor in the poltical sphere is a liar!
100% of them
Of course. That’s why political speeches are so long and usually cover so many topics, so people can listen and focus on the bits they’re interested in, and hopefully ignore the parts they’re not.
Consummate showman. Bombastic shit (of course). Rhetorically covers all the bases…and if elections debated issues, then he’d get buried in two seconds flat. But that’s the problem. Political debate has been dumbed down to the point that most people are expected to set their opinions on the spin that accompanies a soundbite.
On the vacuous showman front, he’s in a different league to Clinton.
This election will come down to how the media spin personality and trivia – not the various merits and demerits of any policy. And if Trump can successfully cast himself as the victim (assuming negative press coverage) – he’ll pull that off fairly easily if need be – then the Democrats will struggle.
Little point in saying that half – fuck, 90% – of Trumps predictable shit couldn’t have been used if Sanders had the Democratic nomination. But hey, they put up a sitting duck and that’s that. All Trump has to do is amplify the stuff people already feel pissed off about or suspicious about with regards Clinton to get hit after hit after hit.
And he can pick up and twist line after line that Sanders had used to get that popular vote off the back of ‘sounding like he’s saying the right thing’.
Mussolini’s getting channeled.
Too right, and clinton needs to move to the left to counter him. Which I’m guessing ant going to happen.
The democrats are left with clinton looking like an establishment bully or some such. Which means the lesser of two evil argument get weakened, in this case a real possibility of a completely reversed, if your candidate makes it hard to work out who is the lesser evil – especially in a dumbed down, soundbite, attack ad filled, presidential campaign.
Bill, the electoral system and who trump is targeting via a oddball system, in my opinion play into his hands as well.
God Help us all.
The Democrats had a strong viable left wing candidate with none of the massive polling negatives of Hillary Clinton, and who in the General Election would have trounced Trump by double digits effortlessly.
Of course, wikileaks has shown that the Democratic National Committee ignored this, instead spending a huge amount of time undermining and sidelining Sanders, in order to get the woman they wanted, Clinton.
And many on The Standard seem just fine with the result.
“And many on The Standard seem just fine with the result.”
Really? The only overt Clinton supporter here I’m aware of is Ad. There might be a few others, but I’d hardly characterise them as many.
Basically all the Labour loyalists. So I would.
So Ad and TRP and some of the Labour party members/activists who comment? I think there would be more Labour voters here who would support Sanders over Clinton.
I voted Labour last time and definitely backed Sanders over Clinton, as did every Labour an Green voter I know.
I am certainly not a Clinton fan (Hillary or Bill) but there is no way I would support Trump over Clinton if I was a voter in USA. With Hillary we get the status quo, which isn’t great. However the idea that Trump could be elected I find absolutely terrifying.
What is Trump going to do as President which in your mind is so much more terrifying than Clinton?
Me too Karen. Although if I had a vote and the pre-election polls weren’t close I’d probably vote Stein. We also tend to forget that the election isn’t just for President.
It felt like Sanders was speaking for all of us. Rational Americans have no choice but to ‘give the tick’ to Clinton even if one has to close one’s eyes to do it.
Why exactly do you think “rational Americans” should pick pro-free trade NAFTA backing TPP supporting Hillary Clinton ahead of ‘bring jobs back to the US’ Donald Trump?
Supreme court. It’s the only part of their government that really works any more.
Next president is likely to appoint 2 or 3 judges. Conservatives would be primed to repeal or limit many progressive civil rights gained in the last couple of decades.
Well done CV
I respect all these commentators here
….. but in this case they are all just plain wrong , as bad as the
MSM playing the doom, gloom & fear Card in the UK on the
Brexit vote ….. and then shock horror ,something new ,exciting & unexpected happened, Bexit was a Success & the sky didn’t fall!!
these commentators are not deaf, there just ignoring you,
President Trump will be great entertainment ,
these claims, misinformation & conspiracy theory’s are baseless
– thats why Hillary wont debate Trump, she’ll be Dog tucker!!
Um, Brexit has barely begun.
And, personally, I think ultimately the UK won’t leave the EU. There’ll end up being another referendum or an election-as-proxy.
Given that Scotland is highly likely to secede in order to remain part of the EU and the Leave campaigners lied about all the big policy points in their favour, I think when the turkeys come home to roost, the brits will end up staying.
Theresa May has already pushed signing article 50 into next year, even though Cameron was suggesting it would be done this year.
I agree with you that the establishment will find ways to delay and defuse the results of the BREXIT vote.
However, that in itself will have follow on repercussions, as the state of the EU continues to deteriorate.
CV you may enjoy this from Moore on 5 reasons Trump will win:
Thanks, Ad. Michael Moore, from the run down rustbelt town of Flint, Michigan, knows all too well the desperate and angry groundswell that Trump is tapping into.
Easy victory Trump remains my pick.
Review of “Deer Hunting with Jesus” by Roy Bageant from 2008. This book will explain why Trump has a very good chance of winning because I am sure that Bageant’s America has become even more so in 2016.
The Guardian published the following two paragraphs in another review.
“Bageant believes, without question, that a majority of white working-class and poor Americans voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because they are stupid.”
“Ignorance, Bageant concludes, is the greatest enemy of working-class Americans: not terrorism, or drugs, or illegals, but sheer daftness. It works both ways, with powerful leaders refusing to fund public schools properly and condescending to voters least likely to revolt, and rednecks making a creed out of mistrust and closed-mindedness. Class enslaves the mind.”
Bageant is dead now, but it’s still a good piece of prophecy for us today.
From your link- Bageant in 2010. What do you think?
“The system has just begun its crash, and already we are seeing an armed infantilized nation wail, hurl blame and do horrific things, the worst of which we do to one another (excluding sending predator drones after Middle Eastern school kids). Surveillance, witch hunts, destruction of civil liberties, and the government inching toward star chamber trials for those who do not display correct traits. Citizens embracing totalitarianism as stability in the face of the ultimate instability — the death of the planet.”
Bageant was on the money. Born post war I’m acutely aware of the fact that I’ve grown up without having to face a major conflagration and I’m absolutely terrified at the prospect of a world slowly inching it’s way toward another round of mechanised killing.
[audio src="http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20100831-1007-Feature_Guest_-_Joe_Bageant-048.mp3" /]
If you are afraid of armed conflict in the Pacific, then Clinton’s neocon leanings towards brinksmanship against China and Russia should make you nervous.
At least we can assume that Clinton has some rationality behind her policies. Trump might really b e as insane as you say he’s only pretending to be.
Odd you use the word “rationality.” Like how orthodox economists talk about “rational agents” that are anything but.
Clinton’s rationality is that of the neocon ‘Empire of Chaos’ partnered with the financial interests of the military industrial surveillance complex.
Even if she was as evil as you insist, I suspect she still wants the world to keep turning. Trumps behavior to date suggests that he might nuke the world if north Korea implies he has a small dick.
I detect some Pepe Escobar analysis going on here – excellent, by the way!
Cemetary Jones – Escobar is a good writer with a good Eurasian centric perspective.
Hillarys rational is feathering her own nest
just watch “Clintons Money” on You Tube to break it down in English for you
Indeed. For that to happen, there needs to be a nest to feather. So Clinton will avoid nuclear brinkmanship.
Trump’s track record is aggressive brinkmanship, then declare bankruptcy if he’s the one who falls of the brink.
Clinton is not avoiding “nuclear brinksmanship.”
The US is not avoiding “nuclear brinksmanship.”
The neocons are very influential in US foreign policy and at least some of them think that a nuclear war against [fill in the gaps] may be winnable.
Actually, they are avoiding nuclear brinkmanship.
NATO (read: US) has just placed nuclear capable missile systems in Romania under the guise of “missile defence”.
Not only do these “missile defence” systems undermine the longstanding strategic balance of the Russian ICBM nuclear deterrence but in a few years these NATO (read: US) systems will have upgrades allowing them to deliver nuclear warheads to St Petersburg and Moscow with less than 10 minutes missile flight time.
The Pentagon also now has proposals for a new generation of low yield tactical nuclear warheads which are being justified as being more useable, more humanitarian (less collateral damage), and more environmentally friendly (less fall out).
Now, why is it again that you believe that the US isn’t playing a game of nuclear brinksmanship against Russia.
Forget the future nuclear capable stuff. Putin said to a group of international journos that Russia has the upgrade timeline of those missile defence systems, and said that the conventional warheads could be swapped for nuclear tipped ones without Romanian officers at the base being able to tell the difference..
Talk about the rest of it. The more useable tactical nuclear warheads, the deliberate degrading of the deterrent capability of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.
So basically you meant Putin reckons every missile or bomb in the world is “nuclear capable”. What about “nuclear capable” russian jets buzzing USNavy ships in international warheads? Reckless brinkmanship, that.
Crafty of the yanks spending billions developing a missile defense system that sneakily hides a medium range ballistic missile. Their trucks probably hide tanks, too.
I also love the way your fear is that the warheads can be swapped out with nobody noticing. That’ll give the Romanians a surprise when they do a practical test against a drone target lol.
glad you posted that….bloody interesting.
Trump was a joke in January – he’s not a joke anymore.
Clinton’s choice of Kaine as VP running mate feels like the worst choice yet it is also is probably the most logical & safe choice. It’s a typical Clinton cautious move and arguably a safe choice – I’m sure it is the one she was most comfortable with. However comfortable might not be enough in this race.
Electoral Vote had a good list of pro & cons on Kaine.
* Will appeal to white men, to moderates, to independents, to Southerners and to Midwestern Catholics
* Comes from an important swing state
* Extensive legislative and executive experience as Virginia governor, Richmond mayor, DNC Chair, and U.S. Senator
* Clinton knows him and can work well with him
* Self-effacing, low-key, likable personality
* Speaks fluent Spanish, former civil rights lawyer; will help some with nonwhite voters
*Won’t put Democratic control of the Senate at risk, since Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) would pick his replacement (likely himself)
*As a pro-life Catholic, is out of step with much of the Democratic base
*Isn’t Elizabeth Warren so progressives won’t be pleased
* Is very much an insider in a year when insiders aren’t very popular
* Kind of boring, not a great public speaker
* Speaking Spanish and being a civil rights lawyer probably won’t help much with nonwhite voters
Realistically, he wasn’t a joke back then either, although the MSM insisted at every turn that Trump was a clown and a buffoon.
To be fair they did use quotes and facts and evidence from the don himself to illustrate their points.
He is a clown and a buffoon. Unsurprisingly, clowns are often popular.
Well it was an interesting piece. I note, BTW, that Mike Moore likes Clinton and can’t stand Trump, is frightened by the thought of him as president and plans to vote for Clinton. His main argument rests on the idea that Trump’s supporters are fanatics and are therefore more energised than others. I also note that he plans a “How Trump can be beaten” piece next week.
I agree with Moore, BTW, that younger women who disparage Clinton and don’t see it as a big deal to finally have a female president don’t realise how much they owe their freedoms to women of her generation.
You may also want to check out this link, CV. It doesn’t cover everything in the speech, but it assesses the main claims. Very few are found to be entirely true – and context is often missing or skewed- although to be fair, far fewer are found to be entirely false than usual.
Oh well, I guess I’m just glad you’re over here in NZ, CV; able to enthuse away from the sidelines but not able to vote for Mr T!
Michael Moore may give reasons he thinks Trump could win but there is no way he agrees with any of CV’s blinkered fanboy assessment of Trump. Moore also says his next piece is going to be on how Trump could lose.
Has it occurred to you that you may be the one who is “blinkered” Karen?
Americans just love a good dose of Horse Shit to gobble up! Trump, the latest Horseshit demagogue. Basically the U$ is finished: all down hill from now. Keep the horse shit flowing!
No. Americans are sick of the American establishment.
This is happening everywhere in the world.
Thank grod someone gets it.
Well done on the post and comments in the thread CV. After Brexit and the consequent meltdown of the UKLP you would think a few more people might understand that business as usual is rapidly unravelling and popular disgust with the establishment elites is expressing itself openly across entire Western nations.
And while it is easy and comfortable for most of us to label Trump as a blowhard narcissist, it is wrong to dismiss him as ineffective. On the contrary, he’s exploiting this anti-establishment sentiment very, very effectively.
It’s the same argument I’ve made about John Key; none of us here have any time for his politics, but it’s wrong to underestimate him and hard to argue against the fact that he keeps National in power very effectively.
That’s the point too many people miss; almost always the left makes the mistake of thinking someone with bad objectives and bad policies as also having bad strategy and therefore there is nothing we can learn from them. On the contrary, we should study our opponents carefully.
I was talking with an educated, professional American on the job two days ago; he’s appalled at the choice of candidates he has to choose between, and was openly scathing of Trump. Yet he believes the election will be very close and sees a Trump Presidency as a real possibility.
I see it as a 2 parter:
1) Trump’s electoral effectiveness and understanding of who he is trying to reach. You have covered this well.
2) The traditional left’s total disconnection with those same people and their day to day realities (whether it is UK Labour, the Democratic Party or NZ Labour).
UK Labour, the Democratic Party or NZ Labour
1. UK PLP’s visceral rejection of Jeremy Corbyn … supported by the party members and objectively generating reasonable political results
2. The Democrats cynical closing out of Bernie Sanders … supported by huge crowds and grass-roots funding, and despite his stellar electoral appeal.
3. NZLP … need I mention David Cunliffe?
4. ALP … Bill Shorten is an Andrew Little clone, probably a decent bloke but a creature of the system all the same.
The pattern is the same, an inner circle of career ‘left-wing’ politicians putting more passion into fighting off authentic social movement than they ever do in opposing the elites.
That’s because they’ve come to believe they’re elites themselves. (They aren’t of course and are only tolerated by the system because of their idiot usefulness.)
Even 10% to 20% of Americans are looking outside of the establishment box now, to the Greens and to the Libertarians, despite them knowing that their system makes voting that way completely irrelevant.
The Scots put up with UK Labour for years until they had enough and kicked the lot of them out. From Westminster, it looked like a sea change which happened all of a sudden. But anyone genuinely on the ground understood that the pressure had been building up for years and years, and especially since Blair.
And it’s here in NZ too; we are simply a few years behind the international trend, as is fairly usual for this country.
I think in the US you’d need a decent % of protest vote (eg Greens) to get a change to the electoral system considered. If I was voting in the US and the election wasn’t looking like a close race, I’d vote Stein for that reason.
Because of their peculiar system, there’s only a dozen or so ‘swing states’ where your vote may actually count towards who becomes POTUS. If you live in one of those (say Florida, Ohio or Virginia) then your vote is probably too important to be wasted on a 3rd party candidate.
But if you are in a strong Republican state (say Idaho, Arkansas, Kansas) or a strong Democratic state (say New Jersey, New York, California) then voting Greens would both send a message, and not affect the choice of POTUS at all.
Not to mention Oxbridge-educated former Public Schoolboys and girls parachuted into safe (or previously safe) working-class Labour-held constituencies across the UK.
Think Upper-Middle Class Tony Blair affecting a Geordie accent (“Why aye man !, I’m just off down the off-licence, Pet”) after being dumped on a North-East former mining (turned rust belt) constituency in the 80s and 90s.
So much for the democratic notion of MPs emerging from, intimately understanding and faithfully representing their own local communities.
Has happened in my nearby electorates of Dunedin North and Dunedin South. Parachuted in candidates, not home grown ones.
David Clark (Dn Nth) didn’t grow up here in Dunedin, but he attended university here and was living here as an adult (chairing the Otago Community Trust) before he stood for parliament. He’s lived here for 15+ years: I certainly don’t see him as “parachuted in”.
Claire Curran was born and educated in Dunedin, lived in Aus for a while (working for unions), then came back to Dunedin to live. She was active in the local party and represented Otago-Southland on the Labour Party Council. Again, no evidence of a parachute.
Get your facts straight, CV.
Yeap, this US Election will be Great Bring Popcorn !!!
– its going to be Great 🙂
In 2002 the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn carved a path for Donald Trump. Fortuyn demanded an end to Muslim immigration, claiming that Islamic culture endangered the Dutch tradition of respect for LGBT rights. I remember reading the headlines after Fortuyn’s party won local elections, wondering how long it would be until America’s political right adopted the same tactic. The answer was 14 years.
Last week in Cleveland, Republican grandees cited protecting LGBT Americans as a central reason for vigilance about Islam. Newt Gingrich said, “If our enemies had their way, gays, lesbians and transgender citizens would be put to death as they are today in the Islamic State and Iran.” Trump himself pledged to “do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.”
Does the amount of time you spend trawling the internet make you more cynical than you may otherwise be?
Oh, and there is not an original thought or policy sound bite to be found in mainstream politics least of all in USA, so calling ‘cynic’ through you comment is trite
The LBGT ‘ issue’ is, and will always be used as bait for weak minds!
edit: nice edit there, sport, so fuck you
Electoral Vote has an analysis of Trump’s speech which may point to the strategy behind it.
In essence the idea is that he doesn’t care about any of the swing states, rather his whole campaign will be about winning the Upper Midwest, where he thinks Democrats are living on borrowed time. While the minority population is growing in Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia, the Rust Belt states—especially Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio—are still dominated by white working-class men who can order their wives to vote as they do and not get too much blowback.
If he can win these states, he will knock 64 electoral votes off the Democrats “blue wall” of 242 and reduce Clinton’s base to only 178 electoral votes. Then she will have to struggle to win nearly all the swing states, and he might be able to pick up a few of them and eke out a victory.
Someone put up Michael Moore’s analysis of the Trump election strategy and it basically says that same. Four rust belt states with 64 electoral votes.
Anything extra is a bonus.
Recent YouGov Poll in Michigan:
July 13-15, 2016
Following figures are for the crucial Independent voters (and only include those very likely to vote).
Direction of Economy
Those Independents not voting Clinton
Might have voted Democrat if someone other than Clinton was the nominee …67%
Wouldn’t have voted for the Democrat candidate regardless…………………………..33%
Those Independents voting Trump
Why vote Trump ?
Mainly because I like Trump…………………………………………40%
Mainly because he is the Republican nominee……………..4%
Mainly to oppose Clinton…………………………………………….56%
All Independents – Agreement with Trump on core Issues
Agree at least some……………54%
No, disagree with him………..46%
Agree at least some……………55%
No, disagree with him………..45%
Need to Change Washington
Agree at least some……………78%
No, disagree with him………..22%
Changing Wall St and Economic Inequality
Agree at least some……………62%
No, disagree with him………..38%
Which candidate is more Independent from Big Donors ?
Better on Fixing the Economy ?
Best for bringing Change to Washington ?
Looking out for people like you
Is Clinton Honest and Trustworthy ?
Can Clinton keep America safe from Terrorism ?
DOJ decision on Clinton emails ?
Recent Foreign Trade Policies
Necessary way to keep US competitive in a Global Economy ……27%
Unnecessary giveaway to Big Business and Foreign Countries….73%
Thanks Swordfish – that is a very illuminating poll.
These independents must be unusually naive, uneducated, racist and red neck (etc.) to favour Trump instead of Hillary.
That and Hillary is in serious trouble in this state.
Are they actual independents, or people who say they’re independent but almost always vote for the same party?
registered as independent
“Are they actual independents, or people who say they’re independent but almost always vote for the same party ?”
July 13-15, 2016
Past Voting Pattern
Regardless of which party you may vote for today, in recent past elections do you usually …?
Split between both Major Parties about evenly …40%
Usually Vote Republican ……………………………………29%
Usually Vote Democrat ……………………………………..23%
Usually Vote for Third Parties ……………………………..6%
Don’t Usually Vote ………………………………………………3%
They’re clearly not all closet Republicans in sheep’s clothing.
Independents made up about a third of the sample. Crucial segment of voters in Swing States. They loved Sanders / not quite so taken with Hillary.
As I’ve said before, 538 found that true independents were about as supportive of Clinton as they were of Bernie (and much less supportive of Trunp).
It was only Democrat-leaning independents that weren’t as supportive of Clinton as they were Bernie. But of course, they’re much more likely to support Clinton in the end than they are Trump, so ultimately aren’t a big cause of concern for Clinton.
Yeah, but I prefer not to treat 538 as Gospel.
Reuters-Ipsos nationwide Poll
(20 July 2016)
Would Not Vote…………….6%
They look like “true” Independents to me. On the Congressional vote question, for instance, the Independents in this Poll split fairly evenly between Democrats, Republicans, third party and Don’t know.
“… true independents were about as supportive of Clinton as they were of Bernie (and much less supportive of Trump).”
Most recent nationwide polls tend to have Independents either evenly split or more clearly favouring Trump. Haven’t seen any recent ones where independents are heading strongly in Hillary’s direction.
And Independents clearly have a very Unfavourable view of Clinton:
If what you are calling “indepedents” actually includes a large sample of people who almost always vote republican, then their signal will easily swamp out those who are truly independent.
“If what you are calling “indepedents” actually includes a large sample of people who almost always vote republican …”
But that’s just it, they don’t.
In the Reuters-Ipsos (cited above) 81% of Independents did not intend to vote Republican in the next Congressional elections, for instance.
In the YouGov Michigan poll (cited in my first comment), 71% of Independents did not usually vote Republican.
And I should add that it’s not so much me calling them Independents, but rather reputable polling companies like YouGov and Ipsos.
Even if you assumed for argument’s sake that all of the GOP-leaning Independents took anti-Clinton positions, they’re such a small minority that it really doesn’t change all that much. 88% of Independents in the Michigan poll seeing Clinton as Untrustworthy and Dishonest, a mere 14% in the Reuters-Ipsos prepared to vote for her and so on
“In the Reuters-Ipsos (cited above) 81% of Independents did not intend to vote Republican in the next Congressional elections, for instance.”
While that’s a pretty strong correlation, it’s not actually the same question as voting for president, which is what we’re talking about.
Furthermore, just because they’re planning this time not to vote for republicans in the next congressional elections, that doesn’t tell us much about their previous voting record.
“In the YouGov Michigan poll (cited in my first comment), 71% of Independents did not usually vote Republican.”
Ok, so lets assume that the remaining 29% do usually vote republican, and adjust the figures in a very blunt way to account for that:
Anyone with Republican after their name 29%
Changes the picture quite a bit. Which is my point.
“And I should add that it’s not so much me calling them Independents, but rather reputable polling companies like YouGov and Ipsos.”
Sure, and I’m just pointing out that we shouldn’t draw simple conclusions from the results of those polling companies because they’re clouding the data.
“Ok, so lets assume that the remaining 29% do usually vote republican, and adjust the figures in a very blunt way to account for that:
Anyone with Republican after their name 29%
Changes the picture quite a bit. Which is my point.”
Except that you also have 23% of Independents in that poll who usually vote Democrat, so, in fact:
Anyone with Republican after their name 29%
Anyone with Democrat after their name 23%
Changes the picture quite a bit. Which is my point.
Now, if we could just focus for a moment on the little matter of a mere 14% of Independents prepared to vote Clinton in the nationwide Reuters-Ipsos of a few days ago, the 88% of Independents in the YouGov Michigan poll who see Clinton as Dishonest and Untrustworthy, the 67% of Independents who might have voted Democrat if someone other than Clinton was the nominee, the 78% of Independents who agree with Trump on the need to change Washington, the mere 6% who consider Clinton is the candidate most independent from Big Donors, the mere 9% who say she’s best for bringing change to Washington, the 73% who don’t think she can keep America safe from Terrorism, the 69% who aren’t satisfied with DOJ decision on Clinton emails, the negative 34 point net favourability ….
… none of which can be explained by your closet Republican thesis. True Independents are still negative towards our Hillary.
Now, if I had more time available, I’d also want to take issue with your suggestion that: “538 found that true independents were about as supportive of Clinton as they were of Bernie” That’s not quite true – 538s Harry Enten was a little dodgy there.
From this poll you get the impression, that apparently the Democrats have decided to put up a Washington beltway establishment candidate, at a time when an establishment candidate was the worst possible choice.
You really have to wonder at their political nous.
Either that, or that the Democratic Party are so beholden to the big corporate donors that a candidate acceptable to that sector is mandatory.
Yep, her Unfavourability ratings are almost as high as Trump’s. Both of them have long been in negative territory – as many pundits have pointed out: the two least popular Presidential candidates ever. And Clinton’s Honesty/Trustworthy ratings are far lower than his. All this despite the MSM giving her a vastly easier ride than Trump.
Personally, I’d be voting Stein.
s many pundits have pointed out: the two least popular Presidential candidates ever.
This has always struck me as a slightly disingenuous statement. We live in a climate of extreme dissatisfaction with almost all political actors. Relative to the Congress, Clinton is comparatively well liked.
Clinton’s favourability ratings are around a net score of -15% or -20%.
Congress, on the other hand, has a net favourability rating of -64%
(i.e. 16% favourable, 80% unfavourable).
8 years of Shrub hasn’t persuaded you of the merits of swallowing hard, taking a real good hard look at the two evils and choosing which one is honestly the lesser?
The issue of corporate donors is a big thing that needs to be confronted in the US. It takes obscene amounts of money to campaign in their ridiculous, protracted, undemocratic process. Trump can afford to (mostly) pay for himself. He has billions of dollars and can afford to spend millions. That’s not true of many people.
Having said that, Trump is the epitome of “the establishment”. He’s never had to confront poverty, racism, sexism, any other systemic issue that obstructs his freedom. He’s always been rich, having inherited wealth. He’s ridden through life on the layers of privilege that advantage him and that he has not intention of confronting or changing. Don’t let’s romantise DT.
Swordfish has selectively chosen the questions that give answers which look good for Trump. There’s plenty of others where Clinton performs much better than Trump.
You can see the whole results here
There are certainly some positives for Clinton in the Michigan Poll and negatives for Trump, but are you honestly trying to maintain that the weight of opinion among Independent voters isn’t clearly in Trump’s favour ???
Trump … 44%
Clinton .. 27%
I know you’re a Hillary loyalist but try not to get so hysterical with the j’accuse.
cv is not a fan boy of Trump. He is merely pointing out that Trump is probably preferable to that [Deleted. TRP] Clinton.
Do I smell a whiff of misogyny, Garibaldi? If Clinton [Deleted], is Obama [Deleted]? Do you think she acts alone in making decisions about foreign policy? And just what would you do, because saying “Take them out (of Iraq and elsewhere)” is a hell of a lot easier said than done. Trump says he’s going to, “Bring our boys home”. Well, guess what – so did Obama. Once in office, things aren’t that straight-forward.
Do you think Trump disapproves of drone strikes? Well, wake up:
[Cheers for the entirely appropriate response, red-blooded. Language only deleted for consistency. TRP]
damned good speech by Trump imo
…he is a postmodern deal maker…(dance of the seven veils)
…you never know where he is exactly but he is suckering them in and hoovering them up
…think he will win against Killery
…hope so…because we know where Killery stands …and it ain’t good!
So Chooky, do you support all of these these statements from Trump?
So good to read that Karen thanks. His list of supporters who endorse him is both lol and frightening.
War and Terrorism. Clinton versus Trump.
I am waiting for a respected politician to say: “From the outset suicide bombers have repeatedly said they are fighting to free their homelands from foreign occupation. “Terrorists” are not lunatics. They are guerrilla fighters and they do not operate alone. They need organizations to train and supply them.
If the Western powers really want to end terrorism they would negotiate with these organizations: “Our troops and corporations will leave your lands. In return you must stop terror attacks.”
Hillary Clinton will NEVER, EVER do that. If I were an American, I do not know who I would vote for. But it would NOT be Hillary Clinton because she is guaranteed to continue the Middle East wars.
IIRC Trump has clearly said that he will end US policies of regime change in the Middle East.
Does this mean Trump will pull all US forces out of the middle east wherever they may be? I think not.
Obfuscation is the language of politics.
No one knows what any politician means except, “Trust me. I’ll make you happy.” They learned that line from the oldest profession, with whom they share an uncanny similarity. “For a price, I’ll do whatever you want.”
That’s not necessarily the same thing of course. He might end a policy of regime change while still maintaining forces in the Middle East. I don’t see the US pulling the 5th Fleet out of Bahrain for example (and the UK is building a new naval base in Bahrain at Mina Salman – their first permanent base in the Middle East in 43 years).
Of course you recall that. You don’t recall when he said the exact opposite e.g. on Libya, though.
I thought those words were a bit harsh on his buddy. Such a good friend he let him camp out in his backyard.
Alternate Trump acceptance speech….
Lighten up folks….it just may be a lunatic they’re looking for….
When the Left go Right, to get votes the Right have to pledge Left.
Colonial Viper prints out an impressive* list of Left sounding policy pledges taken from Trump’s speech.
*[in both meanings of the term].
It all reminds me of 1990 New Zealand where the Labour Party had gone so far to the Right that Jim Bolger had to campaign on all sorts of Left policy to beat them.
Campaigning against the Labour Government’s state asset sales.
Campaigning against the Labour Government’s imposition of Student Fees
Running a campaign against the Labour Government’s Super Surcharge.
Of course being tories on getting into office the Nats broke all the promises they had made on the campaign trail and instead of reversing them, doubled down on all these right wing policies.
I expect the same with a Trump administration.
Most alarmingly over so called ‘Free Trade’ deals like the TPPA, which under a Trump administration will, not be abolished as you might expect from the rhetoric, but will instead be strengthened and enforced in favour of the US, to the serious detriment of all other signatories.
USA! USA! USA!
Donald Trump promises to “renegotiate” all Free Trade deals with other countries so as to become even more favourable to US interests.
The TPPA is already very favourable to the US and is very “protectionist” toward US agriculture to the detriment of New Zealand’s agricultural export sector.
Will New Zealand and the other smaller signatories to the TPPA be fully converted to satrap administrations under an aggressive “America First” Trump administration, where government laws and trade policy must first be approved in Washington?
“The TPPA is already very favourable to the US”
Can you modify that to say TPPA is very favourable to powerful segments of the US economy?
American unions, environmentalists, and others are as strongly opposed to TPPA as many New Zealanders. TPPA was written by giant corporations to override elected governments in ALL the TPPA countries.
Karl Marx would understand.