22 April, 2019

Blog

Appraising Hilary Without Prejudice

By Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Hilary Clinton is well-organised and committed on issues: Appraising Hilary without prejudice

Even the pro-Hilary media says she is likely to win only because her opponent is so lousy. A common jibe is that this election is between two unpopular personalities whose approval ratings are as low as 30% apiece. As a report of what people say this is true, as an appraisal of Hilary Clinton it is unfair and incorrect. Donald Trump is indeed an uncouth rat; unfit to be allowed near the Oval Office or the nuclear button, but this piece is not about this lewd jester. My focus is on Hilary and refutation of the shabby treatment meted out to her, mainly by white less educated America.

Hilary’s sterling moment was in fact a defeat; defeat of universal healthcare that she tried to pilot through Congress in Bill Clinton’s first term. She fought to bring sensible healthcare to America, but was shot down in flames by insurance companies, the healthcare industry, big pharma and US medical practitioners who are no less greedy than Lanka’s GMOA. She was reviled, humiliated, insulted in Congress and media and vilified by the aforesaid powerful lobbies. Her proposal was scuttled and Obamacare is an unsatisfactory second option that she will have to revisit and fix during her first term. To achieve this however, victory at the Tuesday (8 Nov) election will have to be complemented by Democratic majorities in the Senate (possible) and the House of Representatives. The latter is difficult unless there is a Hilary landslide because, though the whole House is up for re-election, Republicans currently hold a large House majority.Hillary Clinton Best Photo

Hilary is no angel and this raises a parallel with my gambit in the January 2015 presidential election in Lanka. I did create the Single Issue Common Candidate strategy and employed many column inches of this valuable newspaper campaigning till the penny dropped. I had no idea who the candidate would be, a matter decided by the political powers of the day, but I do not minimise my answerability. The question is this: To what extend should I, along with others who latched on to the idea, be held responsible for the performance (good or bad) of this regime? Moral accountability in this instance pans out like this; defeating Rajapaksa was primary and had Sirisena turned out even inferior to what he is, prioritizing a Rajapaksa defeat was and remains the indisputably correct stance.

Next, having promoted this regime is one obliged to support it indefinitely? No, there is no time unlimited obligation. In the initial period one must support one’s creation and accept a degree of responsibility. I have extended critical support to the R&S outfit so far, but this is now wearing thin. Sirisena’s shenanigans (the Rs 200 billion Sampoor fiasco, sweeping the First-Son’s thuggery under the carpet, interfering with independent commissions and misdirecting the police) are cause for concern. Ranil’s prevarications on committing to a firm dirigisme economic policy evoke worry. However, let’s wait for the constitution before settling final accounts. These two paras, I trust, will put my personal accountability in context.

Hilary and the white working class

Hilary is said to be ‘less worse’ than Trump. I contest this damning with faint praises. The sociology is more complex. Traditional ‘old-industry’ white workers secreted in pockets in the rust-belt states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia and Georgia are fretful and gloomy; their world is in decay. Mines have closed, factories lie silent in industrial wastelands, the future looks hopeless. Workers who once were proud bearers of America’s industrial might are orphaned by the erosion of American capitalism. Trump’s eruptions are an outlet for despair and frustration; the more absurd and outrageous his bile the truer it resonates in their bitter gut. It is no wonder that 70% of white working class men and 62% of women abhor Hilary.

The drift of the white working class to right-wing extremism and racism is not confined to America. It is an emerging phenomenon in Britain, France, Austria, Denmark, Holland and most of Eastern Europe. Modernisation undermines the material basis of old working class family livelihood; Asia’s economic march is unstoppable; emigration of browns, blacks and Muslims is frightening.

The traditional white working class is only 20% of America’s population. In Europe and the US the new working class, which fondly thinks itself a middle-class, in trade, services, technology, digital activities, and clerical and key-board labour, numbers 50 to 70%. Little of this new working class is with Trump. The better-off middle classes and the bourgeoisie too have thrown in their lot with Hilary; Trump’s unruly rowdiness terrifies them. Is it surprising then that despite near total rejection by white workers, bookies give Hilary 3:1 odds of winning? Purveyors of gambling must know where their dollars lie.

Indisputably the root cause of the downfall of the traditional left (LSSP and CP) in Lanka was degeneration of the Sinhalese working class into racism. The sociological basics were familial and demographic merger of the working class with the rural and semi-urban petty-bourgeois, and secondly isolation of the Tamil working class in plantations instead of blending in industry. Once the rot set in, the underpinning for left ideology disappeared clearing the way for the upsurge of chauvinism. The JVP took the place of the old-left but its racist tinged propaganda in its early years verifies my thesis. During the civil-war, workers were as rabidly racist as the worst dregs of urban and semi-urban petty-bourgeois and intellectually inane, high-society, Colombo drawing rooms.

Hilary Clinton and the labours of Sisyphus

Predictwise.com calculates with 90+% certainty that Hilary will win 22 states plus DC (273 electoral votes) and in 22 other states (180 votes) predicts that her chances as less than 10%. In six toss-ups (85 votes) her probability varies from 25% to 77%. [The magic number is 270; five days is a long time in politics and odds are slowly drifting in Trumps favour]. Prosperous and tech-savvy California, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Michigan are Hilary’s; Trump gets most of the dregs. Identity of a political divide, with a modern versus atrophied social divide, has profound consequences if the economic crisis deepens.

Mainstream media, baffled by the intensity of Hilary hatred, contends that many males are hostile to a woman as president. The US presidency is the ultimate glass ceiling and to expect cruder white males, having put up with a black man in the White House for eight years, to now stomach a woman is too much. I do not know if the charge is fair but it is being repeated not only by women. For sure Obama is hated because he is a black and an intellectual to boot, which together engender a sense of inferiority among less educated whites.

Hilary has a feminist past dating back to the 1960s and once upon a time she was radical. She is a fighter who picks herself up again and again after being knocked down; the record shows she is no wilting violet. She is no orator and lacks Obama’s magical skill with words, nor does she project warmth and charisma and instead comes across as a well organised doer. But for heaven’s sake, what does a country need, a president who can govern or a prima donna on a floorshow?

The frenzy of the white working class is mirrored in the muted anger of some sections of the electorate. The complaint “Washington does not care, the establishment is corrupt, we have been left to wither” finds resonance. Add America’s hard-boiled reactionaries, religious conservatives, nativists and racists and you have the formula that assures Trump a minimum 40% of the popular vote. Hilary’s Achilles’ heel, which in a worst case may be fatal, is that she is an insider who has been around the Washington circuit for 40 years; the quintessential establishment candidate.

Still the truth is not the undeniable negligence of the Washington elite, it is that global and US capitalism is in the throes of an insoluble systemic crisis. Putting mad monk Rasputin, slayer-caliph al-Baghdadi, disoriented Idi Amin or a like figure in the Oval Office will make bedlam worse. The US voter is out of his/her depth at mention of ‘capitalism’. The overflow of this ignorance is that Hilary Clinton will lose lots of votes on the count of being “establishment”.

The other downside that will cost her votes is the e-mail scandal and suspicion that she used her position as Secretary of State to raise funds for the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation is a charity of sterling quality and the world’s biggest donor of anti-HIV retroviral drugs to reverse the harm done by Thambo Mbeki’s lunacy. But this will not count as excuse enough in the minds of voters in the throes of this vicious election campaign. In any case Hilary is guilty of stupidity if not misdemeanour. Not since the days of Edgar Hoover has the FBI blatantly interfered in politics. Ten days before D-day it manufactured innuendoes that Hilary may be liable for ‘something’ but it’s not sure what! Amazing! Democratic Party leaders allege that FBI Director James Comey has acted illegally. Damage has been done to Democrats in Congressional races. A probe of Comey’s bank accounts is in order.

The charge that Hilary was paid tens of thousands to make speeches to big firms is facetious. So what if they were willing to pay? More seriously, will she, as president, lean towards Wall Street and the healthcare moguls? The later I rule out, but the former is possible.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    0

    All the key reasons against HS have been given in the run-up to the nominations; and this is not the place to regurgitate all of that.
    Sanders was cheated of the nomination by the Democratic Party establishment.
    The result: the US chooses between one rotten candidate and another rotten candidate.

    Does the following ‘punchline’ sum up the political moral values that Prof. AKD upholds?
    “The charge that Hilary was paid tens of thousands to make speeches to big firms is facetious. So what if they were willing to pay?”

    “So what if they were willing to pay?”
    What a fantastic defence that every politician that robs a country blind can use!

    • 0
      0

      Sekara, AKD,

      You may want to read The Atlantic online version by going via google ( CT doesn’t like us to give links here). It has high quality journalism. There is a Conservative case for Mrs. Clinton by David Frum, one time speech writer for Bush, as well as an article by a Nigerian American author, Chimamanda Adichie, on why Mrs. Clinton’s fans love her. (Just google “Chimamanda Adichie The Atlantic”).

      • 1
        0

        Agnos
        Thanks.
        But I am least interested in the debate about the choice of candidates.
        A system which is designed to limit choice between two bad candidates (who only serve the interests of the powerful and the wealthy) has on offer the worst possible choice.

        My comment was only on the kind of moral standards applied by the author– I expected better from one, whom I knew for long as a committed socialist.

      • 0
        0

        Agnos
        I am thoroughly unimpressed by the two candidates; and I do not believe in “the better of the two evils” approach.
        Why people prefer bad to good (as in Democratic nominations) or choose between two bads (as in the Presidential election) is beyond me.
        People pay heavy prices for bad choices; unfortunately it is not only those in the USA.
        My only concern in this matter was the kind of moral stand taken by the writer on the unethical conduct of his favourite candidate.

        As for individual preferences for candidates, I do not wish to enter into a debate, as an electoral system which is poor choices is offering the poorest imaginable in recent history.

        • 0
          0

          Ok, but I don’t believe in waiting for some revolutiob thT may never. Politics and elections are essentially about choosing the lesser of two evils.
          It is why Bernie Sanders supports Hillary.

          • 0
            0

            Sorry for the typos from my smart phone. The first line should read:
            “…some revolution that may never happen.”

        • 0
          0

          I am not waiting either, but my attitude is that if I have to choose between two rotten menus, I would rather starve.

          People have boycotted elections with effect. or cast a protest vote in some way. That is a democratic option.

          In my view there is really no so-called lesser evil. Besides, in this context, there are still too many unknown evil aspects to both candidates.

  • 0
    0

    Dr. David,

    A few points:
    1. Where are the copy editors? Mrs. Clinton has always spelled her name Hillary, not Hilary.
    2. Partly because of her husband’s past womanizing and how his opponents were looking for dirt everywhere, Hillary became more guarded and less forthcoming; it became such a habit that often it has been the cause of far more problems for her, as in the email issue.
    3. Hillary’s preparation and competence are well-known. In the early 1990’s when she was the first lady, she visited the university where I was a graduate student; she reportedly listened to the well-being of child-care workers there and invited some of them to the White House for further discussions about their welfare. And unlike others who give such invitations just to please the listeners but do not follow through, she did follow through. So, most people who know her even marginally have no doubt about her sincerity, competence and follow-through on issues.
    4. Saddled with large legal bills in the millions after fighting Republicans throughout the Bill Clinton presidency, she and her husband sought to earn a lot of money and some of the ways they did are indeed questionable and border on corruption. But that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that her legal bills were largely a result of incessant and unjustified Republican hounding of the Clintons, which she deemed as a ‘vast right wing conspiracy.’ By any sane measure, the faults of Trump are infinitely worse.
    5. The FBI’s James Comey himself is not overly partisan, but he is handling a crisis within the FBI, because the investigating agents, mostly middle-aged and aging white men who go into various forms of law enforcement, are pro-Trump, and want to bring out charges against Hillary on the email and the Clinton foundation issues, which prosecutors find weak and unconvincing. Comey’s last minute involvement should be seen in this context of internal pressures that he faced from his agents.
    6. Millions of people, including myself, have already voted for Clinton. And others are too committed to her to change, so the Comey announcement will only affect the undecided voters.

  • 2
    1

    If you are a serious writer, with politics running in your vein, you are not going to be neutral.

    The fact that Trump is the GOP nominee for President is a huge message. The message is that the voters are ‘angry’ with the establishment. They have remonstrated that in clear terms. Would that be good enough to make Trump triumph?

    The divide between the Republicans and the Democrats is as deep as the rift between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Tell me. How easy is that to patch!

    That makes two realities glaring. Those who hate Trump are not going to vote for Hillary. Those who dislike Hillary may vote for Trump. ( See Tamils voted for MY3 ). In the end they will be as frustrated as Tamils are.

    But, that cannot make Trump win or Hillary lose.

    The Republican establishment has extended only a lukewarm support for Trump. That is a big drag. At the same time, Republicans are ready for anyone but Hillary. Will the disgruntled Republicans opt to rally around Trump within the next 48 hours?

    Eight years ago I preferred Hillary to Obama. Even today, I feel that I was right, then. Today, Hillary carries more baggage than what she did eight years ago. Stupid Hillary!

    Would I want Hillary to lose. No. But, I want Trump to win. I want to see the mighty US running like a chicken without the head!

    (Sorry for being naughty!)

