22 March, 2019

Blog

Donald Trump Phenomenon & Lessons Therein

By Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

At the recently concluded US presidential elections, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump represented two political extremes with dubious personal track records. It was no surprise, therefore, that in this biggest Western democracy in the world, only 56 percent of voters turned up at the polling booths to cast their votes. Another reason for this disillusionment was the acrimonious way the competition and the debates were conducted by the two candidates and the ‘two parties.’ There were many who openly said that they have no faith in either of them prior to the polling day. Now the leaders have come together at the White House, aftermath of the elections, the people are still protesting in streets misguided by acrimonious campaigns.

Bernie Sanders, the soft socialist from the democratic party could have tread a middle path both in American and world politics, if he was given a fair chance and if not for the family ambitions of the Clinton clan. While Clinton was advocating an extreme version of globalization along with some of the ‘true believers’ in European countries or the European Union, Trump went to the other extreme by denouncing globalization, free trade and most disturbingly, protection of the environment. The French Ambassador to the UN tweeted against Trump, during the elections, and then retracted after seeing the sings of defeat for Clinton.

Trump in Contrast

In his version of economics, America should get back to the old capitalism of national economy, industrial development and for the latter purpose, massive drive for infrastructural development. What it proves perhaps is Arnold Toynbee’s theory of historical circularity. It is possible that Trump might moderate some of his positions, judging from his victory speech, where he talked about ‘binding the wounds of division’ and so on. He appealed “To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.” I am quoting verbatim from his speech. He further pledged “I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.

donald-trumpTrump characterized his campaign as a movement, and opted to say “It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will.” It is true that at later stages of his campaign, he moderated his positions on the question of race, although he first started barraging the Muslims and the migrants to suspect his ‘movement’ to be a ‘white supremacist’ movement. Perhaps because of this change, the African Americans and Latinos are reported to have voted in significant numbers in his favor. Nevertheless, the extreme nationalist groups all over the world are jubilant about the Trump victory, including in Australia and Sri Lanka.

The main planks of his campaign or promises might not change. He talked too much of building a border wall between America and Mexico to keep away the illegal migrants whom he named as ‘drug peddlers, criminals and rapists.’ It would be interesting to watch how this promise is going to be implemented. It is possible that even the old migrants from Mexico or from other Latin American countries were not in favor of illegal migrants crossing the border, gatecrashing their opportunities. This is a sentiment prevalent even in Australia.

Another policy difference between Trump and Clinton (or Obama for that matter) was about migration in general. Trump’s opposition was not only against illegal migrants. His administration would be extremely cautious about receiving refugees, perhaps zero from Muslim countries, and negative on migrants in general except certain categories of family or selected skills. Therefore, what can be expected is more of a closed-door policy. The sailing in this policy direction might not be that difficult since a President has enormous discretion on this matter, and any legal hurdles could be overcome as the Republican Party now controls both Houses of the Congress. What might create problems in this direction would be when and if Trump intends to deport large number of refugees or illegal migrants to where they had initially come from.

Globalization

During the presidential campaign, Clinton was quite flamboyant about her globalist policy of open borders, even disregarding the recent Brexit experience. Similarly, a more liberal administration in Australia is contemplating a lifetime ban on refugees who has tried to come by boat and now languishing in offshore refugee camps. Closed or guarded borders is also Australia’s current policy. Trump repeatedly complained or accused the previous administrations, including the republican ones, for creating a mess in the Middle East. In his opinion, the current refugee exodus in the world is largely a result of this mistaken or reckless policy. He was at least correct in that count.

Trump clearly said that he opposed the US intervention in Iraq. He also differed from the current Obama policy on Syria which in his opinion has created the specter of ISS in combination with the previous ousting of Saddam Hussein. He was not mincing his words however about ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’ One of his short-term objectives might be to defeat or eliminate the ISS in cooperation with Russia.

