Trump vs Clinton

Is this really the very best they can come up with to lead the free world? If so, not so much God bless America as God help us all.


Author: O Zangado

Just loping around. Extremely fond of roast boar in particular, meat in general and cooking on the barbie. Fish is good too.

31 thoughts on “Trump vs Clinton”

  1. Hard to disagree with you OZ, but that’s America for you – although come to think of it, they can hardly do worse than the current bloke. 🙂

  2. ‘The current bloke’ will hardly go down as one of the great presidents and the replacement candidates do indeed seem even worse. What is it with Murica? The Kennedys were hardly bastions of probity and then we were offered the Clintons, the Bushes and now the Clintons yet again.


  3. It’s dire, OZ. Something between rock and a hard place!

    I must confess I have never really come to grips with US politics.

  4. It is easy to take a shot at Trump, (asit is easy to take a shot at HRC). But it seems many, are finding it easier to do that than to address the issues that the rank and file types are concerned about. A year ago, which major Republican was speaking out against the TPP trade deal? None is the answer. A year ago, which major Republican was speaking out about the massive number of illegals in the country. The answer is none. What major Republican and speaking in harsh terms about the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is maybe Rand Paul.. Sooooo … assert that Trump is a bad candidate … but please do, too, state where you stand on the three above issues … with the ‘establishment’ … or with the rank and file .

  5. Ever since the Kennedys the presidency has been bought and sold like a side of mutton. That is what you get when Wall St. does the picking.
    They wanted Jeb Bush who had about as much charisma and get up and go as a heap of half rotten eels, because they knew they would be able to push him around.
    The people didn’t.
    At least Trump has not been bought and paid for.
    I don’t suppose he’ll be any worse than some before WWI! And a couple in the twenties.
    However bad, I’d rather have him than Hillary.

    Countries generally survive bad politicians. The UK survived Walpole!

  6. CO: A number of Yanks I’ve spoken to admit that President Trump is a real possibility. Disgust with Washington is at least as strong as Britain’s disgust with Westminster. The ability to vote-in someone able to infuriate the political and media establishment that much is simply too good an opportunity to pass up. In choosing Hillary, the Democrats made an error equal to Labour choosing Cherie Blair to lead the party in an election against Boris Johnson.

  7. Christina, “….Countries generally survive bad politicians. The UK survived Walpole!…”

    Yes, but will it survive Cameron. If Brexit loses this referendum we are in deep $h1t, possibly too deep to climb out of.

  8. jazz, there you have it. I shudder to think of that oleaginous piece of slime selling us out for good and all.
    Perhaps we could finally summon up the balls to have a serious revolution?
    It is a great pity we do not have a history of political assassination. There’s a fit candidate if ever I saw one.

  9. Aedarrowby, I don’t need to be a political pundit to recognise Trump’s demagogic rants against women, muslims, Mexicans, gun control, China….etc, as dangerous for world peace. Lowest common denomination rabble-rousers don’t get any serious consideration from me.

  10. Janus: Trump says whatever he needs to say to sell himself.There is no sincerity or coherent ideology to attack, fear, resent, support or oppose. Trump will change tack thrice in a paragraph if those semantic contortions will secure him a few more votes. Typical ‘Murca, though. It’s always been about emotion, mythology and control.

  11. No time for either Trump or Clinton – of the two I’d go for Trump. He seems to have some idea of how the man in the street feels… Clinton appears to be from the American mindset that interferes in the internal affairs of other countries to their detriment simply to suit America’s best interests. And what a mess they’ve made of the world.

    As you say, Christina, the US Presidency is just another commodity for sale to the highest bidder. At least the US can get rid of a rotten President in the fullness of time. And OK – you might end up with yet another rotter – but at least you’ll be able to get rid of him / her as well!

    If Brexit fails there will be no point in ever voting for an MP in Westminster ever again.

  12. Trump is thin skinned and probably not well suited to be chief executive. But, he already had had a historic impact on American democracy. The ‘system’ need shaking. And NOT ONE politician had what it takes to pull it down. Trump has done it, though. And thank goodness. Just remember, the media are doing all it can do to keep your focus on Trump … and not on Trump supporters, including the fact that his supporters are the American working class … once a Democratic stronghold.

  13. Thin skinned? Quite the opposite. He is impervious to assault of any kind. What kind of White House can he create? Does anyone trust his or his cronies’ judgement?

  14. I understand what you are saying. I say thin skinned in the sense that he seems not to handle criticism well, and to take everything very personally. My hope, and that of others, is that prior to the election he will roll out an impressive, competent, level headed ‘team.’

  15. I suspect he has a short fuse, another fine quality in a president. Taking things ‘personally’ in Trump-speak, is ‘how dare you challenge me?’.

  16. janus “…….What kind of White House can he create? Does anyone trust his or his cronies’ judgement?….”

    He’s got a very nice private aircraft, a B757 with, as he proudly says Rolls Royce engines. The interior decor is in restrained good taste with some very nice veneer…not at all flashy or vulgar. I don’t know how Donald will feel about slumming it in Air Force One when he becomes president ?

  17. Trump is a buffoon, Shrillary is an incompetent and possibly crooked, harridan. What a choice. Still the UK’s choice is no better, a closet traitor or a real one!

    At least Trump has achieved something.

  18. Janus @ 4.40 pm yesterday. I maintain my original question about this being the best the Septics can come up with. I grant that Trump has developed a huge business empire and personal fortune in the real world almost fom nothing and is therefore unlikely to be bought or otherwise influenced by the ‘glitterati’ inside the Beltway, but he has hardy conducted himself in the campaign with the necessary gravitas.

    Shrillary (©Feeg), on the other hand, appears to me as the worst type of shallow opportunist politician who will never master the art of sincerity. Think Blair at this point. To her, the levers of executive power are but a personal gift to be bestowed on acolytes and sponsors for the duration with little regard for the future consequences.

    On balance, I would hold my nose and vote for Trump. At least, on current form, he wouldn’t take any bolleaux from the establishment and the vested, but incresingly despised ‘international community’.


  19. By the way, I refer my cherished colleague, Jazz, to Boadicea’s comment, “If Brexit fails there will be no point in ever voting for an MP in Westminster ever again.”

    If I were you I’d get some T shirts printed up with that quote.


  20. Well, OZ, there’d definitely be a stink if the Donald won the Oval Office. So a permanent nose-peg might be preferable.

  21. Good morning, Janus.

    I personally think that Alan Green would make a good PM. He can be a wee bit controversial sometimes, as you will recall from his spats with Sir Alex and Sam Allardyce, but I usually find his 5Live football commentaries interesting and enjoyable. He is also good, in my opinion, when it comes to commenting on rowing (a difficult sport to make exciting, radio-wise).

    Hi OZ. Trump did not, in my opinion, start ‘almost from nothing’. He started with a million dollar loan from his father who also guaranteed substantial further borrowings allowing Thump to indulge in massive leverage.

    The waters of his financial dealings are muddy but there seems to be broad agreement that he is overstating his net worth. There have been several bankruptcies and failures of businesses to which he lent his name. The Trump University class actions arising from the failure of that venture should prove interesting, particularly as there will be developments during the election campaign. The judge in that case has, for example, ordered that Trump must make full disclosure of his financial worth to the Court.

    Donald’s possible University scam v Hillary’s alleged criminal use of private e-mails! It all makes for a very interesting Autumn. I am just glad that I am not a US citizen and will not need to choose between them. Good luck America.

    I would not trust either of them further than I could throw them. That would probably be about as far as I could chuck Sir Philip Green if we were discussing potential PMs.

  22. JM: Trump makes no secret of having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Trump’s business empire is convoluted. Some of his investments failed, but more often than not they succeeded. Many business adventures that went under weren’t actually managed by Trump, but merely used his name under licence. Many complaints made about Trump, many accusations about his not paying bills are somewhat misleading as they were levelled at departments or companies that he did not have immediate oversight over. Trump’s an obnoxious, odious opportunist, but this is well known.

    Hillary has far more problems than just her emails. During her time as Secretary of State the US State Department allowed dubious projects to go through and awarded contracts after relevant authorities made substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation. In one of the most volatile election years in decades the main candidates are loathed by most voters. I feel some sympathy for people stuck living in the US, but I don’t want to be too cheeky about it. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Japan, Germany, France, etc. are not much better off with their merry bands of eejits!

  23. JM – Point accepted, but he does seem to be financially independent of the party machine and therefore untouchable. I stand to be corrected, but refer m’learned friend to my opening remark to this thread.

    Moving on. “Hillary has far more problems than just her emails. During her time as Secretary of State the US State Department allowed dubious projects to go through and awarded contracts after relevant authorities made substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

    What is it with politicians and ‘foundations’? Nearly every former senior politician here in Portugal has one, and let us not forget our Tony, the world’s most unprosecuted war criminal, back in Blighty. Presumably, at the very best it a way of providing substantial personal income at business tax rates rather than the punitive tax levels those same politicians imposed on the rest of the polloi. At worst it is a money laundering scam, again for the personal deniable benefit of the founder of the foundation.

    Allegedly, but fekkem anyway.


  24. Oz: According to the US tax code a foundation is a non-profit organisation and is entirely exempt from taxation. What the Clintons have done is funnel the vast majority of their income into their foundation and give a small part of that to charitable causes in order to technically qualify for that legal status. They cannot be accused of accepting bribes because they legally did not personally receive the money, a “philanthropic” organisation did. If the Saudi, Russian or Egyptian governments gave her or Bill Clinton money directly she’d be in gaol. However, because they did not they can’t be legally held to account. That their foundation pays for nearly all their expenses and sundries is entirely irrelevant as foundations can do with their reserves what they wish.

  25. Christopher – Is that not exactly the sort of tax avoidance that Dave and Boy George seem so keen to target – for non-establishment and lesser mortals, obviously?

    Where and how do do I apply to start a foundation? I need the money.


  26. Oz: of course, only for lesser mortals! If you need to start a foundation contact the Law Offices of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe, Wall Street, New York, New York.

  27. OZ, I saw a Tshirt yesterday which would be very suitable if Brexit wins. “Keep calm! The party IS over” I’m sure Cameron and the Remainers would like it.

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: