Peter, I don't know what particular interests this post serves - except to bolster those of you commenters who are backing El Trumpo, whose own Charity Foundation is said to have been milked for his political objectives.
I suppose what may be said - about each of these candidates - is that they are up to the necks in monetary implications - Trump with his sucking up to the 'Prosperity Gospel' advocates, and Clinton to Wall Street.
Ther big question for American stability may be; who is best equipped to help local employment, health, and security? And who has actual experience in political negotiation with world leaders? Trump is a Game-Show Host, while Clinton is a practised diplomat. That is their actual provenance - in a world that needs both moral strength and diplomacy.
What people here need to remember is that Republicanism represents Capital Investment (Trump INC.), but the U.S. needs more than that to survive.
"Trump with his sucking up to the 'Prosperity Gospel' advocates"
He has not done any such thing. On trade and the economy he is closer to the NZ Labour and New Zealand First parties. He is not a "prosperity Gospel" advocate.
"Ther big question for American stability may be; who is best equipped to help local employment, health, and security?
Trump. On local employment Trump wants to increase employment by rewarding businesses that keep jobs in the US, while Hillary wants to continue the policy of corporations shipping American jobs to Mexico and China so they can exploit cheap labour.
On health, Hillary advocates ObamaCare which has seen many middle and working class people lose their health insurance or forced to pay higher premiums.
On security, Trump wants to radically increase border security and control, while Hillary wants open borders that will import criminals and terrorists, as my previous post shows. Trump wants to fight terrorists with the serious intention of actually defeating them, while Hillary is being financed by countries which fund and export terrorism.
"Trump is a Game-Show Host"
Trump is a businessman with decades of experience and proven negotiating skills.
"while Clinton is a practised diplomat"
Practiced at selling the American people out and doing deals with America's enemies, to enrich her and her husband.
"What people here need to remember is that Republicanism represents Capital Investment"
Not under Trump, who is not a standard brand Republican. That label would however apply to Hillary, who is the puppet of powerful corporate interests.
Your understanding of what the two candidates are actually proposing and standing for is badly misinformed Ron.
I get the sense that some here are basing their understanding of this election on previous US elections, in which the Republicans generally advocated "trickle down" economics and global free trade while the Democrats advocated government investment and trade restrictions.
But in this election, the situation is reversed. That is why in part the Republican establishment was so opposed to Trump and tried to derail his candidacy. He is not the usual Republican candidate. And that is why Bernie Sanders supporters, the Democratic parties grass-roots, were so opposed to Hillary.
Hillary is the advocate for unrestrained global capitalism. Trump is an economic nationalist advocating protecting American jobs and American workers through tariffs and other measures.
Kiwis who get their "information" from the mainstream media and the six o-clock "news" do not understand this.
Anyone concerned with job security and investment in jobs for Americans should be supporting Trump.
Have a good move Shaun. Don't forget to pack plenty of tissues for the news of the Democratic Success - here, on Thursday morning! (Now, if that doesn't get Shaun out of Purdah, nothing will!)
Andrei: There is nothing wrong with being a friend of Russia, but in this election, as you well know, being friends with Russia has a certain Je ne sais quoit to it, and I thought I would redress the balance!
Ron: one does not need to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I have an American friend who has voted for the Libertarian candidate.
Also Ron: we should all be weeping into our tissues, whatever the result. I am very worried about the outcome of this election!
Shawn is correct: Trump is NOT a standard issue Republican, having spent most of his life as a New York Democrat and Independent. On the issues he looks a lot closer to what is called in the UK 'Old Labour': protectionist and anti-globalist; whereas Clinton is very much a globalist neoliberal who wants open borders and unrestricted trade. (As for being a 'practised diplomat', she has certainly 'negotiated' many millions for her Potemkin "Foundation" out of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs for "speeches").
As Ron is also admonishing people on some other question, 'Don't be binary in your thinking.'
Or as the great logician George Lucas said, 'Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.' I think this is absolutely true.
" but in this election, as you well know, being friends with Russia has a certain Je ne sais quoit to it"
I know that Peter but it is the height of irresponsibility on the part of politicians to use any group of people as a scapegoat to advance their cause or to whitewash their problems.
I resent, actually am angered that hundreds millions of people are treated as pawns in the games of the rich and powerful.