  • 2
    0

    Prof. Kumar David

    RE: Appraising Hilary Without Prejudice

    “The charge that Hilary was paid tens of thousands to make speeches to big firms is facetious. So what if they were willing to pay? More seriously, will she, as president, lean towards Wall Street and the healthcare moguls? The later I rule out, but the former is possible.”

    Hillary Clinton is the most qualified compared to Donald Triumph. The results of the three Presidential Debates showed that. America has a lot of red necks.

    Now in America the percentage of Red Necks, also know as Stupid Americans varies from 25% to 52%, depending on the on the measurement system one uses.

    So the maximum percentage of the votes Donald Trump will get is 44%.

    Reference:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/national-science-foundation-survey-2014-2

    Here’s The Basic Science Question That 1 In 4 Americans Got Wrong

  • 2
    0

    Aren’t we seeing an affront to the representative democracy now even in US? In Sri Lanka, the defeat of a regime was always due to the ire towards the current regime than due to any policy of the contender. Now that is caught up by US as well. On the other hand US is also catching up on vote rigging allegations, which was a phenomenon prevalent in our world. It’s time we think something else than the representative democracy. I bet US will soon consider free cars for elected representatives and even getting in defeated candidates to represent the people of US.

  • 2
    0

    KUMAR DAVID:

    Read below.

    what kind of value system you respect ?

    Wealthy officials from Qatar and Saudi Arabia who donated money to Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation also provided financial support to Isis, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has claimed.

    In an extended interview at the Ecuadorian embassy in London with documentary maker John Pilger for RT, Mr Assange said the same Saudi and Qatari officials could be seen to be supporting both the Clinton Foundation – founded by Mrs Clinton’s husband Bill – and funding the activities of Isis.

    Mr Assange believed that “this notorious jihadist group, called Isil or Isis, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation”

    • 1
      0

      jim softy

      “Mr Assange believed that “this notorious jihadist group, called Isil or Isis, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation”

      Those People are called Wahhabis, Salafis, and their clones who follow the Devil, Satan, Iblis as per Quranic Theology and Hadith, and they hail from the Satanic region of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, called the Najd Region, where Riyadh and Dariah are situated. They love destruction, death and killings as per Satan’s , Iblis, instructions.

      References:

      1.Hadith of Najd

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Najd

      2. Al Azhar Scholar: ‘Wahhabism/Salafism is a Satanic Faith, the Horns of Satan’

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOA3Ho9AUk

      3. Satan, Iblis, Devil in Islamic Theology.

      In islamic theology, Iblis is a Being created from fire who was allowed to mingle with Angels in the heavens until he rejected the command of God to bow before Adam. When God created Adam, the first human, He said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth.”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_(Islam)

  • 1
    0

    A fine essay Prof:David.You have analysed and summarized the issues at stake.

    Your line…..
    Donald Trump is indeed an uncouth rat; Unfit to be allowed near the Oval office or the Nuclear button…
    Very True; As a matter of habit he could Grope the button!

    The other penultimate line….
    A probe of Corneys bank accounts in order…
    Hilarys first Act,I hope,when elected will be this probe!

    • 0
      0

      “Hilarys first Act,I hope,when elected will be this probe!”

      Plato, I am not gambling man. Perhaps Prof. AKD will bet on it.

    • 1
      0

      Plato; It is not Trump who has Won, but the Weapons Manufacturers, who have been supporting his Campaign!

  • 4
    1

    With all due respects to Prof Kumar David, I have to point out one thing. Her Clinton foundation has been accepting donations from the Tigers and now from the Tiger left overs, who I believe even now have enough funds to buy Hillary outright. MR and his campaign against tiger terrorism suffered immeasurably because of this.

    MR probably is highly corrupt and a thug too, wantonly killing his critics like Lasantha. But being a thug had its advantages in that situation. If it was Ranil (the well behaved boy of the West) he would have licked the feet of the US administration and succumbed to their demands to stop fighting.

    MR came in at a crucial time in our history when such a person was badly needed. Sri Lanka is having peace thanks to MR, SF and of course all who participated in some way in the war. Let us not forget that before we start praising Hillary and condemning MR.

  • 0
    0

    Hillary Clinton (and Obama)
    a) Responsible for mayhem in Libya and Syria
    When Gaddafi was killed Hillary said we came. we saw and he died and then did a cackle laugh

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5

    Clinton corruption to long to list
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/hacked-podesta-email-reveals-clinton-foundation-coercing-saudi-billionaire-millions-

    Obama (the nobel peace prize) winner has been responsible for escalating wars (Bush’s) and killing people with drones.

  • 0
    0

    James Kallstrom, former head of the FBI’s New York office said of the couple’s ‘charitable’ Clinton Foundation: ‘It’s like organised crime, really. The foundation is a cesspool.’

    I put ‘charitable’ in inverted commas because only around 10 per cent of the money it receives ends up going to charity. The rest allows the Clintons and their cronies to live like the global super-rich.

    But what also emerged last night is that new emails link the Clinton Foundation’s ‘resources’ to Chelsea’s $3 million wedding.

    The FBI is under intense pressure to resolve the question of whether this ‘charitable’ organisation is, as their former New York bureau chief insists, a criminal enterprise.

    he Clintons are said to be running a cash-for-access scheme — what the Americans call ‘pay for play’ — like Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson’s Hinduja passports and Formula One scandals writ large. Hillary is accused of using her office at the State Department to peddle influence and fix lucrative contracts for Bill and his business associates.

    In exchange for vast sums of money — such as $12 million (£9.5 million) from Morocco and a $1million (£800,000) ‘birthday present’ to Bill from Qatar — donors were guaranteed a sympathetic ear from not just the Secretary of State but also the woman heavily tipped to be America’s next President.

    But outside of the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which first reported the ongoing FBI investigations into the Foundation, it has been largely ignored by the Clinton cheerleaders in the mainstream media.

    I’ve been covering U.S. elections for 25 years and have never seen such partisan Press and television coverage. We moan about the perceived liberal bias of the BBC, but in America most of the media outlets make Pravda look impartial.

    Yet even though Trump’s had his fair share of accusations of sexual abuse (the latest involving a former Playboy model), alongside that famously priapic predator Bill Clinton he looks like a paragon of chivalry.

    For all Hillary’s protests about Trump’s misogyny, she has been more than happy to help destroy all the women who claim to have been raped by, assaulted by, or had affairs with, her husband. So much for the sisterhood.

    For Hillary Rodham Clinton, however, there’s an awful lot riding on her becoming President. It may be the only way she stays out of jail.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3911516/Why-Hillary-Bill-Mafia-mobsters-politics-s-dodged-bullet-brilliant-dispatch-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-reveals-voters-revulsion-stench-corruption-won-t-away.html

    • 0
      0

      Kallstrom has financial support from Trump and is connected to Giuliani as well. So what else would he say?
      And Daily Mail of UK and Breitbart are your sources? How ignorant and nutty of you! Thanks for revealing that we have plenty of deplorables in Lanka.

  • 0
    0

    Mr. David,

    This is what I said on CT in Sept

    The African American vote is a captive vote for the Democrats; but because the total number of blacks who voted in the states that mattered was lower in number, Kerry lost Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and the Election! In the 2012 presidential election, 64% of non-Hispanic white eligible voters cast ballots, as did 67% of black eligible voters; in contrast , the turnout rate was only 48% among Hispanics. What matters is just not the margin but critically, the total number of voters of each demographic who show up to vote. Right now, the African American(black) voter enthusiasm level for the Democrat is definitely at a lower level than for it was for Obama. One main reason is was obviously “ one of ours/අපේ කෙනෙක්” and President Obama was a historic first; he created American history more than 140 years after the civil war ended. Educated millennial Black votes and suburban upper class socially liberal white voters around Philadelphia are critical in Pennsylvania for her to win. President Obama won Pennsylvania because of the massive turn out of urban black voters and also because it is a Northern state he won about 44% of the White vote. He also won about 41% of the white vote in another Northern union state :Ohio.

    Some analysts believe Clinton is not likely to get the same number of black votes as Obama did. Yet the Democrats have a better structured, data driven ground operation that Trump does to bring out the vote. What matters will be early voting trends and the ground game on November 8th in critical block by block campaigns in critical states. With Trump campaigning as the “Law and Order” candidate, the white voter turnout might be much higher than in the past 2 election cycles as well. There is a backlash against the Black Lives matter movement amongst whites as well. Attacks on police has made people angry. Then, the question to ask is will Trump’s white voter enthusiasm offset this anticipated drop in total number of black voters cast or will Trump’s advantage be offset by a larger turn out of Hispanic voters in the states that they make a difference?

    Saudis and Qataris do not donate to anyone “just because” . There is always a quid-pro-quo. But they gave a million dollars to George HW Bush’s Library when the son George W Bush was President No 43. That is how it works. You use an arrogant elitist liberal view. I am not sure if you live in the USA; I do. I play devils advocate in a freshmen seminar class I teach at a small University. I said “Women should not be in politics; agree or disagree”. I was flabbergasted when even the 19 year old girls agreed and said all sorts of things about “women are moody; they are vindictive; they are emotional”. Of course this is in an ultra conservative state but I was still stunned. I then said “forget Hillary, in general what do you think?” SAME. This is like in 1960 in Ceylon when a top UNP leader said the throne seat will have to be washed if Mrs. B becomes PM.

    The best place for poll of polls in Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com

    He was on ABC last morning. He is bullish on Trump. Comey’s letter was deliberate and damage during the early voting stage. His second letter that came out yesterday is perhaps too late.

    Clinton is seen as the ultimate inside and she is. You may arrogantly dismiss her speaking fees but people are ANGRY. It is like the mood in 1970 and 1977 in both cases there was a massive mass movement in Sri Lanka.

    Why are they angry? The blue collar white usually democratic workers in the Industrial heartland feel they are left out. Yes unemployment is down to 4.9% and there has been 73 months of steady job growth but the anger and xenophobia is taking over white voters. Do not forget Obama dropped the ball with his bungling of the fight against ISIS by dismissing ISIS to be a “JV team”

    A couple of weeks ago I was pretty sure Hillary will win; now I am not sure. If she loses PA then she is toast. They are so worried that even solidly blue Michigan is now in play for Trump because that is where workers were left behind.

    Big government spending does not work. People do not want so many regulations. Obamacare has turned out to be another bureaucratic Govt failure even though it has plus points.

    On foreign policy Libya was made a mess deliberately because of Clinton’s policies.

    Corruption might be the key to victory here and then it will reflect Sri Lanka’s seismic election of Jan 2015. On the other hand, if Hillary wins it will also be like that because it was minorities who enabled Mr. Sirisena to win. But right now as I predicted in my previous blog post, African American voter participation in Early voting is DOWN by about 5% in the key states. There is an uptick of Latino votes like how Tamil people who were finally free to vote with Tamil Tiger terrorists, voted for My3. So it depends. I said all it takes Trump to win is a 4% to 5% swing in the key states. Mark my word, if PA goes HC is toast.

    You are using Rose colored glasses to whitewash HC. She solicited 12MILLION from the King of Morocco as well just before she ran for President. What a shame. You cannot defend her to attack Trump. In my mind a sexist demagogue like Trump will never get my vote, but I voted for Gary Johnson even though I know it is a wasted vote on principle. I vote primarily on foreign policy and I was angered by her mess in Libya, Ukraine and Syria. But I will hope she wins as opposed to Trump. She will be a Richard Nixon but Trump will be an Idi Amin-Mugabe of America.

    No matter who wins, this nation will still be split apart ideologically and racially even more. US Ambassador to SL has no moral right to preach about reconciliation or Democracy or for that matter Elections. This has been a sickening cycle never seen before. The attacks and lies are terrible. Comey may have delivered the election to Trump. Who knows? I hope not.

  • 0
    0

    >unemployment is down to 4.9% and there has
    >been 73 months of steady job growth

    The power of just a number without considering how it
    is calculated.

    The 4.9% is without taking into account the 93 million no
    longer looking for jobs.

    U6 is a better indicator,which is 9.5 at the moment. However
    even U6 does not take into account those who are no longer
    looking for work.

    So if you consider those who are no longer looking for
    work, its over 28% (93million/325 million)

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/08/americans-not-in-labor-force-hits-new-record-high-93194000/
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

    U6
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

  • 1
    1

    Puzzle -1: If one woman can weave 10 cajan leaves an hour how many can two women weave? Answer: Zero. Reason: They will be talking all the time and not doing any work.

    Puzzle -2: If one US President can destroy 5 perfectly good countries in one single term how many can two Presidents destroy? Answer: Zero for the same reason.

    But then you will ask, how can there be two Presidents at the same time? It will be like having two wives at the same time. Impossible.

    Agreed. But we can have a woman for the President as well as another for the Vice President. Then no countries will be destroyed by them. Perhaps we can try that next time.

    Yes we can try that next time, provided there are any more countries left to destroy at the end of Hillary’s term.

  • 1
    0

    Hillary Clinton will probably Lose, because Weapons Manufacturers and the Big Banks will be Supporting the TRUMP!

  • 1
    0

    A brilliant analysis,not the normal bull that he vomits out.

  • 1
    0

    Another 9/11!!

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.