Blog powered by Typepad

« Good Golly, Dr. Gilley, hush your mouth! | Main | "An upstart crow" »

Wednesday, 20 September 2017


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

Spot on Gaffer.

Trump hasn't actually done anything.

The huuuugely baaaad things he inherited he has shrugged his shoulders at and said, "I don't like it, but what can I do?", as you said.

And all the huuugely gooood things he wanted to do are conspicuous in their absence.

He's thrown a few outrage tit-bits at the lefties to keep them frothing at the mouth, Muslim bans and the like, and they've taken the bait and distracted themselves from any other observations or constructive / destructive criticisms.

It's a vacuous media presidency - and everyone's enthralled and entertained!

Meanwhile the swamp apparat ploughs merrily onwards undinted, doing the do.

I suppose it's another example of "Accidental Liberty". While lefties fulminate, and white supremacists frenzify themselves, and the two bash into to each other somewhere out of the way that no one gives a shit about, we all carry on with our lives with the bullies off our backs.

Maybe that's the meaning of Trump?

Turn it into a media circus that soaks up the energies of all the poisons, so the ordinary folks can just get on with doing the do.


There is just one thing the Don has done, of course.

Torn up the climate accord.

Just as the academic world realizes it has dropped an enormous bollock in the climate change calculations ...

... allowing the USA to burn its way through 240 billion tonnes of extra carbon's worth of cheap fossil fuel energy before anyone need worry all on its own!

Now that was a smaaaarrrttt move!

I think we can allow the occasional executive masterstroke like that thrown into the "do nothing", "Accidental Liberty" regime once in a while, don't you?


I'm starting to wonder if the Don hasn't taken a leaf out of Dave & George's book?

Remember, they were the ones that the righties thought were liberal, tree-hugging, "Big Society" wets.

And the soft lefties thought were liberal enough to vote for.

Yet, they shrank the state from near 50% of GDP towards 40%, shrank the deficit, did austerity like no-one else would, all Libertarian means. And the ends: Got growth to 3.2%, wages above inflation, and record low unemployment.

Libertarians in disguise. And left and right authoritarians fell for it.

Is this Trump's game?

He talks the talk to get the right-wing authoritarian votes in, and hurls authoritarian right-wing titbits at the lefties as a subterfuge so they become so distracted they are ineffective as an opposition.

Meanwhile, like Dave & George, he knows the objective is for him to do as little as possible and let the ordinary American peeps do as much as possible - all the while he pretends to do as much as possible for the support and distraction of the right and left authoritarians respectively.

Is that what it has come to?!

The elites, establishment, call it what you will, actually know that state control of resources, projects, operations, etc. etc., is destructive to the wellbeing of the state, its citizens, and the pols themselves? They sucked up the lessons of Thatcher and Reagan when the idea was overt.

But the hoi-poloi haven't actually caught up yet? When presented with an overt Libertarian manifesto, they cry "You're a Reagan, Thatcher - another Hitler of the second half of the 20th century! Scum!"

So the poor old pols have to go covert and dress it up. Put the "take back control", "we know best", façade out there, while the "We'll take a hands off approach, coz we know we're shit and everything goes better when we don't run things" reality forms the true inner reality.

Are the elites actually a lamb in wolf's clothing! Our saviours despite ourselves.


I like the Diplomad's take:

After the excellent Warsaw speech of a few months ago and the well received speech in Saudi Arabia shortly before that, it is so refreshing to hear plain speaking American after the feckless Obama years of apologizing groveling and butt kissing of the Obama years. Trump is not a gifted speaker, but then most Americans are not. That is why we are Americans.

I watched his speech and thought he did well.

A big improvement on the bozo he replaced.

Keep it up "the Donald". If the media hacks don't like you you are obviously doing something right.

Trump is getting things done; it is just that no one is reporting it. The following article only highlights a small percentage:


Could you check out the 'Going to the moon was a doddle compared to this' post? Whiters and I would like your opinion.

Ta very much.


Always happy to be "hoisted by my own petard" by an article like that!

He's scrapped 16 statues for every one he's made.

Now that's my kinda "getting things done"!


If anyone thinks Trump's remarks at the UN represented any sort of strategy they're exceedingly optimistic. Apparently none of you caught the fact he called all our major allies stupid for backing the Iran deal, among much other bizarre blather. The speech, like all his others, was about 90% for domestic consumption by his base.

John Kelly, Trump's chief-of-staff, had this reaction:

Various military strategists and world leaders were alarmed:

Hi Richard,

Dropped a comment in the "Going to the moon" post.

