Time to stop joking and start thinking about Trump

Because it ain’t no laughing matter:

Capture

We can cogitate on what it means for investments. Here’s the HSBC take:

srtfghwa dthned

But for me the larger implications are more important. A Trump Presidency will be a dramatic acceleration for deglobalisation meaning:

  • nation states rebounding as the touchstone of policy as market states fall back;
  • a deeper divide in the so-called “Clash of Civilisations”;
  • anti-immigration movements boosted worldwide;
  • deteriorating US/China relations based largely around trade, and
  • a quite serious roll back of liberal trade policy globally.

It is hard to think of a less propitious outcome for Australia and I would expect it to impact us thus over time:

  • deeper than ever Coalition divisions as Abbott policies look much more in step with Trump than do Turnbull’s;
  • falling immigration as state boundaries rebound;
  • a lot more pressure to deliver for ANZUS including participation in mid-East wars, raising defense spending and protecting the economy from Chinese interests, and
  • a dramatic rise in claims for trade protection.

It’s not all bad. It might just save us from the McKibbin Doctrine.

Comments

  1. Australia should smarten up our immigration policy and open our doors to the Latin Americans trump is trying to stop. Those people keep America running and don’t ask for anything in return except to go about their lives.

    • AndynycMEMBER

      No they don’t. They just make sure American employers do not have to pay the right wages for American workers.

      • Come on Andy, if you’re in nyc, who delivers your take out when it’s snowing, it’s certainly not college students doing part time work to get by. Who cooks and cleans at restaurants you eat at? Locals don’t want those jobs.

      • AndynycMEMBER

        Nothing is for free. The cost gets placed on hospitals social services and other institutions. A few businesses would just have to go belly up. I lived there a long time and knew plenty of African Americans who would love to not have to work 3 jobs to survive.

      • Locals don’t want those jobs.

        This is a popular lie with the elite.

        The truth is that locals would love to do those jobs for a decent wage. One way of obtaining a decent wage for those jobs is not to flood the job market with desperate immigrants.

        The elite 1% will bring in many immigrants to compete against poor local workers, while at the same time the elite will use the power of government regulation to prevent poorer people competing with the elite for what they (elite) do.

        For example rorty specialist doctors prevent immigrant specialists from competing, rorty rent-collectors prevent poor people from claiming land and competing in the rent-collection business. Rorty landbankers lobby to stop ordinary farmers from developing their land. Rorty bankers prevent other forms of money and credit from competing. The list goes on and on.

      • martyg123MEMBER

        Too see the future of the US economy under Trump, just look at Alabama. In 2010 they introduced State Laws to arrest suspected illegals and anyone who employed them. Almost overnight, their GDP went down between 3 and 10 Billion $. No one wants to work as hard as the Mexicans or do the shitty jobs they do. The State’s agriculture sector has not recovered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUIavBUl48A

    • Do you really think when we have severe anti-illegal immigration policies we should accept the illegal immigrants the USA won’t?

      Australia is in no position to lecture anyone on illegal immigration – which, if people were paying attention is what Trump cares about. It isn’t racist to want control of your borders. Brexit happened in part due to the loss of sovereignty over borders. Howard and Abbott won in part due to sovereignty over borders. Trump will win in part because of sovereignty over borders. France will probably abandon the EU in part due to sovereignty over borders. So will other countries.

      Whether you like it or not, it’s a globally resonating issue.

    • No they do not, they come illegally, drive down wages (much like our own asian illegal workers) and bring drugs and crime.

      • he may not be but who is? Killary? If the established parties and their reps are only 1/2 honest there will be no Trumps or Paulines etc..
        We need a reset and this might do it.Trump is dangerous so they say but he is keen to engage Russia while Hillary is hell bend to intimidate both Russia and China. Once Russia and China decide enough is enough and starts to do same..
        BTW – I stopped joking about Trump 6 months ago and I was until then.

      • Terror Australis

        If it’s a choice between a criminal and a psychopath, I’ll take the criminal.

    • But it doesn’t mean he’s truthful. He genuinely believes the crap that comes out of his mouth.

    • Trump is far from honest. He makes shit up all the time. Stuff that is easily proven false with a simple look at statistics.

    • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

      I agree Brett – people are saying “Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t” and applying it to Trump as though he was the devil you don’t know, personally I think its’ the reverse.

      We know Trump is a self serving SOB, he has never hidden the fact. The devil we don’t know is HRC and the faceless pricks who are pushing her into power, because they aren’t doing it from the goodness of their heart, they’ll be expecting pay-back, big time. They are the devils we don’t know.

      To my mind, Trump represents the best remaining chance (now Sanders has been corruptly removed by the elites within the DNC) to upset the system. Everyone knows where the world will be in 4 years time if Clinton gets in – global interest rates will be pushing negative 2%, US house prices will have surpassed the last bubble peak, and they’ll still be arguing over the need for helicopter money, and Baby Boomers will still be smugly showering themselves in the wealth that asset inflation produces – for them and no one else, all the while thinking they deserve every fucking cent.

      Sure he is a wild card and could bring the whole fucking system, and it could end in one of either two ways, an unravelling of the financial structures holding the elites and their Baby Boomer catspaws in power, or it could end in total war – but do you know what, fuck it…. I’m at the point where I would chose Trump, simply because I would prefer the risk of dying on my feet, than live the remainder of my life down on my knees.

      • Terror Australis

        Some of us have children to think about, you know.
        I can’t be as sanguine as some MB posters about the prospect of either a Global Depression or a major regional war.

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        I have kids too – and I’d much prefer they grow up free and capable of living their lives to the fullest, rather than be raised on their knees as debt slaves to support #TheSelfishOld and their 0.1% asset inflation overlords.

      • I agree and I’m leaning towards Trump again. Who cares about gay marriage or abortion? There’s no way these guys can get a constitutional amendment up. I want Washington DC to feel fear.