On the above Middle East policy, he was correct whether he would be able to unravel it or not. In contrast, Clinton was quite reckless even in her utterances and said during the debate with Trump that she would arm the Kurds in fighting against the ISS! The arming of different extremist groups at different times has been the US policy for some time in the Middle East and even elsewhere, with considerable repercussions. I have seen (Hilary) Clinton jubilant (said Vow!) when the news was delivered that Gaddafi was captured and killed in Libya. That time (October 2011) she was the Secretary of State and the whole thing appeared her plan and scheme. Not that anyone could approve Gaddafi’s dictatorial rule in Libya. But it was up to the people of that country and not to the US to instigate his ousting let alone killing.

The globalization, particularly in the political sphere, advocated by these ‘True Believers’ appeared a new type of imperialism. It was not internationalism or any kind of international responsibility or generosity to make the present world a better place for the billions of poor people to live. If latter was the case, then the US and the EU should have given more aid and economic assistance to the poor countries and poor people instead of placing sanctions on countries to punish finally the poor and not the rulers. The rulers in any country are the privileged lot.

Economic Policies

What the Trump victory shows is a rebellion from below. That is what exactly happened in the Brexit vote as well. This is not to say that Trump would fulfill the aspirations of the ordinary people who voted for him; who were called ‘uneducated’ and ‘backward’ by the Clinton supporters. After all, Trump himself is part of the establishment, particularly of the business elite. The difference maybe that he was not a multinational operator. However, the educated and the so-called ‘forward people,’ including some Marxists have neglected the ordinary working class grievances and aspirations. They are mesmerized by some fancy ideas, neglecting pathetically the basic human and material needs of the working classes including the peasants and the farmers.

The ‘globalization,’ even in the economic sphere, has gone too far to the detriment of the ordinary people. It is interesting note that within America itself, a friction has been created between the ‘national bourgeoisie’ and the ‘multi-national bourgeoisie.’ The weakening national bourgeoisie has opted to utilize the situation like at the Brexit. This is not the 25th century, but just the beginning of the 21st. The information revolution undoubtedly has been progressive. As a benefit of that particularly our awareness on climate change, and solutions also have progressively increased. However, it has not reached the poor or the rural masses in many countries including America. But the open borders at this stage is questionable, along with the globalized demand to give up national sovereignty of the nation states, particularly in the Third World.

I recollect my participation at a conference on the subject at an initial stage of this global change in 1984 in Ottawa. It was on ‘New International Division of Labor (NIDL) and Trade Unions in the Third World.’ NIDL was the shorthand term for the initial globalization of that period. Participated by both academics and trade unionists, a main concern of many (also mine) was on the questions of ‘job security and wages,’ the multinationals pressing for the downgrading or freezing of both in third world countries. The current globalization since then has had a devastating effect on trade union rights and concerns. My paper was on “The Challenge of the Open Economy: Trade Unionism in Sri Lanka.” Another interesting paper was on “In Defense of Nationalism as a Trade Union Perspective” by Manfred Bienefeld. Manfred at that time was from the University of Sussex.

What Trump highlighted during his campaign was about the American workers losing their jobs because of the American companies moving from America to Mexico. ‘Jobs, jobs and more jobs’ was his slogan. He also mentioned that then they bring the goods to America without much or no tariff. In the Brexit movement, the concerns were about Europeans coming and taking the jobs of the British workers. Trump also highlighted the high skilled migrants taking the occupations of the American professionals. Everything indicated towards renewed American nationalism and the sentiment became epitomized in the slogan “Making America Great Again.”

Foreign Policy

There is much concern about his expressed foreign policy. I say ‘expressed policy’ because even Obama changed his stance after becoming the President. However, his ‘expressed’ appears to be quite in line with his other policies. He appears reversing back to a sort of ‘isolationism’ characteristic of the American foreign policy during the inter-war period. Until the last moment, the Americans did not even intervene in the war against Hitler. This may be of some worry to the Europeans and staunch globalist advocates.

Even Trump might distance himself from the NATO. Whether this is only a short term financial concern or a long-term policy is yet to be seen. His policy seems to be to tell the other countries and the ‘allies’ that they should protect themselves. He might withdraw America from the role of the ‘World Policeman.’ Mixed up with costs and benefits, he is asking particularly Japan and South Korea either to pay more or rely themselves on defense matters. This will also have some repercussions on Australia.

The threats or risks for these countries in the region would be more, as far as they rely on a Super Power. If they depend on America for security matters, they are also not completely independent on other policy matters. It is good for them to look after their own security. For example, Australia could become a stronger country of its own, if it looks after its own security. This may be costly in the short run, but at the same time it could boost the economy in many ways. Anyway, America is not going to weaken its military, security or defense. Trump was repeatedly appreciative of the Generals who have clearly supported him for the presidency. His military strategy may be to consolidate, without dispersing energies in all directions. The result at the global scale would be to have a more multi-polar world than at present and that is good for international relations and particularly for small countries like Sri Lanka.

There has been a clear preference for Russia in contrast to China in Trump’s many policy utterances. His ‘antipathy’ for China appears to be economic rather than political. During the open debates with Clinton, he said ‘China is a currency manipulator’ and blamed the democratic administration and Clinton for cuddling with China. On another occasion, he said “China goes down to 7 percent [growth], and what they do is devalue their currency and they take more of our business and they start to go up again.” The policy to stop this ‘manipulation’ appears to have high tariffs (45 percent!) on Chinese imports. This is easier said than done.

In contrast to China, Trump had many good things to say about India. This is what might matter in the case of Sri Lanka. Speaking to the CNN previously, he had said “India is doing great. Nobody talks about it. And I have big jobs going up in India. India is doing great.” Although, India did not figure during his election campaign, he has repeatedly expressed previously that the ‘US and India would be best of friends.’ This liking for India might be particularly in the context of combatting fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. However, it could move beyond, even in the economic sphere.

Conclusion

Trump being a Republican, it is difficult to understand his critical policy declarations on free trade and globalization. If he is going to be true to his words, there can be some reversals in the current globalization trends and free trade agreements. Didn’t Joseph Stiglitz warn about some anomalies (‘Globalization and Its Discontents’) in the current globalization Process? If there is any useful lesson from what Trump has said or what he represents, the globalization is fine if it is anchored in preserving and promoting national economies. That is what finally matters to the workers and the ordinary masses. Globalization should be up to a certain degree at least at this stage. Otherwise, political systems would be in upheavals, sooner or later, like in the Brexit or the Trump’s triumph. Treading on globalization cautiously, might be the best policy both politically and economically for any country.

When Trump contested for the presidency, all forces and apologists behind the current neo-liberal globalization process went against him. The global news media and all pollsters predicted that he would be the loser. They were pathetically biased. It is understandable if a leader of a country took a position on the American presidential elections, given the highly polarized political positions between the two candidates. Even that is within certain limits. It was quite unprecedented, however, for certain officials of the United Nations to criticize Donald Trump at this election. This revealed something fundamentally wrong in what we have been considering as the ‘international community.’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 4
    4

    “What the Trump victory shows is a rebellion from below. That is what exactly happened in the Brexit vote as well.”

    Really, Dr Fernando? When did you wake up?

    • 1
      0

      Dr. Laksiri Fernando

      RE: Donald Trump Phenomenon & Lessons Therein

      Just Google as to the 5 Reasons why Trumph will win by Michael Moore in July and in October, 2016.

      1. Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit.

      2. The Last Stand of the Angry White Man.

      3. The Hillary Problem.

      4. The Depressed Sanders Vote.

      5. The Jesse Ventura Effect.

      Enjoy.

    • 1
      0

      Dr. Laksiri Fernando

      RE: Donald Trump Phenomenon & Lessons Therein

      Sanders backs Trump protests, questions Electoral College

      Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly strong challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, sat down Sunday with USA TODAY’s Capital Download to talk about last week’s election stunner, the future of the Democratic Party and his new book, being published Tuesday by Thomas Dunne Books, Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. Questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.

      Q: If you had been nominated, would you have won?

      Sanders: Monday-morning quarterbacking is always easy. The answer is, I don’t know. Nobody knows. I certainly wish I had had that opportunity. Some of the polls out there suggest that might have been the case.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/13/sanders-backs-trump-protests-questions-electoral-college/93767186/

      Enjoy!

    • 2
      0

      He has no clue about what happened in Brexit. There was no rebellion at all whether from above or below. Older generation of Britishers across the racial and religious divide voted for Brexit. Younger generation took it for granted that Brexin would win and did not vote. The reasons given by younger generation that if Britain leaves EU, they will not be able to get jobs in European countries shows their selfish shallow thinking.

  • 2
    1

    Has Trump been able to avert WW III ????????????
    For Hillary, its plain retribution for her actions.

  • 3
    1

    Nice therapeutic exercise Dr Fernando.

    What we are seeing now is the inevitable happening in a democracy that is less than 250 years old. They are going to learn their lessons for sure. Quickly!

    Here in our 2500 year-old civilisation WE are still buggering about trying to get a decent and honourable government that will protect and look after the rights and interests of ALL THE PEOPLE. Keep the PEACE. Protect the NATIONAL WEALTH.

    What to do? We are more likely to find a virgin in the Red Light district of Bambalapitiya than we are to find an honest politician in the middle of the Diyawanna Oya.

    What for the telling!!!!ha!!!!

  • 2
    0

    Could you let us know where this Red Light district of Bambalapitiya is?

    Had to pull the 2500 year old civilisation to it, didn’t POOT>

  • 1
    0

    “The French Ambassador to the UN tweeted against Trump, during the elections, and then retracted after seeing the sings of defeat for Clinton.”
    Our man did the same. I saw the video clip in which he was talking in favor of Hilary!
    Those who went against Trump are now like the proverbial cat that pooed on the rock. The cat was still trying to cover it by scratching the rock surface but its poo is still visible to everyone and still stinking. Trump will easily remember those cats. And Mr. Laksiri don’t think you are excluded!

  • 0
    0

    You write:
    “It was quite unprecedented, however, for certain officials of the United Nations to criticize Donald Trump at this election. This revealed something fundamentally wrong in what we have been considering as the ‘international community.’”
    You guys who get $$$ called them the ‘international community’ but we never did. The silent majority of Sri Lanka or anywhere in the world never said these ‘hypocrites’ are an international community. Today, how can you talk about an international community without Russia, Brazil, China and hundreds of small countries like Sri Lanka? But you guys continuously do so and when everything goes upside down, say ‘this is unprecedented……. ‘Fundamentally wrong…..” etc!
    You guys helped the so-called international committee (not community) bring a regime change not only in Sri Lanka but worst in Iraq and Libya. What can you say about it now? Poor people in these countries have fallen from the frying pan to the fire! The majority Americans was silently observing these stupidities and finally made a decision! That’s how I see it.
    Just because your Head is permanently damaged (PhD), don’t expect readers to suffer from the same ailment? We remember how you guys had been promoting Yahapalanaya, but now act as if you know nothing about it.

    • 1
      1

      Hi Sira,

      Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion or to the other extreme. If you have guts, come forward with your name and details. This is a challenge! Can you read? This is a challenge!

      Don’t insult people implicating for taking dollars as bribes without proof. If you have any proof against me produce it, revealing your name. Don’t be jealous about people who have PhDs.

      I have criticised the ‘international community’ and even the UN during the war when they stepped beyond their limits. You could see my articles during that time particularly in the Asian Tribune and in The Island. Where were you during those days? The international community is an evolving concept and entity. No country can live without its influence, right or wrong. The need is to correct the international community and particularly the UN.

      Of course, I supported bringing down Mahinda Rajapaksa because of his lust for power for a third term, obvious corruption, failure to resolve the national question and betrayal of the trust of the people. I supported Rajapaksa to get rid of the LTTE. Didn’t you know that. Then we got rid of him because of his policies against the ordinary Tamils, the Muslims and the Sinhalese. Ousting of the Rajapaksa regime was a people’s rebellion. Even the SLFP is not with him now.

  • 0
    0

    “If there is any useful lesson from what Trump has said or what he represents, the globalization is fine if it is anchored in preserving and promoting national economies. “ Is there a way to keep the cage door opened and parrot inside the cage? Globalization means going out of the national economy. In the long run, it is expected to put everybody’s economy at the same level, provided some nations are not Modaya Nations. National industries may be promoted (say tea or garments for Lankawe) and National GDP can be preserved not falling below, but what is meant by preserving and promoting national economy under globalisation? Is that a call “pls leave alone our communism”? Certainly Trumps is not for that.

  • 0
    0

    This is what Bernie Sanders has to say about the election of Donald Trump: “Donald J. Trump won the White House because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.”
    In Sri Lanka the same will happen if Yahapalanists turn a blind eye to the very real and justified anger that each and every citizen feels today about the Ranil-My3 government.

  • 0
    1

    Please read this from a daily in SL:
    “One may wonder whether America’s post-election woes are consequent to bad karma, as it were, resulting from its alleged involvement in engineering uprisings against some democratically elected leaders elsewhere and making economies scream to achieve that end.”

  • 0
    0

    The General Economics theory is, if a country get involved in export/imports the general economic status of the country will improve. The result is the current multinational and globalisation. Without getting involved with Apple, Lankawe may need another 100 years to produce and IPhone 7 itself. Lacking IPhone will affect the Lankawe’s production efficiency in many other areas. That is true for technically advanced countries like America, Japan, Germany….. For example America refusing to import Indian, Chinese programmers will substantially affect their productivity. Computers were invented in America. Now America cannot impose protection policy in that and shut off foreign programmers. Not every American can be born as a gadget geek and they will have to bring in from outside as per their need.

    If one think EU as another complete world in itself, say the 10th moon of the earth, then they can grasp better what the globalisation can do to their economy. America’s advantage is agriculture and knowledge based by this time. Manufacturing and Technology has become hard for it to compete. Instead of producing a GM’s lodal lodal and forcefully pushing it into a consumer’s hand for $50,000, if consumer is allowed to by a super robustic Toyota car for $25,000 the consumer is better off by $25,000. Say the consumer has income $100,000 per year and his hand now is left with 1/4 of his salary not spent by buying Toyota, he is experiencing or feeling 25% salary increase by importing Japanese cars. He sees a sudden increase in the real value of his income. Further, instead of artificially controlling the imports, allowing it to flow free will bring the dollar down and the American products will fetch higher price in the global market. This increase the exporters income in dollar value. Taxing the consumer and putting that money in subsiding local industries are not long term solution. By that, in one side consumer is taxed and on the other side he is paying higher price for local product. Rejecting to get into globalisation is like somebody refusing to wash their back because they are angry with the pond. In 2008, GM, Chrysler and Ford said they had new models to compete with the foreign companies but the Banks were bankrupt to fund them. Democratic party government get into it and saved jobs in both side. But the interesting thing there was, it was not protectionist policy or subsidy handouts. If the manufacturing companies are not standing up when the government help them, then they will be going at the end. So as a policy, the protectionism can not be offered to election campaign.

    See this one for a second: The three million immigrants who are going to be sent out is hanging here with some kind of jobs. They don’t live on the government handouts like welfare or unemployment. If one remove 3 million strength of labor force from an economy that can bring a sudden turn back with a jerk to the activity level of the economy. Even though those all are minor jobs, there will be an effect on the GDP too.

    Right after saving the three bigs, Hillary has been long fighting with China to make the Yuan float. That is not protectionist policy, but she wanted a fair chance for the American companies to compete with Chinese products. The experience of economics lab is not like mixing HCl with NaOH, there you know the water and the salt are the outcome. Just right after you start the experiment a thousand new variables jump in start to interact in a nation’s economy. For example, the unexpected Trump’s election is a new variable introduction the current American economy. So the outcome is not predictable. There is no pact can be signed to preserve Trumps “preserving National Economy” and if one signed bullying small partners, the pact need not to be beneficial in the long run either. NFTA these days falls into question because of Mexican political instability. But the Canadian part is very strong for long time even long before it was formally named NAFTA.

  • 0
    0

    The DOW is at 18800 today. The economics, finance and political pundits are saying it is a renewed confidence in Trump. The renewed confidence may be right or wrong – that is a subject for debate. Before the primary, Trump started with extreme theories and after that he has softened it a lot to compete with Hillary. Now, for staff selection, he needs somebody who accepts his theories to implement them. So he has backtracked a lot. For example, an insurance company in the health care would like open competition to decide whether to insure a patient with pre-conditions, diagnosed diseases like cancer, diabetes…. This has been decided in the ACA, the Obama Care. Trump has said he may not repeal it. Yes we understand he had backtracked on many economic issue like that. But the explanation of dows performance by pundits is not complete. About an year ago DOW was 17800. Around 2008- May it was about 6000. The night Hillary lost, the DOW fell down 800 points. From last July it was stagnant ~18000. Just a simple look at the numbers suggest that the current performance is due the stagnation set in after the primary was over. After all Obama has not not vacated the White House. Market is an area always assumed to reflect the latest information available. Don’t the investors want the money invested on the stocks until the new policies are placed in? Where is the unexpected higher growth in DOW to indicate a renewed confidence in Trump? I am not sure where the Ajith Nivards and Inderjits of American FRB is finding the renewed confidence.

    This is how the pundits fool the Lankaweyans. When I was there the $ was four or five, rupees. I used to by pounds for 8 rupees. Now the dollar is 155 rupees. Ajith Nivards of Lankawe has been fooling the Modayas that the Asian Miracle has been growing for 2500 years at 7%. We know American GDP was less 5% average growth after the war. This year, last year it never went much above 3%. Lankawe’s GDP growth as per CB Ajith Nivards is more than the double of the growth of USA. But the rupee has grown from 135 to 155(I think that is how the Lankawe Ajith Nivards are thinking). After all Lankawe’s balance of payment with USA is good because of the GSP+. In that kind of circumstances, one’s’ first guess would rupee to go from 135 to 115. Where are they coming out with the 7% growth? This is how the Sinhala Intellectual PhDs fool the Sinhala Buddhists.

    Yet their power of PhD is growing very much stronger than the way their rupee is growing(or falling). Somewhere else commentator Gamini wrote how FDB put Old King in the Law School. It was a shame for FDB because he was considered the record holder of that school. In that case he should have been the first defender of the quality of that school. Once the Old King had got his degree from the Law School, he got the Son Prince admitted there. Have you seen in the TV’s daytime shows that some retired old women decorate their pet bitches and wear hats like a crown and call bitches by the name of “Queen”? Son Prince has beaten the FDB record now!. Great. That is what you call “Great” man! Further the person complied about it has been chased out of the country with death threat because of questioning the legitimacy of the Son Prince. Is that what you call in Buddhism, where the Karma chase to follow you? If FDB is alive now, he may have started to understand the Buddhism better than Christianity. FDB’s government’s Standardization put a couple of clown in the universities. The Appe Aandu paid for the foreign PhD scholarships for those Quasi Royals. The output of this process is so many Thero De Silvas. The Lankawe Universities have become the retired Old women decorate the pet Bitches and the those bitches are harrying hats look like crown and being called Queen-s. Aren’t these PhD induced Old King to borrow arms from Bush and commit war crime? They better get out of Buddhism and start to follow their communist stalinism or the Karama going to keep chasing them.

  • 1
    0

    Looks like “Malliuran” is loosing his old head after the Bond King bought the Sunday Leader?

    Style gives away.

    You write, “Somewhere else commentator Gamini wrote how FDB put Old King in the Law School.” Who is this commentator Gamini, hmm…Mulliuran?

    • 0
      0

      Watch out Dath, “Malliuran” might call his dad to his defence. He has a history of being a Daddy’s boy.

  • 0
    0

    Hi Lak!
    I don’t want to identify myself yet, but I’ll do so in due course! The reason is pure and simple: You know the word ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’. That’s how Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans survived as a small nation! Similarly, I don’t want to be an easy target of the Yahapalana underworld that ‘takes care’ about opposing views in a ‘careful manner’; PM Wickremasinghe revealed in Parliament who the Lasantha Wickrematunga’s murderers were a few years ago! Now the PM is silent! Why?
    You are challenging me but they act with your challenge. You know how it works. White vans they say exist and it has been now found that WV is a creation of some big-wigs attached to Yahapalanaya, and they managed to put the blame on others. Do you know the Sinhala-Muslim issue at Aluthgama just before the Presidential election; the conspirators are in Yahapalana cabinet; recently it has been revealed how a certain powerful Yahapalana minister hid the head of a dead cow in a temple and put the blame on Muslim youths, just to test the grounds! Everything is now being revealed after Hilary’s defeat but you guys are unfortunately blind to this ‘bitter truth’ for some reasons known only to yourself! That’s why many think some of those (not everyone) who hold PhD’s have some kind of permanent head damage! It is up to you to disprove it but you continue to substantiate it!! Thank you!!!

    • 0
      0

      Serius Sira:
      I have seen a lot rubbish being published in these pages but yours, I think stands out — not just balderdash but paranoid balderdash!

  • 2
    0

    “”The policy to stop this ‘manipulation’ appears to have high tariffs (45 percent!) on Chinese imports. This is easier said than done.””

    Ha ha – Chinese were dying without food until they got WTO membership. Trump would pull out of WTO and negotiate trade- that is what he is not a spin doctor PhD.
    USA, Urban density – 82.7 %; UK, Urban Density – 81.7 %; Lanka Urban Density; 19.3 %
    Obscenity of the so called foreign educated professors, PhD’s of Sri Lanka comparing Brexit-Trump victory with a case for Sri Lanka.

    How can one compare 2 leading nations of the world with urban density of over 80% and a third world beggars island with over 80% rural?

    “Trump being a Republican, it is difficult to understand his critical policy declarations on free trade and globalization”

    The Bowl`(40%) made it clear to Trump that they were worse off than the nations receiving American handouts to promote liberty and democracy.- with it came the wall against drugs, no to WTO and illicit labour and no to NATO funding unless the nations pay. In short `I` for Trump.
    Chinese ships are not attacked by Somali pirates because the Chinese blow them up. That is exactly what Trump would do with them and Iraq- removed off the map. Socialist can commit suicide in their own yard and no one is going to be bothered. For the last 40 years Trump pays equal pay to men and women working for him and has special care for motherhood.
    He would renegotiate all trade deals inclusive of WTO so that it is in favour of USA not the other way around like GSP plus etc. just like Brexit.
    “When Trump contested for the presidency, all forces and apologists behind the current neo-liberal globalization process went against him.”
    They were worried about losing cheap illegal labour. Cubano, Amazon employs agency staff at Luxembourg.- no medical, no leave zero hour contract. Today Google promised to increase its workforce by 3000 at the UK and the same goes with Auto industry.
    The establishments of so called pseudo democracies worldwide have their hair on fire since America is their main trading partner and that includes Sri Lanka.
    Socialist never understand the American/English way of doing things.- never take for granted for always.

    You sit down under in a white democracy and talk socialist bollocks just like HDLM

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.