Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Donald Trump thread

stewgreen on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:26 PM
"Dramaqueening"

I thought so too.

Jun 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Alan Kendall on Jun 4, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Political mud - like losing an ambassador?

This is a discussion group, not a court of law. I didn't demand anything. I am just discussing the poor judgement of those who question Trump's character, using information out in the public domain.

As far as her health goes, people have been worried about her heath enough to write a book. There are also reports that she has also been battling bouts of insomnia, reported by a friend to have been exhausted and depressed, suffered from a life-threatening blood clot on her brain that left her “constantly worried” she would develop another one.

"Dr. Lisa Bardack of Mount Kisco, NY, outlined Clinton’s medical history, which included her treatment for a brain concussion, an analysis of blood clots affecting her legs and brain on separate occasions, an underactive thyroid gland examination, and a complete family history of heart disease.
...
But Klein says the former first lady is keeping her medical ailments under wraps."
NY Post: Hillary is dealing with mounting health issues, new book claims

Here is another readily available view:
"I don’t believe Secretary Clinton’s increased risks are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly something to ponder."
Kevin MD: Should we be concerned about Hillary Clinton’s health?

And ponder, I have.

Jun 4, 2016 at 2:23 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

RC. O.K. At last you provide some "evidence" that I requested, not demanded. Thank you.

So you are in agreement with Stewgreen (who offers such insightful and considered commentaries on those he disagrees with, full of hitherto unexpected nuances). Quelle suprise!

Jun 4, 2016 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I do wonder how Dr Lisa Bardack of Mount Kisco, NY was able to outline such intimate details of Hillary Clinton's medical history. Is the not so good doctor not subject to patient-doctor privalege, or has she obtained such information from another doctor who was subject to the same restrictions? Interesting it's coming out now. Trump's supporters must be really worried to be using such material.

I wonder what Reagan's medical record would have shown, especially before his second term? Interesting that a scurrilous puppet show got that prediction right.

Jun 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

RC. You blame Hillary Clinton for "losing an ambassador" What then is your considered opinion of past Secretaries of State who were responsible for putting hundreds of US Marines in harm's way in Beirut, dozens more in Mogadishu, and last, but by no means least, the unmitigated cock up that occurred after the 2nd Iraqi War, with deaths in the hundreds, if not the thousands? On a scale of 1 to 10, how do they compare?

Jun 4, 2016 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall on Jun 4, 2016 at 3:46 PM

I was surprisingly easy to get this evidence: I googled 'hillary clinton poor health', and there is was, right front of me.

I don't think Hillary should take the whole blame, she is just part of the (bipartisan) Establishment, though I think she was involved and there is a general agreement that she hasn't explained what happened very well. I don't think any of the past Secretaries of State are in the frame for being a nomination for the POTUS, so they really don't come into the frame.

I was interested in Scott Adam's observations because he foresaw Trump's rise and has since presented a coherent hypothesis as to what was happening 'over there' using information in the public domain. What is fascinating is that he is managing to explain Trump's behaviour, and his (current) success, yet he is remaining detached, but interested: a disinterested observer, but then, that is his full time hobby, no doubt.

Jun 4, 2016 at 4:40 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

RC. Thanks for a civilized response.

1. I do wonder whether you posted on Adams first, then googled later. Personally I find this whole business of politicization of any of Hillary's heath issues rather nauseating.

2. The fact that many previous Secretaries of State did not pursue higher office is because, in my opinion, they either didn't want to or knew that their poor record precluded them. Hillary has already shown she is different by almost gaining the nomination.

3. It will indeed be interesting to see how predictions by Adams turn out. Do you know how good they were before Obama's two successful elections? If he was inaccurate then.......

Jun 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall on Jun 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM

1. I already knew about many of the questions that have been raised, and for sometime, and I googled because I hadn't committed all the URLs to memory at the time and looked for the best links. :)

2. I don't understand the logic of your statement. She has been swept along by the party machine like many other established politicians in the past, with past mistakes swept under the carpet. She has the problem of being associated with the current administration and there being a groundswell of wanting change: blue collar workers haven't had much good news since 2008 and ObamaCare isn't working out quite as promised. I do find it strange that she has continued beating a path to the White House with so much hanging over her head, for so long, just hoping it will go away. May be it will, miraculously!

3. No. I didn't even know about his prediction of Trump's rise until very recently. Adam's cartoons show he has a good understanding of human nature, but explaining the behaviour of political players has been a new chapter for him as far as I know. What was news was that he was the only one to predict Trump's rise, not that he had another success to add to all the others. The other point is that he backed it up with an explanation, though it is an explanation of why Trump has been successful, not about Trump himself.

Jun 4, 2016 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Hillary's past, catching up with her:
EXCLUSIVE: General Jerry Boykin on Hillary Exposing Intelligence Sources: ‘Lives Have Been Endangered…Punishable By Jail Time’

... which leads to the inevitable:
Trump: Pick Clinton and ‘This Country Is Gonna Die’ – POLITICO

The DNC (Democratic National Committee) should have sorted this out ages ago: maybe that was not an option. So, either it's a problem, or the party leadership are not leaders. Either way, for the Democratic Party, struggle isn't the word!

Jun 5, 2016 at 10:50 AM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert Christopher, do either the Democrat or Republican parties have the power to 'sort out' any issues with potential Presidents? Some Republicans are quoted as saying they won't endorse Trump, but will they direct their supporters to vote for Clinton?

UK Politicians are no more clean when it comes to fighting dirty. The Tories have no need to undermine Corbyn, and elements within the Tory Party are undermining Cameron. The battles in UK politics to determine who will lead the Parties into the next election should be resolved before the Americans elect a new President..

Jun 5, 2016 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie on Jun 5, 2016 at 4:15 PM
"... do either the Democrat or Republican parties have the power to 'sort out' any issues with potential Presidents?"

It should be about the policies, and then who is the best candidate to lead the party for those policies to be carried out, for the benefit of all citizens of the country concerned. But, as there appears to be little agreement on the policies nor, it seems, even who the 'citizens of the country concerned' are, no wonder it look a little chaotic from over 3000 miles away.

With Clinton getting enough superdelegates in her corner to win the nomination, it looks like a Trump v. Clinton fight. However, with so many Republicans opting for the RINO agenda, which is so similar to Democratic norms, it is like having a proxy war, with each party having competing sides, where some actually agree with each other!

At least we have another five months (and a day) for 'developments', and it's over 3000 miles away !

Jun 7, 2016 at 12:06 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

In the USA, the person bringing in the most money is normally the preferred candidate, for both Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans have had some time to rally behind their candidate, whilst the Democrats are trying not to appear too split.

Trump seems to have been happier taking pot shots at Clinton, suggesting he sees her as the likely opponent.

The real dirty mud slinging hasn't even started yet.

Jun 7, 2016 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So with nominees virtually identified, what are peoples' opinions on running mates?

Jun 7, 2016 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall
They both need someone the American population likes, whether they choose one is another question. It's a bit like me, as a UK voter, having to choose between Farrage and Corbyn.

Jun 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Re Scott Adams, there's a good June 5 post from him where he publicly endorses Clinton and explains why.

Jun 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

I suggest people read the cirst comment after the June 5th Adams endorsement.

What a sad indictment of Americann politics that a commentator like Adams, even if in jest, can speak of endorsing one presidential candidate because of fears of being killed by the other candidate's supporters. No evidence for this fear is given.

A very odd piece when you realize that most political assassination attempts have been conducted by right wing nut-jobs on both Democrate and Republican figures, and not from the "left".

Jun 8, 2016 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Given that a substantial number of Bernie Sanders supporters indicate they would rather vote for Trump rather than Hillary, then the selection of his running mate is a no-brainer if he wants to win at a canter.

Jun 8, 2016 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

It helps people if you give the quote

"So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president."
......................
" And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).

If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader.(sad they really can't see a difference between Hitler and Trump)

As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.

His logic has lead people to thinking that better have as a pres the genius Trump than the Chump that is Clinton.

Jun 8, 2016 at 10:53 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

actually is does seem he is backhanding criticism at Hillary blaming her for inciting
"If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing"

The subtext is that anyone who'll stoop that low, isn't fit to be president.

Yes says the top comment
"is this some kind of DoubleSpeak 3d thingamabob and Scott just endorsed Trump?"

"Scott Adams just endorsed Trump in the way most damaging to Hillary's campaign while going on the record as doing the exact opposite."

Jun 8, 2016 at 11:01 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

So with nominees virtually identified, what are peoples' opinions on running mates?

Jun 7, 2016 at 2:53 PM | Alan Kendall

I am not sure that running ability has been the main attraction of previous Presidential mates.

Jun 8, 2016 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf Charlie. au contraire I believe Mrs Obama is quite athletic. I don't know about earlier ones. For the future, Trump's Mrs might win a few trophies, but poor ol'Bill probably spent his energies elsewhere and is all shagged out.

Jun 8, 2016 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Mrs Clinton might want to make sure someone in the White House can be trusted to get dresses dry cleaned, urgently if necessary.

Mrs Trump may already know of some rug restorers.

Since Jackie's refurbishment under JFK, the White House has seen some some tasteful and tasteless internal redecorating, by recumbent incumbents

Jun 8, 2016 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Interesting article on Donald Trump's level of intelligence.

One of the lines from it that resonates for me: One of the traits that makes Donald so popular with voters is that he is “real.”

Jun 10, 2016 at 1:27 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Interesting, really? What is more interesting to me is how and intelligent person like you supports Trump. The article is just psycho-analytical nonsense from someone who may not even have met Trump. Intelligence doesn't need introducing - if you have to tell people you are smart, you probably aren't.

Jun 11, 2016 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff on Jun 11, 2016 at 2:50 PM
"What is more interesting to me is how and intelligent person like you supports Trump."

Supporting Trump can only be done with any effect by voting for him, and I don't think many posting here can do that.

What we can see is that he is popular with a big section of voters 'over there', mainly those who work hard, stand on their own feet, look after their own children and support their community and don't believe in the money tree, yet they see thousands of recipients, alien to them in every way, being given welfare, housing and comforts in general who are then violent towards the hands that feed them.

They have seen their two leading political parties following the same agenda, ignoring the people they are supposed to represent, and it has led to them experiencing no financial improvement since 2008. No wonder they are attracted to the first person who has managed to break out of this rut, with Trump's victory over the liberal media one of his significant successes. It is pointless supporting a 'conforming person' who has been vanquished, suffocated and exhausted, by battling against the Establishment.

It is not so dissimilar from the situation in Europe, with the leading players members from the same like minded class implementing similar policies that ignore voters concerns. In fact, many can also see a similar situation happening in Britain. Our low wages remain low and we have towns flooded and local libraries closing while we send billions (of £) overseas, much to ungrateful recipients or wasted on politically correct projects!

Trump is fighting for the underdog. Quite weird for a multi-millionaire to do to the extent that Trump has, but then, we don't live in normal times.

Jun 11, 2016 at 6:12 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher