Blog powered by Typepad

« David Davis will face a 'Euro-fanny' | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 9.11.16 »

Friday, 09 September 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Duffers the concept of democracy where the majority choice gets to be the government is alien to the left and particularly the far left.

You're gradually coming round to the inevitability of the decline and fall of Blighty.

You might ask yourself what causes the tailspin we seem to go into if we're not: -

(1) Running an empire
(2) Fighting for our lives in world wars
(3) Being restrained from ourselves by a treaty

In the last, ooh, say 400 years since the start of empire, we were ok while in those three modus operandi. And we were in a decline and fall tailspin in the only period outside of them: 1945-1975.

Now I know inductive reasoning is dodgy in the material world, Bertrand Russell's chicken and all that, but given (1)-(3) vs. 1945-1975, your gloomy analysis of Blighty's future is backed up by induction (albeit, as said, induction is dodgy).

So why is it so? Why is Blighty incapable of succeeding as a state without (1)-(3) in place?


We have often discussed here the horrible prospect of a Labour government due to a series of catastrophes ("Events, dear boy, events!") assailing the current administration.

Up to a few years ago, this was a real possibility.But surely we are past that stage now? Surely Labour has alienated its traditional voters so much that they would prefer UKIP, or indeed anyone else? Is it not obvious to anyone who has ever voted Labour that the once-proud party is now merely a haven for sixth-formers, Trotskyists, and the mentally unwell? There are of course those whose income is directly dependent on a large and wasteful state sector, but even they might see that having Corbyn in charge is worse than any conceivable alternative.

Unfortunately Whyaxye, there appears to be a solid block of voters of about 30% of the electorate, who are going to vote Labour, come what may. Or May. They will not be moved, just like the 47% of US voters who will vote for the criminal Clinton bunch.

B.o.e., you make a sound if depressing point. But I just wonder if things are so bad. Figures are based on past elections, and opinion polls. They represent past actions and present intentions. I'm hoping for a series of alternatives (Pro-Europe centrist, as advocated by Paddy Ashdown; hard-left nutcases who become disillusioned with Jeremy and crawl back under their traditional stones; even an Islamist party) that will split Labour even further and make them unelectable.

This may be clutching at straws, though. Plus my inability to fathom what the heck Corbynistas think they are doing...

"They will not be moved, just like the 47% of US voters who will vote for the criminal Clinton bunch." It seems too many Western countries have this ever present percentage of persistent, unteachable, easily manipulated group of people.

Did my comment on this end up in your TypePad recycle bin?

Probably best place for it, mind!


It's not easy for this American to understand the British left, which often seems to be stuck somewhere in the time of the Industrial Revolution. It's even harder to understand those on the American right that can't get off the fainting couch because of the Clintons' nearly completely imaginary "crimes", but breezily ignore Donald Trump's well-documented and wide-ranging grotesqueness.

There are somewhere between 30 and 40% of American voters that have no problem casting a ballot for a thief, liar, ignoramus, bigot and quisling like Trump. Does that worry anyone here?

Sorry, SoD, you ended up in the 'trash can' but I blame my IT manager, ooops, that's you! Anyway, you have been rescued but having read it I am now pondering whether or not to send you back there!

For some unhistorical and uneconomic reason you seem to think that it was the EU that saved us from ourselves. Not so, it was because we had the good sense in 1979 to vote in Maggie Thatcher. 'It wos 'er wot dunnit'! Also, you seem fixated on economic measures which are *not* the final measure of a nation's well-being. The real measure is to live in your own independent country under your own laws and under a freely elected parliament. Give up that and you give up your liberty.

Bob, there's none so blind as them that won't see! Yes, Trump is a fairground barker but do you really believe 'HillBilly' is a paragon of virtue? Or that she is even slightly competent? Ah well, she will probably win at which time I will think of you and mutter that well know American saying, "Never give a sucker an even break!"

Trump is a capitalist red in tooth and claw and Clinton is an old bag who has sponged on the US taxpayer all her life. What is your problem Bob?


"[T]he Clintons' nearly completely imaginary "crimes"?

I'll take the liberty of copying a comment and posted over on Malcolm's just to make the point the crime is not so "imaginary" after all.


Finished an on-target article directed toward Comey, appropriately enough methinks but alas I felt it was only proper that if, I put the one just finished on offer, almost necessarily I ought include another I’d also read on the site but hadn’t, bothered with trying to memorize the title of.

(I’d suggest to any who might need to Search the site – mind the keywords.)

The less recent;

"[F]rom the time this contentious, ornery campaign took shape, our documented-to-death Trump connection has been revealed in the way the Observer itself has been covered."

Trump is not a capitalist in the generally accepted sense. There was a time he was a real estate developer who cheated employees and sub-contractors, but more recently he has made money as a TV show host and by the undiscriminating licensing his name; including to criminal scams like Trump University and Trump Model Management.

The piece in the Observer is labeled "opinion". It is not hard news, and I'd point out that a lot of leftists both here and in the UK don't like Hillary. Hell, I'm not a leftist or rightist and still don't like her. However, there are other opinions. It is my opinion that Trump is a vile orange glob of morally reprehensible ego that should be hosed into a storm drain. Also:

"[Hillary] played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children whose parents cannot provide them with health coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. She also played a leading role in creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act. She encouraged older women to seek a mammogram for early detection of breast cancer (which is covered by Medicare) and successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the NIH. She worked to investigate illnesses that were reportedly affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome. And she created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice." And there's more:

I forgot to mention that Trump also cheated investors and took dubious advantage of bankruptcy laws.

Also, typos bug me. It should be: " the undiscriminating licensing of his name..."

A stout defence, Bob, alas, of the indefensible! you and your fellow Americans are forced to choose between a louse and a flea.

Stout David? Bob?

Let us parse all that lies between Bob's quotations punctuation shall we?

"[Hillary] played a leading role in advocating ... She promoted ... She also played a leading role in creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act ..."


When she says “I worked with Tom DeLay, one of the most partisan of Republicans, to reform the adoption and foster care system,” this is the law she’s talking about.

The law is called the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). But that’s one of those Orwellian titles Congress loves. It’s not about adoption and it’s not about safe families. Passed in 1997, one year after the welfare law, it had exactly the same target.

(Probably Bob, you never expected ol' JK to place a link to Daily Kos on D&N?)

"[...] and the Foster Care Independence Act."

'On November 18, 1999, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3443, the "Foster Care Independence Act of 1999" by unanimous consent. The Senate passed H.R. 3443, also by unanimous consent, on November 19, 1999.'

"She encouraged older women to seek ... She worked to investigate ... And she created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice."

'In 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act ...'


'Hillary Clinton served as a United States Senator from New York from January 3, 2001 to January 21, 2009.'


Pretty stellar record of Congressional achievement for somebody who got all that 1990s era stuff accomplished even before she got elected to Congress I'd have to agree Bob.

But stout?

All my working life I was subject to the Official Secrets Act. Ignorance of it was no defence and the various security classifications were frequently made very clear to me and the penalties made obvious. Clinton's breach of these regulations alone would make her unacceptable as President. She broke the rules and should suffer for it. How many Americans are in jail for such offences?

One hundred seventy one.

Seventy nine UCMJ.

Sixty six DOJ.

Nineteen "Administrative" and the seven remaining are Under Advisement.

I wonder if any of them are appealing, quoting Clinton's escape? Any advice for these people Bob?

Attorneys have already announced they will be using the Clinton escape for their client's appeal.

The anti-crime and similar laws passed during the 1990's were in reaction to rapidly deteriorating social conditions and largely backed by minority communities, not to argue that made them good ideas. The Daily Kos piece is a good example of why I rarely bother with any American left or right wing opinion site. The author of the linked piece writes: "I will vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican. Poverty is at the heart of almost every problem in child welfare, and while I don’t know that Hillary will make that problem better, the Republicans will make it much worse."

He's right about the Republicans, but seems to have forgotten about the Bill Clinton support for NAFTA, eliminating job training programs and welfare and the Financial Services Modernization Act that rapidly impoverished millions of Americans in various ways including crashed retirement funds and repossessed homes. To be fair, GW Bush pushed the programs farther and ran two wars off the books.

Trade is essential. Besides lifting millions out of poverty in less advanced countries it creates political ties that lessen the likelihood of war. However, trade arrangements should be made in ways that control damage to vulnerable groups, such as American factory workers and democratic governments. The struggle continues under Obama:

I'm sick and tired of Hillary's damn emails:

Finally, if any of you would like to make an argument that Donald Trump would make a better president than Hillary I'd love to read it.


"Finally, if any of you would like to make an argument that Donald Trump would make a better president than Hillary I'd love to read it."

You recall Bob, any of Hillary's recent ramblings on about, "Trump's suggestion that we (presumably the United States) work with the Russians is not only idiotic but it's also downright dangerous!"

Or, words to that effect?


About trade I think Bob we're, as TheBigHenry might put it, "in violent agreement" big-picture-wise.

About being "sick and tired of Hillary's damn emails" well, on that as I held a TS for decades and am well aware of what would definitely have happened (not; probably, might not have) had I done anything approaching what Hillary very obviously and transparently did ...

I'd suggest you uncork the quart size Pepto-Bismol, take two aspirins every eight hours and call me November ninth!

Come on Bob. Kick the old bag in the slats and change direction.

JK, you'll have to make a more specific charge about Hillary's ramblings - a direct quote for example - that I can respond to.

In case you didn't follow the link in the WaPo, here's the Fox News fair and balanced story about Comey's memo wedged between links to entertaining conspiracy theories:

“At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn’t a prosecutable case."

Do you believe the Director of the FBI is covering for Hillary as Trump has charged? What do you think about Colin Powell's computer use and Trump's claim he could read the body language of his intelligence contacts to determine they were disappointed Obama and Clinton wouldn't follow their recommendations?

And about Trump's superiority as a presidential candidate: Do I hear crickets?

Backofanenvelope, not for Trump. If I had to vote for an equally unqualified entertainer, it would be John Cleese. It's time we have a Ministry of Silly Walks:

Bob, "a direct quote for example - that I can respond to"

Arkansas' Razorbacks are playing later today so I'd ask a little leeway in my getting back to you Bob about Ferdinand and Imelda Clinton?

Like maybe tomorrow? But for starters hows about

(BOE? Exercise extreme caution with that link, pour yourself a bucket - its thirty solid minutes of Hillary-Shriek.)

Bob. "Do you believe the Director of the FBI is covering for Hillary as Trump has charged?"

Pour yourself a barrel. Might want to gather up some beef jerky, sea biscuits, and a porta-potty outfitted.

Whilst trying to decide the order of merit between 'the Trumpeter' and 'HillBilly', please re-read the title to this post!

JK, I didn't hear anything factually incorrect in Clinton's speech nor did I hear any shrieking other than the audience's. Point out what terrible thing I was supposed to have heard.

You might have missed it, but the piece on was dated March 7, 2016; before the results of the FBI's investigation were released to the public during a press conference on July 5. Also, John R. Schindler is a somewhat controversial figure:

David, every American presidential election I've seen or read about is between the lesser of two evils. There's no contest at all in this one.


"You might have missed it ... [because] dated March 7, 2016;"

And you Bob might have missed John's last seven words from sentence # five,

"I’ll add new links as they appear."


"Also, John R. Schindler is a somewhat controversial figure ..."

Bob, that "somewhat"? That supposed to be taken as gratuitous or overkill or ...? You ever known anybody, and I mean personally acquainted with an individual who cashed paychecks bearing a 20755 zipcode and deposited same in an account which routing code indicated the financial institution was based in zipcode 22119 who went on to write articles for a news outfit based in NYC who WAS NOT at least "somewhat" controversial?

Tell you what Bob, let ol' JK give you something even juicier about my former erstwhile US Navy compatriot John - Google "John Schindler, Anthony Weiner" and then press Enter.

*Tell you what #2 Bob. Let's declare ourselves a little 38th parallel style Armistice we can call our own shall we? You can fire off the occasional blog equivalent of a ballistic missile to the Sea of Japan and I'll do a China?

JK, the "somewhat" was meant as humorous understatement. I didn't know about Schindler's sexting, which makes the "somewhat" actually funny, thank you. Unless he somehow becomes more an authority than the FBI Director, his opinion about Hillary's email doesn't count.

It seems you want to play something like the old game "Battleship". That's what I assumed we've been doing all along.

The comments to this entry are closed.