  2. GunnamattaMEMBER

    Trump is a symptom, not the problem

    The problem is that after a generation when both sides of Western parliamentary democracy have essentially revolved around ‘free’ markets, ‘trickle down’ economics, industry self regulation across a range of fields ( most notably how and where they pay their taxes ) deregulated labour and migration, and free trade agreements which free up capital, but bind working people to debt or employment insecurity that model has ceased to deliver results – it has not delivered a result for anyone except the 1%ers for 8 years.

    The beneficiaries of that model are still exhorting that model, while at the same time they have been the only beneficiaries since the GFC, and while it is increasingly obvious to everyone that it simply isn’t working. The problem is that large numbers of voting people are looking at their mainstream politicians and thinking ‘this is bullshit’ and looking at the other side – be it Trump, be it Brexit, be it Hanson, be it Bernie Sanders – and thinking to themselves

    ………. ‘one side is feeding me bullshit’ and the other side
    ………..‘may not make much sense on a range of issues but at least it isn’t serving me bullshit as a main course’

    And arriving at the conclusion, let’s take the punt on the nutters – it cannot be any worse than the bullshit we are being served.

    The problem is that the narrative which has sustained neo capitalism for a generation is rotting on the vine (and while it is in power) and that the electorate (like birds or insects) can smell decay, and knows that narrative isn’t long for this world

    • Gunna you are only half right.:The people wanted the freedom to engage with capitalism, to acquire debt and to manage their finances, but they did not have the responsibility to manage that capital, especially in an environment where the asshole politicians like our Robb, sold out the country from under their feet and imported labor to undercut wages, thus substantially changing the business- commercial model for the people, and largely destroying the opportunity
      The issue is politicians such as Bronwyn Bishop have so rorted the system to the detriment of the people that the people want those assholes out on the street.
      Trump is the person who will do that!

      • Democracy is open season buddy

        ] The donor spreadsheet is included in an email chain in which Jordan Kaplan, DNC’s national finance director, asks other officials to provide names of donors they want to propose for federal commissions.

        “Last call for boards and commissions,” Kaplan wrote on April 20.

        “If you have someone, send to [DNC finance chief of staff Scott] Comer – full name, city, state, email and phone number. Send as many as you want, just don’t know how many people will get to.”

        The email confused at least one official involved in the exchange.

        “Boards and commissions? Sorry, I’m lost,” wrote Jordan Vaughn, the national finance director for the DNC’s African American Leadership Council.

        Comer explained: “Any folks who you’d like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.”

      • Ah Mig, you mean like duck shooting day 1 on the Werribee ponds.
        Wait till the punters get these auto shot guns.

      • Stephen Morris

        “Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.”

        Orwell again. Look at the word “serve”. This should read:

        “Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to [exploit a position] on the board of one of these orgs.”

    • Stephen Morris

      “parliamentary democracy” should read “parliamentary government” or “elective government”.

      The Orwellian use of the word “democratic” to mean “non-democratic” may be traced back to 1798 and the “Democratic-Republican Party” of Jefferson and Madison (not to be confused with the modern Republican Party):

      The Republicans contended that the Federalists harboured aristocratic attitudes and that their policies placed too much power in the central government and tended to benefit the affluent at the expense of the common man. Although the Federalists soon branded Jefferson’s followers “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution, the Republicans officially adopted the derisive label in 1798. (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party)

      Ten years after ratification of a deliberately non-democratic constitution (in the historical sense), a political party can be seen appropriating the title “Democratic” safe in the knowledge that there was no real threat of actual Democracy.

      This strategy has been used ever since. The “German Democratic Republic” (the former East Germany) was in fact a police state. Likewise, to this day the brutal North Korean dictatorship chooses to style itself “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

      And the Elite in almost all other countries refer to their regimes as “democratic” when they are in fact merely “elective”.

      The fight for Democracy must include a fight to prevent the perversion of language.

    • Absolutely. The last 35 years has been a public policy disaster. That includes this country, that includes Hawke-Keating. Policy started to take social cohesion for granted in the early 80’s when Communism appeared to be on the way out. The sole aim became ‘growth’. Distributional issues were not only ignored they were considered “harmful”. As Robert Lucas said: “Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution”. The economy was thought of as a machine, where all efforts to lower the cost of business inputs would generate more output. The demand side problem was allegedly solved – and in any case an anti-democratic CB could step in to stimulate demand should it be necessary (following strict rules limiting any democratic influence and discretion). Fringe nutters in the 50’s and 60’s like Friedman were elevated to the status of genius. An incoherent ideology became custom. A high taxing government was self-evidently bad for growth. Once tax cuts created their own momentum it was all downhill. In 08-09, the people who pushed this crap had a chance to take their medicine and respond rationally. Instead they chose to pay out bonuses and impose austerity. Now it’s time for them to learn a lesson people like Bismarck and Deakin new only too well; you can’t take social cohesion for granted.

      • Interesting, I’d has at a guess that I associate with more 1%ers than any other demographic, so I’ll let you in on a secret…For the most part they’re structuring their investments to leverage clearly identified advantage rather than to simply make money. Making money is the result of a properly structured investment rather than the goal of the structure, might seem to some like an exercise in pedantic’s however personally I’d say it goes to the core of matter.
        I don’t have (nor have I ever had) much to do with guiding investment decisions for average mum’s and dad’s, I can only base my understanding on what I hear from colleagues that learned their craft at the consumer end of the game. To be honest they dont paint a particularly rosy picture for a life spent serving the 99% in their trenches. Their quest for wealth is at it’s most basic misguided, as in…well that ain’t ever gunna work, you hear all manner of wealth strategies that amount to both Peter and Paul getting rich by stealing from each other. If I presented this to 0.1%ers and they’ll laugh you out of the room, they’d at least want to understand how to structure their ill gotten gains so that they were not immediately stolen back. IMHO Developing and optimizing this one-way function is a critical element of any true wealth redistribution structure….I like to think of it as a “perfect diode”…in theory if you had such a widget than you could turn thermal noise (uncertainity)into useful power (wealth)…at least that’s my goal.

      • Everything is retrievable as long as we own the assets and our population is low.

        If it’s not sorted soon, we’ll have neither and we will have destroyed our kids country.

        We’ve been beyond disgraceful. Most Australians can see what’s going on, yet we continue voting LNP, Labor Greens.

      • robert2013MEMBER

        I think of it as spending the social capital built up by previous generations. Egalitarian is how people feel when everyone has the opportunity to succeed at something and nobody is condemned to poverty. There is widespread respect. Making new friends is easy. The rich have ‘poor’ friends and vice versa. Something like the Nordic countries. That’s an idealised version of what we were, sure. But we’re alot further from that place than we were 40 years ago. I work with a lot if baby boomers. They have an ease about their relations with one another that I don’t see in younger generations. That is the result of spending social capital.

    • Well said Gunnamatta. It’s increasingly obvious that neo-capitalism has been nothing but a short-term gains scenario for the 1% with the added bonus of exporting our wealth overseas. It’s a much better foreign aid program than our actual foreign aid.

      And while we could have adapted to the changing world and focused on up-skilling our workforce while the rest of the world played catch up we instead had the Howard government squandering all the new revenue on ‘pie and coke’ tax cuts every 12 months, giving us more money to spend on cheap crap from China, stimulating their economy rather than ours.
      So we see this happen, those of us old enough to have noticed the change, and we think to ourselves “Was life that bad in the 1980s? Sure a TV cost 5 times as much, but did I really need more than 1? Wasn’t having our own manufacturing base better than a $30 printer made in Taiwan?”

      I also wonder about all this talk of innovation. Up until the period of darkness triggered by Reagan and Thatcherites, the west had done a pretty good job of increasing our wealth, life expectancies and happiness without selling the farm to China. Why did that need to change? What have we gained by improving the economies of the 3rd World? A China that does whatever it wants, claiming territory it has no right to. An Islamic state paid for effectively by the West exporting it’s prosperity to the middle-east. Remember when IS only has scimitars and only killed each other? Yeah me neither, and that’s the point.

      Bring on Trump or Bernie, bring on UKIP, bring on the Greens/Xenophon (if only he could get sane on real estate we’d have a viable 3rd option). Got to be better than what we’ve had for the past 35 years.

      • GunnamattaMEMBER

        Skip

        Yeah OK, he is insane and a racist……….

        Is he more insane than invading a nation for its non-existent WMDs?

        Is he more insane than mezzanine financing?

        Is he more insane than planning to fail in limiting global carbon emissions so that global warming is less than 1 degree by 2050?

        Is he more insane than allowing elites to stash accounts in the Caribbean to avoid paying tax?

        Is he more insane than signing up for a free trade agreement signed sight unseen which has already been identified to deliver a lesser outcome than for any other signatory?

        Is he any more insane than planning to support an economy by inflating a housing bubble?

        Is he any more insane than telling the families of tomorrow to load up on debt while creating an economy consisting of ever more short term, part time and temporary jobs?

        Is he any more insane than looking the other way when  beneficiaries of corruption elsewhere bring their loot to a nation and telling the inhabitants of that nation it is racist to question how they got their money?

        Is he any more racist than militarily intervening in a nation for no specified benefit whatsoever?

        Is he any more racist than the immigrants pouring into Europe/or the US/or even Australia?

         

        And on and on and on

        I don’t doubt for a second the guy is an utter self serving prick.

        The question I would have (I am not American) and that I do have about the politics here is the question of is someone being an incoherent self serving prick going to be worse than what we have?

        And what conceivable evidence is that that the other side (no matter what other side they are) aren’t also self serving pricks (but maybe a tad better disguised – or with a better marketing budget, with better press contacts, more advertising revenues etc etc etc)?

      • Gunna….

        For myself and trusted others… the view is whatever may come, no matter whom wins this round, its all about information dissemination whilst building a cohesive base w/ the 2020 in mind. There is no winning candidate this round and the best on could hope for is endless stalemates all around. The evangelicals and far right of the republican party need to be put back to where at least Reagan kept them [till the Zionists leveraged P. Robinson] and the blue dog corporatist expunged from the DNC [they can go back to being centrist Republicans (Goldwater – see Hillary)].

        This is compounded by the unlikelihood that any third party could make inroads in America, the system architecture is owned and unlikely too ever give away any hard fought for dominance. This means an internal fight from the local ground up, that takes time and effort.

        Its not like you can undo 50ish years with one presidential election…. Obama’s first act in office was to throw his base under the bus and still got reelected due to a combination of Republican fear and identity cult. Hell Dems got their asses kicked in the next congressional election and still stayed the course.

        Disheveled Marsupial… people are starting to open their eyes Gunna, but beliefs are hard to let go of….

      • Good post Warwick. Especially the part about the externalities of our great wealth export. Shit’s getting real.

      • Renumber stuff like this Gunna….

        On the basis of the above The Greens can hardly be called Left, leftish perhaps in a bourgeois sort of way, but on key issues within their platform, such as management of water and land-use they have squibbed it.

        The so-called Left of the Labor Party has allowed the Right to call the shots. The fact that a Labor Party has a Right which dominates the party agenda is a significant statement in terms the current political environment.

        In a recent interview on ABC TV, former prime minister John Howard described his politics as conservative, but there was nothing conservative about taking Australia to war and nothing conservative in the systematic abuse of asylum seekers and the election ploy of abusing Aborigines through the cruel ploy of a military backed ‘intervention’. I would call these measures radical.

        I have had enough of the radical Right, of the abusive Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, who suck up to our big and powerful friends and kick down the most vulnerable and those most in need. They are weak and they are bullies and we don’t need them.

        http://www.brucehaigh.com.au/?p=311

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        We can’t have a successful 2 party democratic system if both sides are singing from the same economic hymn sheet,… the traditional pragmatic compromises fought out between the “Left” and the “Right” cannot occur when both Parties are Right of centre.
        You want to see change,..Join the labor party and help to fight to retake it.
        Jeremy Corbyns trying to have a go,.. but the neoliberals in the party are out to get him, trying to disallow 130,000 recent new members from voting on the challenge to his leadership.

        https://youtu.be/O5n-UJvxGYo

        http://labourlist.org/2015/08/over-600000-people-will-be-able-to-vote-in-the-labour-leadership-contest/

  3. The US is electing a President, not installing a dictator. There are checks and balances.
    I am more concerned about Australia’s leadership – or lack of it

    • “I am more concerned about Australia’s leadership – or lack of it”

      Exactly.

      “leadership – or lack of it” We’ve got great leadership, it’s just not for our benefit.

  4. brettnicholsonMEMBER

    I can feel it when he speaks – he says what he believes even though half of it is insane.
    Chinese are currency manipulator and they need to control immigration. He says Hilary is a liar and I think he’s right and I used to like Turnbull but I am turned off people who lie. People want transparency now and I’m not saying a like trump but I think he’ll win – brexit 2

  5. SkoptimistMEMBER

    Well if Trump is looking like a real possibility then why would you want to hold USD. Wouldn’t gold be the best option?. Even the Aussie dollar may be better.

  6. Posted June 29, 2016 at 5:14 pm by Lawrence Mishel
    The Trump trade scam

    Yesterday, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump gave a speech on trade, extensively citing EPI’s research which shows that trade deficits as a result of NAFTA and other trade deals, as well as trade with China, have cost U.S. jobs and driven down U.S. wages. It’s true that the way we have undertaken globalization has hurt the vast majority of working people in this country—a view that EPI has been articulating for years, and that we will continue to articulate well after November. However, Trump’s speech makes it seem as if globalization is solely responsible for wage suppression, and that elite Democrats are solely responsible for globalization. Missing from his tale is the role of corporations and their allies have played in pushing this agenda, and the role the party he leads has played in implementing it. After all, NAFTA never would have passed without GOP votes, as two-thirds of the House Democrats opposed it.

    Furthermore, Trump has heretofore ignored the many other intentional policies that businesses and the top 1 percent have pushed to suppress wages over the last four decades. Start with excessive unemployment due to Federal Reserve Board policies which were antagonistic to wage growth and friendly to the finance sector and bondholders. Excessive unemployment leads to less wage growth, especially for low- and middle-wage workers. Add in government austerity at the federal and state levels—which has mostly been pushed by GOP governors and legislatures—that has impeded the recovery and stunted wage growth. There’s also the decimation of collective bargaining, which is the single largest reason that middle class wages have faltered. Meanwhile, the minimum wage is now more than 25 percent below its 1968 level, even though productivity since then has more than doubled. Phasing in a $15 minimum wage would lift wages for at least a third of the workforce. The most recent example is the effort to overturn the recent raising of the overtime threshold that would help more than 12 million middle-wage salaried workers obtain overtime protections.

    Trump is absent or wrong on all these issues. He has said in the past that wages are too high. And he argues, without basis, that businesses are overregulated and overtaxed—further ingratiating himself to corporate elites and the party he now leads. Deregulation and tax cuts are have been tried and failed for the last four decades, simply enriching the rich without stimulating any growth.

    Trump’s latest take on trade is a scam. He claims to be offering a path for workers, but is actually just offering mostly empty boxes on trade. What exactly is he trying to accomplish with renegotiated trade deals? And if is he so keen to help working people, why does he then steer the discussion back toward the traditional corporate agenda of tax cuts for corporations and the rich? Some pro-worker, anti-elite populist Trump is.

    http://www.epi.org/blog/the-trump-trade-scam/

    Disheveled Marsupial…. OK… so Hillary is the fear trade against Evangelical Thumpers and Trump is the fear trade against – ???? – big government – [?????]…. errrrrrr

  7. casewithscience

    The point of view that is propelling Trump was set out in his convention speech in the following passage:

    A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation’s most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic system for their exclusive benefit.

    Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

    That is why Hillary Clinton’s message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.

    I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.

    I AM YOUR VOICE.

    • “A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation’s most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic system for their exclusive benefit”

      Yep, like Australia it needs a complete and utter clean out.

      I can’t think of a single thing our politicians have done for our benefit that doesn’t somehow benefit them or their favourite people more.

      • casewithscience

        I don’t think Trump will actually do a clean out. I think he will be like Reagan: spend a lot of energy to get into office then say “wow, now I need to do something” and then drop a ton of tax cuts because he has no actual policy ideas (resulting in an even more disastrous cycle of degradation of public services than the post-80s period).

      • Reagan didn’t just do that though. He dragged demand forward with a massive credit binge. I think that we’re witnessing the failure of that policy now.

    • And Trumps rhetoric is backstopped by what – ???? – considering decades of just the opposite actions in running his business affairs…

      Disheveled Marsupial… seems few have learned over the last few decades…

      • “And Trumps rhetoric is backstopped by what – ???? – considering decades of just the opposite actions in running his business ”

        As opposed to how Hillary “ran” her office as SoS? Or how about how she runs the Clinton Foundation? You can’t look at something or someone in isolation. Put Trump’s actions side by side with Hillary’s and you may just realise why he is winning so much of the vote.

      • This is a common case where being anti one candidate is being pro another… nothing could be further from the truth.

        The only positive out of this whole affair is the public display of corruption on both side of the fence, something which will have ramifications in 2020. Now Clinton is pro status quo and corrupt to the core, but, has aversions to the Christinistas in the republican party which imo is shared by Trump, but to a lesser degree as he needs their voter base in key states.

        Disheveled Marsupial… one would think after the Oz experience with Turnbull some would wake up…

  8. Trump exists for the same reason that brexit happened. Ordinary folks know that their parliamentary representatives care nowt for their interests, they can feel in their bones that they’re having the utter piss taken out of them and, by voting in this manner, are extending a middle finger to the establishment in the only way they can.

    Donald Trump is, in no way, shape or form, suitable for the office he’s running for, and I wouldn’t want to vote for him, but given the alternatives presented, he’s a change to the status quo and that’s enough for a lot of people to vote for him. The problem there is that it’s a change for the worse and I now genuinely fear seeing a global war in my lifetime.

    • Stephen Morris

      The use of the word “representative” to describe non-democratic politicians is a “semantic fallacy” as discussed here.

      As George Orwell observed:

      Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

      The fight for Democracy will involve winning the battle to reclaim accurate use of language.

    • wrt most middle class Americans I kinda agree, Trump is their protest vote, Trouble is he’s about as subtle as a cattle prod to the family jewels.
      Problem with this is it’s just not the way things happen in other countries and that is highly likely to result in a lot of geopolitical second guessing. In a way it’s a bit like playing a high level chess game where you have an expectation that your opponent is a very skilled player but he opens with a completely stupid move. You sit their asking yourself, Is it a trap? Can he possible be this stupid? Surely he has advisers that’d at least make sure the opening game makes strategic sense….what to do …what to do …what to do.

      – I can press the advantage, after all he made the stupid move and the game demands that I extract a toll.
      – I can ignore his stupidity and see how it compounds, basic idea being if I dont point out his stupidity early on, than maybe he’ll make a bigger mistake, presenting me with even juicier opportunities…if I do point it out than they’ll likely get someone involved that at least understands the game (we saw exactly this happen whenever dubya got out of his depth)
      – I can try to manage the game through political communication side channels by pointing out that which I didn’t do and gain political favor by enabling my opponent to save face
      – I myself can insure that my opponent saves face because I would want to be personally embarrassed by being seen to take advantage of a simpleton. I also wouldn’t want it known that I waste my time playing simpletons.

      Ahh decisions decisions decisions
      These decisions are made all the more difficult when you realize your opponent is actually playing the best game he knows how to, the situation is also not improved if you realize that he got voted into power because even your average mom&pop voter could see that the guy was not smart enough to have a hidden agenda. Matter of fact it’s the average mom&pop that are sick of the high level chess game and want to return international politics to simple game of Checkers.
      What’s really interesting is a comparison that I saw recently between Chairman Mao and Donald Trump, both men were/are popularists and both say/said some pretty stupid things, they both could/can paint a glorious picture of a workers utopia but then in their very next sentence they’ll destroy the very foundations of that utopia…lots of parallels there, and lots of reasons to make Chinese officials nervous ..

    • FYI Brexit happened because Johnson and mates tried to pull a political fast one, for a power grab, and it got out of control. Low information voters only got a chance to put their dissatisfaction on public display without any clue to the actual ramifications. Now England is stuck with a massive loss of bargaining power wrt trade in the EU in a resource constrained island and decades low Pound.

      Disheveled Marsupial…. trade shocks are the precursor to some seriously bad times for the unwashed imo…. and other nasties imo… see history…

  9. surflessMEMBER

    This not about Trump, everyone should be concerned by his supporters. I more fearful of Trumps supporters, and what their fringe ideology is, groups such as NRA. Watched a video clip (edited) of interviews of base republican supporters at the convention in Cleveland, only numbered about ten people interview, but this small statistically wrong batch, sent a cold chill down my back.

    • I wouldn’t call the NRA fringe, they are republican mainstream. Sad as that is.

      Sure, Trump may encourage a few people to be a bit more daring in their racism. But those people were out there anyway.

      Whats a lot more scary is him winning and bringing his loose-tounged cowboy ways to international relations. Could take a decade or two to undo the damage.

  10. If people were only reading his words he’d be ignored. He is a product of television, for television and for those who interpret life through the medium.
    America, Britain, Australia and a lot of the world has a range of institutional problems. These problems are not being admitted to by the current batch of populations. If there are those within the parties who have recognised this, they are not speaking up or are being gagged.
    Trump does not deal with these issues either. He puts his finger in the air, gets a feel for the mood, and then unleashes a rant. By doing this he taps into the fears and anxieties of people who are, very rightly, afraid of what the future holds for them. He is selling himself as a product. It’s his thing.
    While many would respond that this is exactly what he should be doing right now, there is currently nothing inside the box. Gore, Mcain, Kerry and Romney may not excite, yet they were standing up there talking about legitimate things. Mr. Trump does not.
    Normally I am all about hating the game, and not the player. If Mr. Trump was only selling dodgy steaks and toupees then I’d not be too concerned. If he is successful he becomes one of the major players in the game. Leaving out political ideology, it is a game that requires a skill-set that he doesn’t appear to possess. The potential ramifications of his approach to international relations worries me. Maybe he’ll be laughed off like Mr. Abbott was. Maybe not.
    Change at a political and societal level is needed, but Mr. Trump is a false prophet, not the messiah.

  11. The laughing matter is that you guys still are political novices at reading the sentiment of the community
    Y’all were recently supporters of Turnball, and now he has failed you,, you are now in no mans land
    Finally you are realising The Donald is a winnner, and are starting to change tack
    Here is a tip, to be successful in life, say after the age of 30, you need to get things right the first time, other wise you lose credibility and opportunity. You dont have limitless time on the planet,
    The way things are changing most will be washed up at age 50.

    • Ah, Mr Wolf, spoken like someone between the ages of 30 and 50.
      It is fascinating that a man of 70 with questionable credibility has such an enormous opportunity. Tallest dwarf in the room?

    • Here is a tip, to be successful in life, say after the age of 30, you need to get things right the first time, other wise you lose credibility and opportunity.

      Maybe you mix with the wrong folks, because this is provably and patently false.

      I’m past 30, get things wrong often, but call them out, take accountability, and fix them.

      Earns you plenty of respect and credibility.

      Humility and honesty wins the day WW, along with gravitas, some things which are yet to visit your humble abode, it seems.

      I jest, I jest.

  12. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    Well with Sanders taken out, Trumps the man for those not satisfied with the Status quo. I recon hes going to get most of the Sanders supporters, they want change and Hillary aint got it for them.

    As for deglobalisation,…Good !

  13. if anyone is interested the creator of dilbert looks at the psychology of what trump is doing on youtube

    he nails it

    says that trump nails his opponents well

    crooked Hillary
    lyin ted cruz
    low energy jeb

    its an interesting take, well worth watching

    he thinks trump will romp it in, so get used to it

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      A person familiar with the ideas Adams is blogging about might conclude that Adams is trying to manipulate/persuade people into voting for Trump by blogging about Trump’s use of persuasion.

  14. Bring on Trump. It couldn’t get worse for Australia’s future.

    You watch Australia completely fk this up and go down the path of @J Bauer above.

    Australia needs to close borders and get productive.

  15. I stated above that I don’t like Trump and don’t think that he is a suitable person for the job. Yet it is possible he could win the election. Are there any good pieces out there on what changes he can actually implement? on what points does his rhetoric line up with possibility?

  16. Listening to Turnbull talk about anything is becoming really painful. That bloke’s just telling us what our dumb ears want to hear with all the pleasant platitudes with key bingo BS words, while they continue fking us over.

    We need a radical like Trump.

    • Democrats imploding is pretty funny too, what if they leak #RNC emails and we discover they were on Trumps side all along ??

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Yes, Not since Reagan would Presidential politics be so simultaneously depressing and Hillarious.

      Meetings with European heads of state are going to be particularly entertaining.

      A “what would that ugly bitch know”, about Merkel, would not supprise me.
      Most likley uttered whilst on the piss with Boris and Vladimir, who would laugh uproariously and would later bond through some very manly, homo-erotic wrestling.

      • Bro are you ok because that’s not the first time you’ve projected some repressed issues of that nature. I suppose you are right though, ultimately women do benefit more from homophobia than men because bless my latte hasn’t Merkel been a success for Europe.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Whats Homophobic about having a chuckle about 3 stated strong and manly heterosexuals having a bit of homo-erotic play time.? (All agressive male wrestling falls into this category IMOP and me thinking thats funny is not homophobic,…stop being a faggot.

        https://youtu.be/Fcja4WFFzDw

        You sound like your Bi-phobic, needing to pigeon hole everyone into “one team” or another,….im calling you out Sir,…for your prejudice!

    • Terror Australis

      Funny as in laughing at the captain who rams his ship into an iceberg while you rugby scrum your way into a lifeboat? That kind of funny?

      • More like the, your mate just pissed his pants but doing so killed your chances with the hot bird as the club is closing, kind of funny.

  17. Ronin8317MEMBER

    The Democrat should have ran with an ‘outsider’ this year. By running Hillary, it gave Trump a chance. A lot will depend on what dirt will come out in the next 2 month. I’m very very surprised that Trump’s many wives is not being targetted yet.

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      They be more a’feared of being targetted by the Donald methinks. His cellar would be hip deep in enemies past.

    • Terror Australis

      And Clinton seems determined to throw the election.
      She must surely have realized that the only way to win is to unite the Democrat party and the only way to do THAT is to appoint a true “progressive” like Elizabeth Warren to the VP slot.
      Instead, she metaphorically spits in the face of the Sanders camp by appointing Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to her campaign within barely a day of resigning in disgrace from the DNC over the wikileaks transcripts.

      I thought Clinton was a pro at this game (in fact one of the supposed selling points during the primaries was that she was a competent campaigner). Turns out to be far from the fact.

      • Ronin8317MEMBER

        Tim Kaine was chosen as VP because Clinton think he will deliver Virginia for her. He is also a “warmonger”, and she wants a VP who agree with her agenda for more international military engagement.

      • You say you have kids.
        Lesson 1 for kids, do not run your correspondence on a separate server.
        No one trusts you.

  18. reusachtigeMEMBER

    I love Trump! I hope a little bit of his property tycoon prowess rubs off on Australians who are becoming weak and servile.

  19. All hail God Emperor Trump !!!

    He will take back America FOR THE PEOPLE from the globalists and their shills.

    Down with Soros! Down with banks! Down with crooked Hillary!

  20. Here’s my post from reddit a couple of months ago. Disect it if you will.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/4jn8pv/where_does_australia_stand_if_donald_trump_goes/d384i4u

    Ironically, I think “Dangerous Trump” would be one of the more stable foreign policy presidents in living memory.
    For starters, he wants NATO to pull its weight – and he wants to negotiate with Russia, which is likely to make NATO obsolete.
    So it’s likely a bunch of European bases would be mothballed.
    That’s just the start. He seems to want to focus on the USA and divert a lot of resources there. Extrapolating that, the most expensive items on the budget that don’t directly benefit the US people would be culled significantly. This means even more foreign bases would likely close. Japan doesn’t need a constant presence 70 years on.
    If Russia and the US sign some sort of peace deal, then China would likely come to the table and make a whole pipeline of military vehicles completely unneeded. There goes a shitload of spending there.
    On the middle east, I would expect he would allow Russia to restore Assad’s leadership and negotiate a transition to democracy. Hopefully, they’re smart about it and externally via the UN fund annual elections for 5 years to cement democracy as an effective means of asserting change. After 5 years it would move to a two year cycle for 10 years, and finally, a referendum to decide the term lengths.
    With other nations, I expect the process to be far more difficult, but as a self professed excellent negotiator, I wouldn’t expect him to apply the stick first. I’d expect him to talk. Possibly even work towards amending the ridiculous WW1 defined nation state boundaries and respecting the social and religious cultures of regions. We may see a few new countries.
    But, that’s all speculation right now. He’s almost certainly an egomaniac, but I think his motivation is to leave a legacy of positive change that will be remembered for generations. At his age, he’d be quite aware that some of his earliest skyscrapers are ready to be pulled down. There’s no real legacy there. In 50 years, he’ll be a footnote. If he’s one of the greatest presidents that ever was, he’ll be studied and written about in hundreds of years.
    That’s what I believe his goal is. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I don’t think he’s as crazy and likely to use force as his predecessors.
    _______________

    Personally I would have preferred Sanders, but as I said here:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4pc6w1/sen_sanders_on_trumps_appeal_to_his_voters_i/d4kmbz6

    From outside the US, allied, and never having been there, I like to think I have a somewhat more rational perspective since it won’t really affect me.
    I would have preferred Sanders if only to bring the people of the US the joy of never having to worry about paying a doctor so they can remain alive.
    Rationally, he’s out. The machine won’t let him win. He’ll get write-ins. An unprecedented number, I expect.
    Regardless, the choice is between two narcissists of varying degree. So, which is better?
    Well, objectively the US system is corrupt and the nation’s infrastructure desperately needs a lot of work according to damn near any reputable report.
    The corrupt machine has ordained Hillary and despises Trump.
    Who’d you pick if you believe the machine is corrupt?
    Trump’s wealth come from buildings predominantly. Hillary’s comes from tailgating her husband and flirting with despots. Who’d you pick to rebuild a nation?
    You know the answer there.
    Objectively, the Sanders/Trump platforms are very similar but with a different methodology. They both want to focus on the American people – both have advocated what I’m calling non-interventionist-nationalism.
    So, I’d say it’s unfair to say it’s only “fringe Bernie supporters” who’re seeing a shift. If people can step out of the trees, take a rational viewpoint, and try to view the forest as coldly and objectively as they can manage, they should note the similarities of Trump and Sanders, and they should note the very well documented history of Hillary.
    I expect Hillary’s skeletons to grasp at her ankles from beyond the grave. I expect the American people to, one by one, recoil in horror at her deeds and slowly work through their denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance that they were in fact thoroughly misled into liking her.
    Then, I expect Trump to win.
    ____

    Only time will tell at this point, but I have expected him to win for a while. My American mate gets super irritated when I say it. He’ll owe me a few beers too.

    • Good assessment. I do believe as well he wants to leave an enduring legacy in history, as his motivation.

      He is a midrate centrist, with a protectionist bent. A bit bombastic, pretty much a modern day Teddy Roosevelt (rather that Hitler or Mao… FFS)

      MB’s failing is the same as the MSM’s failing. A reliance on virtue signalling and a thinly veiled push polling along those ‘acceptable thoughts’.

      Melania’s speech gets twenty times the attention than what WikiLeaks showed up 72 hours ago about collusion between the Democratic party and many parts of the MSM.

      Trumps rise is just as much a story of the utter failure of the fourth estate as it is with globalism.

      • You are tight about the 4th estate thingy, how about the coup in turkey where the best and most timely and most accessed coverage. facebook live. The writing is on the wall for MSM and all their bullshit bias.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      That’s what I believe his goal is. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I don’t think he’s as crazy and likely to use force as his predecessors.

      I am not convinced at all that he has thought any further past winning the election and becoming President. That’s plenty of legacy to stroke the ego, right there. Certainly the superficiality of, and inconsistencies around, pretty much everything he says suggests little thought beyond “what do they want to hear right now”.

      This lack of any real insight into his agenda (assuming his agenda stretches past winning) is the biggest problem with Trump. You simply can’t take anything he says seriously because he’s liable to contradict it days, if not hours, later.

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      Trump and Sanders similarities start and end at being anti-establishment.

      Sanders has decades of working for the benefit of average and struggling Americans, Trump has used that time to swindle or exploit those same groups. Sanders is motivated by altruism, Trump is motivated by narcissism.

      Trump’s neither saviour nor Hitler, he’s a narcissist that will make sure his time in office benefits him financially and feeds his narcissism. Americans could benefit from this but it will be secondary to it being good for Trump – in that respect Trump has more in common with Clinton.

  21. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Good Heavens! Greg Sheridan was on the wireless saying Hitler is coming to America and he looks like Teh Donald! Full Godwin!

    This is a man whose closest friend is our Tony. That’s it. Vote 1 Trump. Those nice Russian hackers confirmed why they should anyway.

    • The Don, has been referred to as Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatollah and every other “dictator” you could think of by every Western paper. The default position is also to conveniently blame an “aggressive” Russia for anything they can be pinned with.

      • You’re going to have to think of another nickname for Trump, JC.

        “The Don” is reserved for eternity our own Donald.

    • haroldusMEMBER

      Bloody hell just got called to HR for googling granny full of spunk.

      It’s political correctness gone mad!

      In retrospect I shouldn’t have done it on the computer in the lunch room.

  22. Everyone here is commenting on Trumps suitability for the position? Let’s just juxtapose that against Hillary’s suitability, and therein lies your answer as to why Trump is popular. The US is an aristocracy. The Wikileaks of the DNC are not news to any person who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention. Then these animals have the gall to lecture others on “democracy”

    • Which is mirrored by Bush Jr. RNC “I know my base” quip….

      Disheveled Marsupial… The entire environment is toxic… decades of “Survival of the Fittest” has its results…

  23. This just in…

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/after-chaotic-weekend-for-democrats-and-wasserman-schultz-a-class-action-lawsuit-lies-ahead/
    ” A Federal class action lawsuit has been filed against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The suit, Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and Deborah ‘Debbie’ Wasserman Schultz (Case Number 16-cv-61511-WJZ) was originally filed by the law firm Beck & Lee on June 28, 2016. An amended complaint has subsequently been filed. Jared H. Beck of the law firm has indicated that over 1,000 plaintiffs have thus far signed retainer agreements with his firm in relation to the class action lawsuit.”

    • This would be a good test case, My call is the Australian public, especially those with debts could sue the govt for changed commercial outlook especially from the direct actions of Robb, and say SH Young for allowing immigration to affect the commercial environment, and affecting their ability to repay loans.
      If I had more time I would run with it. But any Class action mob could take it from here! Too Easy. broken promises.

      • Aren’t Australian politicians protected by the Parliament and can’t be sued?

        Best to take their pensions instead.

    • R now we know most politicians have skeletons in the closet and we now have sufficient time to be able to access their communications eg WikiLeaks et, The operational method is to install a setup similar to Uber, where each person of interest has a personal file, and that info is matched by software such as MI5 or FBI has access to establish connections. then it is easy.
      Uber has rolled out mostly on this ability to overcome objections.
      Corporations can sue Govt for changed commercial conditions in a nation over the course of a contract,which affect the outcome of the contract, why not punters?

  24. So how did we get here….

    A whole lot more than just Glass-Steagall’s ending happened under the Billster:

    With the Clintons the Great Leap Forward for the plans of the Global Banking Cartel is at long last here!

    The Blackstone Group, at that time the wealthiest private equity firm (private bank) in the world, would provide presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, with an office to solicit campaign donations.

    Presently, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s top advisor is Cheryl Mills, on the board of directors of BlackRock, an offshoot of the Blackstone Group (Blackstone . . . . BlackRock . . . . get it?).

    BlackRock is one of the Big Four investment firms which are the majority shareholders in the majority of major corporations in North America and Europe. BlackRock was the firm which oversaw the disbursement of the TARP bailout funds. (Vanguard Group, BlackRock, State Street and Fidelity)

    In 1993, the SEC — under Clinton — will drop the requirement for investment firms to report on the identity of the major shareholders. (This is to obscure the ownership — if you don’t know who the owners are, you won’t know who owns everything.)

    Clinton will sign NAFTA (actually version 2.0, after LBJ’s Border Industrialization Program) which includes a clause to allow for the foreign ownership of Mexican banks — previously only allowed to be Mexican-owned.

    Within one year 90% of Mexican banks are foreign owned, principally by US banks.

    Next, Clinton will sign the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, allowing for full interstate banking — a major step in the cartel formation.

    Next up, Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996, allowing for the consolidation of corporate media and reconstitution of AT&T into one entity.

    The Investment Company Act of 1996 is signed into law, allowing for unlimited number of investors per hedge fund or similar funds. The combination of the potential for an unlimited number of credit default swaps, and an unlimited number of commodity futures purchases, and an unlimited number of investors per fund, allows for ultra-speculation.

    Next the Big Three: the REIT Modernization Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — these together will set the stage for the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, the global economic meltdown (and kill the New Deal entirely).

    Years later, investigative gumshoe reporter, Greg Palast, would uncover a secret memorandum between Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, urging for the inclusion of the “credit derivatives-acceptance clause” in the WTO’s Financial Services Agreement (so that the various governmental signatories around the world would accept Wall Street’s fantasy finance Ponzi scheme).

    Two highly important items which the Clintons failed at: the privatization of Social Security and the removal of the right of the individual to own a patent. The Clinton Administration had created a plan they were going to submit to congress to privatize Social Security, but the morning of their designated speech was when the Monica Lewinski scandal broke. The attempt to abrogate individual ownership of a patent was stopped by the outpouring of negative communications to congress when this became public. (This was meant to bring America closer to the WTO charter.)

    After Clinton left the presidency and worked as a lobbyist for various “free trade” agreements, he continued destroying American employment. For example, the Jordan-American Free Trade Agreement allowed for multiple factories to be offshored to Jordan – – not to benefit the workers there – – but for optimal profit to the owner, who would then hire the cheapest labor (workers from Bangladesh and the Philippines) to be brought in to work those factories. – H/T sgt_doom

    Disheveled Marsupial…. for bonus points name the philosophical cult that enabled such policy’s…

  25. Trump is nothing like Abbott.

    Trump can actually talk.

    In 2012 Abbott was cheering on 457 visas. Trump is ranting against H1B visas. Even Clinton is now ranting against H1B visa workers stealing jobs from Americans.

    • “In 2012 Abbott was cheering on 457 visas”

      And yet, Australia voted them back in. FFS, what’s it take?

  26. Hillary is an evil, lying witch.
    Anyone but Hillary (and her world class liar and scumbag husband Slick Willy)

  27. Terror Australis

    Some of the things Trump talks about doing are not just reckless but unlawful.
    Many in the US Military have indicated they would resign rather than obey Trump as Commander-in-Chief.

    I truthfully and honestly believe that if President Trump wanders too far into Crazy Town, there is a non-trivial chance of the USA experiencing some kind of military coup, with an interim President appointed until fresh elections held.

    In the early days of the FDR administration there are historical rumors that such a plot was in the works. So it’s not as inconceivable as you might think.

      • Terror Australis

        What’s your point?
        Military coups quite obviously succeed a high percentage of the time in other countries.
        Whether one would succeed in the USA, I honestly don’t know.

      • Terror Australis

        “The Business Plot (also known as The White House Coup) was a political conspiracy (see Congressional Record) in 1933 in the United States. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans’ organization with Butler as its leader and use it in a coup d’état to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, Butler testified before the United States House of Representatives Special Committee on Un-American Activities (the “McCormack-Dickstein Committee”) on these claims.[1] No one was prosecuted.

        At the time of the incidents, news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a “gigantic hoax”.[2] While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of “wild scheme” was contemplated and discussed.[3][4][5][6]”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

        It depends if Trump does something which the Congress can & will impeach him over.
        If he does something that is not illegal but just plain crazy (like telling Russia they can invade the baltic states) then some senior Pentagon people may react.

  28. Trump’s not that different from his predecessors. Who remembers Ronald Reagan joking about nuking the USSR. Then there was George W. Bush who’s ignorance and reliance on far right advisors gave us the iraq invasion and the ongoing disintegration of the middle east.

  29. How would those scale of tax cuts proposed by Trump not destroy the balance sheet of the US within a couple of years?

    Imagine the scale of printing required to keep the nation going (bond purchases, etc) with that kind of revenue short fall…

    • Taxes do not pay for anything at a fed level, its just the opposite, the government spends first so it can tax….

      • ” U.S. never has to default on debt “because you print the money,”” – Trump

        Actually its just acknowledging a simple truth about autonomous monetary sovereigns – you can’t go broke in debt nominated in your own currency as you are the issuer. The biggest concerns is too much inflation or deflation, how that’s controlled and why is the bigger question.

    • State of Origin in the USA,
      Mate against Mate
      “In crisis mode through the weekend, the DNC response was twofold as it managed the political embarrassment of senior staff being revealed to have conspired against Bernie Sanders:
      If – as revealed in the DNC emails dumped by WikiLeaks on Friday – DNC staffers were raking over the coals of Bernie Sanders’ life, looking for attack points”
      Does anyone think HRC was not aware of this??
      Maybe even authorised or promoted it???
      Tooooooo Careless to be leader is my call.