Well the third and final US Presidential debate is done and dusted and it turned out to be as depressing as the first two.
For a country that touts itself as a great democracy it beggars belief that, of a country of just shy of 319 million inhabitants, the race for President is between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Are there two really the two best candidates available? If they are it makes a depressing statement about the current state of the USA.
Feminists criticise her because she stood by philandering Bill, whist he had many affairs but they forget the Clinton’s marriage is not conventional and is one of mutual political expediency.
It also needs to be noted that Hillary herself is supposedly not that chaste and loyal, with reports of affairs with lovers of both sexes. Although I expect Hillary is astute enough to make sure any stained dresses of hers would, very quickly, be despatched to the cleaners to, as it were, get rid of any incriminating evidence.
What is in no doubt is Hillary has a poor awareness of data security following the scandal of storing sensitive e-mails on private servers. There are also lingering doubts about the financing of the Clinton Foundation.
Well where do we start with him?
Depending on your viewpoint he’s either a successful businessman or a weasel who (ab)uses the system for his own personal gain. It’s a moot point that filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, not once but four times, is the sign of either an incompetent businessman or someone who knows how to work the system to their own personal advantage. If the latter, the question needs to be asked, is that person suitable to lead a country like the USA.
Is he going to resolve the $19 trillion national debt by declaring the USA bankrupt and starting again?
We don’t even need to get started on his attitude to women or his stance on immigration. It’s interesting to note, however, he is now on his third wife and two of them are immigrants (one Czech and the current one Yugoslav, who didn’t become US citizen until 2006)
It’s interesting all three of his spouses are what men generally describe as being attractive women. I’m minded of the infamous BBC TV interview when the eponymous Mrs Merton asked Debbie McGee, “what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?” I’m sure in the case of Trump it’s his chiselled good looks, stunning personality and drop dead sexy haircut.
One thing for sure is he knows how to manipulate people and that is how he has obtained the bedrock of his support.
“It’s them against us” is a frequent mantra, although quite how he thinks he can relate to “normal” people is beyond me, most of those who most vocally support him are the very people he despises. How many of his supporters live in an ivory Trump tower.
It’s also interesting to note his “rigged election” outbursts are not exactly original. Although on a different scale he made similar accusations against the Emmy TV awards after his version of The Apprentice failed to win award despite being nominated eight times. Again he claimed it was a political decision. He also called Obama’s election in 2012 a fix as well.
The other irony of his outburst about the election being fixed is the last Republican President to come to power, George W Bush, only won his first term because his brother Jeb rigged the result in Florida in favour of his brother and that was enough to give George W victory under the electoral college system.
He certainly has the paranoia of a dictator.
Speaking of dictators this comparison is frequently cited where Trump is concerned, I’ll leave you to form your own conclusions.
Used racism to rise to power
Uses racism to rise to power
Proposed mass deportations
Proposes mass deportations
Promised to make Germany great again
Promises to make America great again
Blamed Jews for Germany’s problems
Blames immigrants (and Hillary Clinton) for America’s problems
Though Jews should have special ID’s
Thinks Muslims should have special ID’s
Now some will say these are unfair comparisons and, so far, with Trump it has all been bluster and talk. It’s an oft used phrase but the expression “ignore history at your peril” does spring to mind.
Part of the appeal of Trump is he is non-establishment and, around the world, conventional politics has fallen into disrepute.
Politicians bemoan this, forgetting they are themselves responsible for their own situation. Very few politicians enter politics for the right reasons – to better society. In the UK the number of what I call genuine conviction politicians in Parliament can be counted on the fingers of two hands. The lower down the political food chain you go the worse it is, with local councillors being the worse of all. The number of local councillors I respect can be counted on one hand, with some fingers spare. There are certainly none in my local area.
Here in the UK the MP’s expenses scandal was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, made worse by the mealy-mouthed response to the scandal. It epitomised all that is wrong with politics – the snout in the trough mentality of politicians.
Also prevalent is the arrogance of politicians as illustrated by the MP’s who steadfastly want to ignore the result of the EU referendum and are doing all they can to scupper Brexit.
However, in the UK we cannot criticise our cousins across the pond that much, the choices here are not that much better.
On the one hand, we have Theresa May who must have a backside full of splinters from sitting on the fence during the referendum, another politician, like Hillary, who puts her own career first. Although it must be said she does it in a subtler manner than Clinton but as they say, beware the silent assassin. She is one of the modern breed of what I call flexible politicians. One of those who sees which way the wind is blowing before making a decision and if she is unsure she’ll cover both options. Something she does well, unlike Boris Johnson, whose approach to covering both options totally scuppered his plans, well in the short term anyway.
May is one of the new breed of “Conservative” leaders who is anything but Conservative, she is almost Social Democrat in outlook.
He reminds me of the idealistic socialist students found at most University campuses. You know the ones; they have fundamental Socialist views of how the world should exist. Eliminating poverty, everyone living peacefully and happily ever after. It’s a lovely dream and one any right-minded person would aspire to.
However, it is an aspiration that flies in the face of reality. Total equality cannot happen. There needs to be leadership, otherwise you have anarchy and as soon as you have leadership you have inequality.
Most of these socialist ideologists, when they mature and join the real world, realise the futility of their ideology - others, like Corbyn, Dennis Skinner and their ilk never mature and still hold on to these unrealistic ideologies.
Like Trump, Corbyn is on wife number three and, also like Trump, two of his wives are “imports.” It’s interesting to note and probably to his credit, his second marriage ended because his wife wanted their son to go to Grammar school and he objected – nothing like putting political principles above a relationship, something in common with Hillary here. In stark contrast to his shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbot, one of the large group of firebrand socialists who suddenly forget their beliefs when it comes to educating their children.
Raised in a seven-bedroom manor house, currently living in a £600,000 Islington property, with a salary of £138,000 a year and a pension pot said to be worth £1.6m, Corbyn is clearly a man who can relate to the so called “working classes” he espouses to support.
Note I said “so called” working classes – this class distinction is something I really hate and abhor and it is so outdated with no place in the 21st century. Indeed it is a system which is reinforced by the socialist political parties as it is their raison d’etre it justifies their existence, without the class system their reason for existing disappears overnight.
The class system is outmoded and is used to hold people back. It is instilled into so called working class people that they are downtrodden and will never succeed. That is complete and utter bollocks. I come from what, by any definition, would have been a working-class background yet I have succeeded in life. I have had a good career, I’m comfortably well off. I got off my backside and made something of my life. There is absolutely nothing to stop others from so called working class backgrounds from doing the same.
However, it’s with amusement I note the class distinctions are still bandied about by those brainwashed by Labour and their ilk.
If ever there was an opportunist politician it is she – a one trick pony, obsessed with destroying the country she professes to care about by continually banging on about independence for Scotland. Another sore loser of a politician who cannot accept a referendum result, who will grasp at any straw, no matter how absurd, to achieve what she wants.
Just ignoring the fact the Independents are clinging onto some romantic mediaeval, romantic Braveheart ideological dream the sheer absurdity of her argument seems to by-pass her and her colleagues.
Let’s look at the basics of the SNP arguments. The underlying precept is they want Scotland to be an independent nation released from the shackles of rule from London and to scrap the Act Of Union.
Fair enough but in a recent referendum this was rejected by the people of Scotland, that should be the end of it. But oh no, they are using Brexit as an excuse for a second referendum saying Scotland wants to be part of Europe.
Therein lies the irony.
On the one hand, she does not want Scotland being dictated to by London. Yet she wants an independent Scotland to become a member of the European Union.
IF Scotland became
independent from the UK (and to be totally
honest I don’t give a flying fig if they remain
or stay. Although I would like them to remain I
must confess I would take a perverse delight
watching an independent Scotland floundering as
an independent nation and would enjoy telling
the Nationalists “I told you so.”) then they
would have to apply to join the EU as an
Secondly, countries like Spain and France
who have their own independence issues would
probably veto Scotland's accession. Spain
agreeing to Scotland joining would create
problems with the Catalans.
Secondly, countries like Spain and France who have their own independence issues would probably veto Scotland's accession. Spain agreeing to Scotland joining would create problems with the Catalans.
This would cause some problems for our Nicola. Firstly under the Lisbon Treaty they would be considered as new members and not a continuation of the UK membership (although that point will be academic once Article 50 is invoked) as such their membership would be conditional upon, amongst other things, adopting the Euro as their currency – thus passing fiscal control from London to Brussels, where they would have a voice of theoretically 1/28th of the total, far less influence than they would have now.
So, Nicola and her chums don’t want the nasty English telling them how to live their lives but are happy for the rest of Europe to tell them how to live their lives. Total idiocy but to be expected from her and her party.
The final irony is despite their faux resentment at supposed Westminster “interference” in their affairs they are quite happy to do the opposite. A good recent example being the review of Sunday trading hours in England and Wales which they voted against, out of spite, even though it had nothing to do with Scottish affairs.
What puzzles me is why this odious woman garners so much UK wide publicity in the news media. At the end of the day she is just a glorified local council leader, albeit a relatively large local council. The potential electorate for Scotland is 4,099,532 whereas the electorate for Mayor of London is 5,842,896 making the Mayor of London significantly more important than Sturgeon and undoubtedly leader of a much more important demographic, yet he gets nothing like the national coverage.