I'm with you on this one. I think the EU will have its army, navy, and air force before you can say "Achtung - Panzer!"


He's scrapped 16 statues for every one he's made

should be



That's odd. This is precisely what I have been saying about the Idiot in Chief. You can't overturn orthodoxies you don't understand. And Trump is ignorant of just about everything. My memory extends back farther than most apparently because I remember you writing about how superior a president Trump would be. I guess that occurred in the time before the last few months. Thanks for admitting I was right though in your passive aggressive way. Trump really is dimwit and your special relationship amounts to what now? Hitched your wagon to a loonie!

Peter, I would not wager the deeds of my house on *your* memory. If I ever did write anything that could be construed as "how superior a president Trump would be" I would be grateful for the exact quotation - although I will not be holding my breath! However, it is quite possible that I might have suggested that Trump would be infinitely superior to 'HillBilly' which, I am happy to say, she herself has proved to be true by her neurotic behaviour since she lost the election. If, in your own words, "Trump really is a dimwit", what does that make 'HillBilly'?

Yep, it always was an ugly parade, with the objective being to choose the one bagger over the two bagger.

The big test for the Don will be what he actually does by way of international trade when he squares up to that (if anything).

Will he live up to his mercantilist manifesto, or will the new trade deals actually be more globalizing than the ones in place now?!

He might, for example, offer quite liberalizing deals with friends, but with the proviso that the trade "partner" must accept the commercial courts and rules and regs of the USA. And the ones that don't accept he'll just shrug at, like he has done on the political front with North Korea and Iran, and say "What can I do about it?" and leave them as they were.

I for one would Love-Love-Love to see the NHS, Social Services, Education, Defence, and Construction opened up to competition from the USA.

Boy-oh-boy, that would improve the UK's productivity stats overnight! The single market would pale by comparison.

But I guess the Brit "take back control" brigade would balk at that. I don't think a near open border free trade relationship between the UK and USA would be prevented by Trump. It'll be the Brit country-bumpkins who'll block it - whether of the Corbyn or Tory variety: "Damn yanks, coming in and running our NHS better than we can! We'd rather starve and dehydrate our old folks to death in their thousands than hand over to a better foreign operator". Something like that.



The claim the US can run a health care system is Brit irony, right?

Not when compared to the NHS it isn't!

I grant you when the US state has attempted to orchestrate coverage for all it hasn't been great. But the US private sector health providers, in fact anyone's private sector health care providers, would be most welcome to give the NHS a run for its money.

@Gaffer - isn't the Shepton Mallet Hospital that you had your hernia done by that Polish doctor and Memsahib her hips done with that Hungarian dotor that we always compliment run by an American institution on behalf of the NHS? No ironies in that of course, no-no-no, honest gov!


Well here's your problem David. The person who suggested that the vast migrations of refugees should be addressed at the source by establishing safes zones so they wouldn't have to flee was Hillary Clinton. She was absolutely right. And I could go down the list of wise policies that were rooted in deep understanding of both political realities and of foreign and domestic policy and the person who advised them was Hillary Clinton. She knew what the hell she was talking about.

You know that critical policy on which the entire future of your country rests, free trade? Hillary Clinton not Donald (the nitwit) Trump. It was Obama and Clinton advantage Trade policies like TPP that would protect the intellectual property of the countries that invested billions to develop them. Not that idiot Trump. It was idiot Trump telling other ignorant buffoons that they could make economic war on their customers and still have them as customers. He believed it himself.

And so now we get to watch as May stands shoulder to shoulder with Justin Trudeau to tell Trump's pal Boeing that if they go after our aerospace industries they can keep the fighter planes we were going to order.

You know what a huge number of Trump supporters are happy with and insist they keep Bob? Medicare. And that is what? A health care system run by the United States government. That the Republican party consistently tries to gut and destroy at every opportunity.

The US pays twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other advanced country and, overall, gets mediocre results. We have the highest prescription drug prices too. Before the ACA (Obamacare) about 20% of the population had no coverage at all. These people went to hospital emergency rooms, which by law can't turn them away and are also the most expensive points of treatment. A hospital in my native Chicago became famous for leaving one of those patients on the pavement to die. There were similar stories from other big cities.

A short history about why the US system is an anomaly: Following WWII private business and the government cooperated to make healthcare an employer benefit to help draw the best scientists, engineers and others from Europe. I worked for three large and politically powerful companies, but over my career health insurance went from great to awful. I'm glad to have Medicare, which is run efficiently and, for the most part, reasonably.

Another thing you might not realize is that most of the system isn't actually private. Besides Medicare there's Tricare, CHIP, Medicaid, and a wide variety of other government programs that make up an inefficient crazy quilt. Also, most medical research is done in hospitals and universities that receive government grants for the work.

Btw, I forgot to mention employer supplied health insurance is still subsidized by the government.

SoD, I'll probably be gone the rest of the day, and might go silent.

So, Peter, true to form from PMC's blog you toss out accusations but can never find a quote to support them. I knew next to nothing about Trump but I took my provisional lead from NR whose editorial board raised doubts about Trumps fitness for office. However, I did not require any advice in coming to the judgment that the Clintons are the nearest things to a crime family outside of the Sopranos. On top of which, 'HillBilly' herself is a lazy, stupid, psychic nutcase of the first order. Lest you doubt me, look at her behaviour since the very first moments when she realised she had lost the election - of which her self-serving book just published is just the latest prime example!

But not Medicare Bob and the rules that prevent Medicare from doing even better are entirely Republican in origin. Medicare is quite efficient Who forbids them from negotiating volume discounts from pharmaceutical companies and becoming even more efficient? Don't say government when you mean Republican. Don't blame the government for stupid Republican policies. I think you are missing a major point that I have been belaboring for years.

Health care should not come primarily from employers. The guy working at Seven-Eleven is never going to get decent coverage when covering him and his family costs three times as much as his wages. Competition in the marketplace forces employers to cut costs and cut again. When did you think that was going to change? And when do you think people employed in the public sector from school janitors to US Senators are going to give up their privileged position at the trough? Why do you think these people are your allies? They've already got theirs. Why should they pay for yours?

So you argue that government plans are a crazy quilt but health care from employers isn't. There is a reason Canadian health care is much more efficient. It is government run.

What he is learning is that Obama and Clinton were right. Which is why is isn't changing anything.

@ Pompous

"The person who suggested that the vast migrations of refugees should be addressed at the source by establishing safes zones so they wouldn't have to flee was Hillary Clinton."


As odd as it may seem (now) Hillary and/or Obama weren't at all the originators of the idea for safe zones - actually the proposition (in its most generally agreed upon form was ... the government (pre-coup admittedly) of Turkey.

But now even Turkey's not so keen on the idea (post-coup) owing perhaps to Trump's decision to overtly arm and assist the Kurds.

And, just to get to where the idea actually (and Historically accurately) originated can be traced back - admitting the actual originators weren't exactly "too hot" on their knowledge of the region's culturally tribalistic/clannish/family ways - but anyway be that as it may, the original idea for "safe zones" owes its roots to Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot.

And further, if only to put a point on it:

No JK you are wrong. Safe zones were established to protect the Kurds from retaliation by Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf war. They worked just fine. And they worked again to end the genocides that were occurring in the Balkans during that unpleasantness. I did not say Hillary Clinton invented them but they work. Stupid was watching Putin and Assad flood Europe with refugees while they funded anti-refugee parties in the West. You got played by Putin. You should have listened to Hillary but you were too busy suffocating on your own rectal fumes to figure it out.

Oh and Pompous?

I almost forgot where I was in 1991 - the reason it might be pertinent to your above claim that Hillary "originated the idea of safe-zones" was that, that was the year GHW Bush (without consulting Hillary) figured out ... well:


Tell you what - lets do a poll of our fellows here over the text of your observation "No [..] you are wrong." (Leaving aside however effective Srebrenica worked in actual practice)

Anyway : all who agree this pompous nitwit is more often "selflessly illuminating" than any other of D&N's regular commentors - drop a comment on this thread so signifying.

By way of 'signifying' "yes it's Pompous selflessly illuminating" type Rectal Fumes.

If y'all figure, "Pompous is the more egoistic and annoying" type, Bullshit.

We'll check back in here when this post scrolls down to the point on David's sidebar where "Recent Posts" indicates this is about to scroll away and count the results.

JK my friend,

Kudos for your valiant effort to drain what has devolved into a swamp of Leftist rubbish, ad hominem trash-talk, and obnoxious harangues.

There is another way to vote, however -- with your feet.

Just stop,feeding the troll!

BOE ...

(Damned difficult though.)

Don't know about that JK. A couple of hours polishing the brass on the keel would do wonders for him[?].

Peter, is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you trying to mess with me somehow? You keep writing I made arguments I didn't make.

So AD, how would we "rig it" - a line from athwartships or, stem to stern?

The comments to this entry are closed.