The elites and "educated" middle classes of the Western World are actually represented by people like Max Key - spoiled brats who cannot conceive that there are other people in this world who do not share their values (actually lack of values and worship of materialism) and look down their noses at other people.
The sneering at normal people infests political reporting - I gave up on voting a few elections ago - Parliament does not represent me, my values or beliefs so why give them my mandate
And do you know what I think - throughout the Western world more people think like me than the toffee nosed politicians and political reporters
This is what Donald Trump has tapped into, perhaps inadvertently though now I'm sure he has picked up on it
And this is why he may well win - perhaps in a landslide
Another thing that I think and that is there maybe a lesson for this in for the Anglican Church of Aotearoa to digest - because it too seems to be out of touch with the hoi polloi
"Another thing that I think and that is there maybe a lesson for this in for the Anglican Church of Aotearoa to digest - because it too seems to be out of touch with the hoi polloi" - Andrei -
Not entirely true, Andrei. ACANZP still has Motion 30 on the Books. Watch out for our General Synod 2018. We ARE, in fact, in touch with 'hoi polloi'.
"Not entirely true, Andrei. ACANZP still has Motion 30 on the Books. Watch out for our General Synod 2018. We ARE, in fact, in touch with 'hoi polloi'."
QED my point proved!
What do you think my kids think about "Motion 30"? - sledgehammer clue they wouldn't even know what it is or care less and that goes for just about everyone I know -
It is a classic example of upper middle class twittery - completely irrelevant to the swingers of 16lb sledges and the diggers of drains who don't have the luxury of sitting round sipping tea and munching on gingernuts while formulating post modernistic dribble in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable and reconcile the unreconcilable.
And all the while while you have been distracted by this tomfoolery the Middle East and North Africa have been set on fire, as has the Donbass, leaving millions dead and millions more displaced
And one the the architects of this humanitarian Catastrophe is Hillary Rodham Clinton
The campaign season now ending has revealed or confirmed several noteworthy things. Here's ten.
(1) By the standard of past GOP platforms, the vast Republican base is surprisingly heterodox-- they mostly do like God and guns, yes, but no, they do not mind the welfare state, care about the Federal deficit, worry that hedge fund managers may lose the interest carry-over, expect their candidates to be exemplars of faith and morals, or believe in free trade and neocon diplomacy.
(2) The long and costly campaign has made no measurable difference in the opinions of voters. The electorate's marginal preference for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in November 2016 is about the same as it was in December 2015. In panel polls with individual level data, all but a very few voters decided for one or the other very early and never thereafter considered changing their minds.
(3) Therefore, this was yet another *turnout election*. That is, each candidate campaigned, not to win over undecided voters-- there were none-- but to get known supporters to cast ballots and to get the other candidate's supporters to stay home. Because of the stability of partisan preferences, the outcomes of such turnout elections of Presidents are fairly easy to predict.
(4) Some fabled constituencies apparently do not exist. A generation after Jack Kemp, there is still almost no constituency in the professional Republican Party that supports the economic populism that Donald Trump advocated in his campaign. Nor, despite the early media fascination with Rand Paul, have Republicans unhappy with Donald Trump flocked to the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
(5) Populist voters are hard to unify. Those with similar backgrounds and similar anger about similar causes (eg the Trans Pacific Partnership) are nevertheless divided, apparently by education, into Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump factions that detest each other. Yet both Sanders and Trump have probably left legacies of populist supporters lured into politics by the excitement they generated. Watch that space.
(6) Clinton needed Trump. By energizing the large and strategically important Latino and Asian constituencies and driving them straight to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has helped her to survive her surprisingly weak support among women and blacks. Can she win re-election without him?
(7) The winner of the Clinton-Trump contest was John Maynard Keynes. Both candidates have supported infrastructure spending as an economic stimulus.
(8) That said, to reduce economic inequality Clinton's economic advisors want her to propose *predistribution* interventions that have never before been floated in Washington. Some members of the next Congress will represent places where Trump's support has exceeded that of Romney and Bush. How will they vote? And will they explain their votes to those with torches and pitchforks (see #10)?
(9) Yes, the system is rigged. Nationwide, most voters will have voted by a substantial margin on Tuesday for a Democratic House. However, they will probably still wake up on Wednesday morning having in fact elected a Republican House. Even if they don't, the Democratic margin in the House will not be proportional to the Democratic margin in the vote itself.
(10) As the 2018 election cycle begins on Wednesday, rival factions in both parties will begin recruiting candidates able to survive and thrive in the polarised local electorates revealed by the voting of 2016. Midterm primaries could be unusually contentious in both parties.
I agree Peter, the outcome of this election is indeed a concern. One truly has to wonder how either Trump or Hilary made it to be the candidates of major parties. I
I am just re-listening to Shane Caibornes "Jesus for President" it is worth a read/listen. God Save America!
"Have a good move Shaun. Don't forget to pack plenty of tissues for the news of the Democratic Success - here, on Thursday morning! (Now, if that doesn't get Shaun out of Purdah, nothing will!)"
- Shawn, a man in Christchurch needs your spare pack of tissues.
Presidency: R Senate: R House of Representatives: R Governorships: R gains New York State Senate: R gain
Ah, never mind. Have a glass of Chardonfreude and watch 'The Princess Bride': 'You keep using that word "Success". I do not think it means what you think it means."
25 comments:
Peter, I don't know what particular interests this post serves - except to bolster those of you commenters who are backing El Trumpo, whose own Charity Foundation is said to have been milked for his political objectives.
I suppose what may be said - about each of these candidates - is that they are up to the necks in monetary implications - Trump with his sucking up to the 'Prosperity Gospel' advocates, and Clinton to Wall Street.
Ther big question for American stability may be; who is best equipped to help local employment, health, and security? And who has actual experience in political negotiation with world leaders? Trump is a Game-Show Host, while Clinton is a practised diplomat. That is their actual provenance - in a world that needs both moral strength and diplomacy.
What people here need to remember is that Republicanism represents Capital Investment (Trump INC.), but the U.S. needs more than that to survive.
"Clinton is a practised diplomat"
Thanks Fr Ron - I just sprayed coffee all over my monitor
Of course the premise of this title "Russia's real friends" is that there is something wrong with being friends with Russia
Come in Joe McCarthy - all is forgiven
"Trump with his sucking up to the 'Prosperity Gospel' advocates"
He has not done any such thing. On trade and the economy he is closer to the NZ Labour and New Zealand First parties. He is not a "prosperity Gospel" advocate.
"Ther big question for American stability may be; who is best equipped to help local employment, health, and security?
Trump. On local employment Trump wants to increase employment by rewarding businesses that keep jobs in the US, while Hillary wants to continue the policy of corporations shipping American jobs to Mexico and China so they can exploit cheap labour.
On health, Hillary advocates ObamaCare which has seen many middle and working class people lose their health insurance or forced to pay higher premiums.
On security, Trump wants to radically increase border security and control, while Hillary wants open borders that will import criminals and terrorists, as my previous post shows. Trump wants to fight terrorists with the serious intention of actually defeating them, while Hillary is being financed by countries which fund and export terrorism.
"Trump is a Game-Show Host"
Trump is a businessman with decades of experience and proven negotiating skills.
"while Clinton is a practised diplomat"
Practiced at selling the American people out and doing deals with America's enemies, to enrich her and her husband.
"What people here need to remember is that Republicanism represents Capital Investment"
Not under Trump, who is not a standard brand Republican. That label would however apply to Hillary, who is the puppet of powerful corporate interests.
Your understanding of what the two candidates are actually proposing and standing for is badly misinformed Ron.
I get the sense that some here are basing their understanding of this election on previous US elections, in which the Republicans generally advocated "trickle down" economics and global free trade while the Democrats advocated government investment and trade restrictions.
But in this election, the situation is reversed. That is why in part the Republican establishment was so opposed to Trump and tried to derail his candidacy. He is not the usual Republican candidate. And that is why Bernie Sanders supporters, the Democratic parties grass-roots, were so opposed to Hillary.
Hillary is the advocate for unrestrained global capitalism. Trump is an economic nationalist advocating protecting American jobs and American workers through tariffs and other measures.
Kiwis who get their "information" from the mainstream media and the six o-clock "news" do not understand this.
Anyone concerned with job security and investment in jobs for Americans should be supporting Trump.
Anyway, none of this is getting my packing done, and we are moving this week, so I'm taking another week off of all social media.
God bless all.
Have a good move Shaun. Don't forget to pack plenty of tissues for the news of the Democratic Success - here, on Thursday morning!
(Now, if that doesn't get Shaun out of Purdah, nothing will!)
Andrei: There is nothing wrong with being a friend of Russia, but in this election, as you well know, being friends with Russia has a certain Je ne sais quoit to it, and I thought I would redress the balance!
Ron: one does not need to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I have an American friend who has voted for the Libertarian candidate.
Also Ron: we should all be weeping into our tissues, whatever the result. I am very worried about the outcome of this election!
Shawn is correct: Trump is NOT a standard issue Republican, having spent most of his life as a New York Democrat and Independent. On the issues he looks a lot closer to what is called in the UK 'Old Labour': protectionist and anti-globalist; whereas Clinton is very much a globalist neoliberal who wants open borders and unrestricted trade. (As for being a 'practised diplomat', she has certainly 'negotiated' many millions for her Potemkin "Foundation" out of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs for "speeches").
As Ron is also admonishing people on some other question, 'Don't be binary in your thinking.'
Or as the great logician George Lucas said, 'Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.' I think this is absolutely true.
" but in this election, as you well know, being friends with Russia has a certain Je ne sais quoit to it"
I know that Peter but it is the height of irresponsibility on the part of politicians to use any group of people as a scapegoat to advance their cause or to whitewash their problems.
I resent, actually am angered that hundreds millions of people are treated as pawns in the games of the rich and powerful.
The elites and "educated" middle classes of the Western World are actually represented by people like Max Key - spoiled brats who cannot conceive that there are other people in this world who do not share their values (actually lack of values and worship of materialism) and look down their noses at other people.
The sneering at normal people infests political reporting - I gave up on voting a few elections ago - Parliament does not represent me, my values or beliefs so why give them my mandate
And do you know what I think - throughout the Western world more people think like me than the toffee nosed politicians and political reporters
This is what Donald Trump has tapped into, perhaps inadvertently though now I'm sure he has picked up on it
And this is why he may well win - perhaps in a landslide
Another thing that I think and that is there maybe a lesson for this in for the Anglican Church of Aotearoa to digest - because it too seems to be out of touch with the hoi polloi
Let hearts rejoice that love the Lord!. The latest US Pol;l results:
http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgqgFbhj9o8UgeIsAPFzwDy4Uc5TVV+KVye0ahT6fGO/iXfvZlQaS5DMUvIrpEHkw29TW9LWWdpao19y6jioMPHRqAhCi6s3CfIUEPGADHX3o7qDeq/4IgFcfM2jG9cAuv2dU1AOBwVxc=&campaign_id=129&instance_id=85819&segment_id=97708&user_id=fb50a598745e446321eb28e00e816661®i_id=69646924
"Another thing that I think and that is there maybe a lesson for this in for the Anglican Church of Aotearoa to digest - because it too seems to be out of touch with the hoi polloi" - Andrei -
Not entirely true, Andrei. ACANZP still has Motion 30 on the Books. Watch out for our General Synod 2018. We ARE, in fact, in touch with 'hoi polloi'.
"Not entirely true, Andrei. ACANZP still has Motion 30 on the Books. Watch out for our General Synod 2018. We ARE, in fact, in touch with 'hoi polloi'."
QED my point proved!
What do you think my kids think about "Motion 30"? - sledgehammer clue they wouldn't even know what it is or care less and that goes for just about everyone I know -
It is a classic example of upper middle class twittery - completely irrelevant to the swingers of 16lb sledges and the diggers of drains who don't have the luxury of sitting round sipping tea and munching on gingernuts while formulating post modernistic dribble in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable and reconcile the unreconcilable.
And all the while while you have been distracted by this tomfoolery the Middle East and North Africa have been set on fire, as has the Donbass, leaving millions dead and millions more displaced
And one the the architects of this humanitarian Catastrophe is Hillary Rodham Clinton
Of interest to the main topic of this post perhaps
The campaign season now ending has revealed or confirmed several noteworthy things. Here's ten.
(1) By the standard of past GOP platforms, the vast Republican base is surprisingly heterodox-- they mostly do like God and guns, yes, but no, they do not mind the welfare state, care about the Federal deficit, worry that hedge fund managers may lose the interest carry-over, expect their candidates to be exemplars of faith and morals, or believe in free trade and neocon diplomacy.
(2) The long and costly campaign has made no measurable difference in the opinions of voters. The electorate's marginal preference for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in November 2016 is about the same as it was in December 2015. In panel polls with individual level data, all but a very few voters decided for one or the other very early and never thereafter considered changing their minds.
(3) Therefore, this was yet another *turnout election*. That is, each candidate campaigned, not to win over undecided voters-- there were none-- but to get known supporters to cast ballots and to get the other candidate's supporters to stay home. Because of the stability of partisan preferences, the outcomes of such turnout elections of Presidents are fairly easy to predict.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/#more-18522
(4) Some fabled constituencies apparently do not exist. A generation after Jack Kemp, there is still almost no constituency in the professional Republican Party that supports the economic populism that Donald Trump advocated in his campaign. Nor, despite the early media fascination with Rand Paul, have Republicans unhappy with Donald Trump flocked to the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
(5) Populist voters are hard to unify. Those with similar backgrounds and similar anger about similar causes (eg the Trans Pacific Partnership) are nevertheless divided, apparently by education, into Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump factions that detest each other. Yet both Sanders and Trump have probably left legacies of populist supporters lured into politics by the excitement they generated. Watch that space.
(6) Clinton needed Trump. By energizing the large and strategically important Latino and Asian constituencies and driving them straight to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has helped her to survive her surprisingly weak support among women and blacks. Can she win re-election without him?
(7) The winner of the Clinton-Trump contest was John Maynard Keynes. Both candidates have supported infrastructure spending as an economic stimulus.
(8) That said, to reduce economic inequality Clinton's economic advisors want her to propose *predistribution* interventions that have never before been floated in Washington. Some members of the next Congress will represent places where Trump's support has exceeded that of Romney and Bush. How will they vote? And will they explain their votes to those with torches and pitchforks (see #10)?
(9) Yes, the system is rigged. Nationwide, most voters will have voted by a substantial margin on Tuesday for a Democratic House. However, they will probably still wake up on Wednesday morning having in fact elected a Republican House. Even if they don't, the Democratic margin in the House will not be proportional to the Democratic margin in the vote itself.
(10) As the 2018 election cycle begins on Wednesday, rival factions in both parties will begin recruiting candidates able to survive and thrive in the polarised local electorates revealed by the voting of 2016. Midterm primaries could be unusually contentious in both parties.
Bowman Walton
All the same to the Babushkas, Andrei! They put their faith in Putin, their Strong Man, not necessarily in the God of their ancestors.
BTW, my response was entirely to your taunt about ACANZP, which also had nix to do with the topic on this thread.
Watch and learn Hillary fans, this was her rally the other day
BUT, this is TODAY, Andrei - where El Trumpo didn't even have 1 friend's support.
I agree Peter, the outcome of this election is indeed a concern. One truly has to wonder how either Trump or Hilary made it to be the candidates of major parties. I
I am just re-listening to Shane Caibornes "Jesus for President" it is worth a read/listen. God Save America!
"throughout the Western world more people think like me than the toffee nosed politicians and political reporters
This is what Donald Trump has tapped into, perhaps inadvertently though now I'm sure he has picked up on it
And this is why he may well win - perhaps in a landslide"
It is amazing to watch the pundits look of disbelief on their faces when faced with the reality of this result
And yet I'm not surprised at all
A Presidential Pardon for Mrs Clinton would be a kind act on Jan 20, 2017.
I asgree with Donjald Trump. The Elction may just have been rigged!
Well you U.S. voters. You only have yourselves to blame.
..... and that's PRESIDENT El Trumpo to you. He didn't spend four years in Evil Business School to be plain ol' Mr El Trumpo. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U
THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED - 09 November, 2016 in the U.S.A.
"Have a good move Shaun. Don't forget to pack plenty of tissues for the news of the Democratic Success - here, on Thursday morning!
(Now, if that doesn't get Shaun out of Purdah, nothing will!)"
- Shawn, a man in Christchurch needs your spare pack of tissues.
Presidency: R
Senate: R
House of Representatives: R
Governorships: R gains
New York State Senate: R gain
Ah, never mind. Have a glass of Chardonfreude and watch 'The Princess Bride': 'You keep using that word "Success". I do not think it means what you think it means."
Post a Comment