Are we getting into a 'Rogue Male' discussion; Peter O'Toole? Reminds me of a train journey from Lincoln to Edinburgh after a HM Revenue & Customs training course where drink had been taken. A few hours into the journey I decided to relate a story to me fellow 'trainees' of what I 'practised' under the bed covers if I found it difficult to get to sleep. I did not realise that my narration had prompted interest from other passengers around our group however all seemed disappointed when my little tale involved elaborate plans to assassinate Adolf Hitler at or around the Kehlsteinhaus, Obersalzberg or while he and Fraulein Braun were out carousing in the 'boozers' of Berchtesgaden. Such plans involved a false departure from Berchtesgaden, a secret return, the construction (with supplies) of a hideaway as learned for my backwoodsman badge in the Scouts and an extended stay until the search had died down! I blame all this on being an only child who attended a single sex school!
Just a thought on the Clinton campaign. Clearly Hillary had to be seen wearing the pants in the race for the Oval Office. But was it wise to pretty much shove Bill so far into the background, that he played next to part in her White House bid? As much as we disliked Trump, he had it all over Hillary when it came to presence before a camera. He stood out like dog's balls, while she appeared rather bland. When it came down to personalities, it was chalk and cheese. Sure Donald pandered to fear, but was it all down to that? Did the Clinton think tank mess up big time by largely ignoring what Bill could offer? Put Bill along side Hillary, and he stands out like a brilliant beacon compared to her. And what was with the pants suits? Was she looking for gravitas? The more I think about it, the more I believe she might just have been her own worst enemy. She might in the months and years to come, find herself lying awake at night thinking. "****, maybe dick head could have got me over the line."
I have not thought too much about this stuff, but it certainly is an eye opener. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...t-of-far-right-breitbart-editor-a7416661.html
Give him a chance, of course, but over the last few days his transition team and cabinet contenders are beginning to resemble a pig farm. They will be merciless with detractors, and will use brutal police force without hesitation. Just wait and see.
Are you suggesting that Napoleon has moved into the house, stating as he went? "Some animals are more equal than others."
At the risk of starting a fight in an empty room, I think Hillary (probably aided and abetted by her acolytes) made a sensible call about Bill. She knew that her low approval ratings with women voters were down to the fact that she stood by her man after his playing around in the Oval Office became public knowledge. Most women would have walked away. If she had somehow won thanks to his presence, surely those that did not vote for her would constantly remind her of the fact that her man got her the job, which would surely have eaten away at her inside. He did appear at a few Democrat events during the Primaries to extol her virtues, but did so as a sort of warm up act. I am no expert on Hillary but from what I know of her biography, I think that the pants suits may just be her. Spending most of her life in the political arena in one way or another, she is probably a sixties/seventies feminist still living the myth/dream. In what she perceives as a man’s world, she dresses like one because dressing like a woman would show weakness. I do not think so. Both candidates got their party’s nominations because of the dearth of credible candidates in the American Establishment, something that has blighted the WOP for longer than the Democrats.
Lol -perceived man's world -you seriously suggesting that it's not ?? Mr moon -i know you are subject to lunar cycles but that big moon really has got to you with that statement ..... I suppose in your world the earth is still flat .......
An article by John Simkin on the Spartacus website - "Donald Trump and the Economic Crisis": http://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL87.htm
Senator Elizabeth Warren doesn't seem to like Trump too much? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...or-i-will-track-your-every-move-a7420751.html Must say, he looks like giving senior positions to some pretty nasty extremists of the extreme right of politcal thought? Can't see this working at all. The year 2017 will be something else I reckon. Even the North Pole has gone over freezing point in anticipation.
Can't help it, have to give the sod a chance but, to be honest, I detest him and all he and his misbegotten entourage stand for. Merkel? We are all stuck with her, probably for the next 50-years it would seem......
Surprised that a Socialist would not be championing the cause of women... Both Socialism and Communism were supposed to be the answer for women, handing them equality. It just did not work out that way because men still dictated the rules. A couple of centuries ago, women were owned by men and their position in society was entirely subservient. They still represent half of the species and in many parts of the world their lot has not improved much, especially where religious dogma dominates. Which of the genders has achieved the most in the last century? Here in Britain, which of the genders continues to flourish academically and push towards the glass ceiling. Who would have thought even forty years ago that a woman would be a candidate to be President of the United States? It may be a very, very long time before a woman is a candidate to run the Chinese state, there will be a black Pope before there is a female Pope; and I see no prospect of a woman holding any position of influence in Islam. Women still have some way to go to achieve their objectives whilst men have quite clearly reached their peak and can only go one direction, especially as only one half of the species can have children and they increasingly find that they can do without men for anything but reproduction. This does not seem like a man’s world unless you are only looking at the gender of FTSE 100 company CEOs.
Finally I read somebody that agrees with me that the financial crash of 2007/2008 should be considered a Great Depression... On the whole this is very well observed. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was ostensibly Keynesian economics except that it also sought to redress the imbalance between the richest and the poorest (echoes of which we see today). After the inflationary disaster of the 1970s, partly fuelled by the incompetence of the Labour administration, what is now referred to as Neo-Liberalism came in. The problem that everybody (except the richest) realises is inherently built-in, is that the tax burden at the top has been reduced disproportionately. Socialists and Momentum (aka Labour) would be quite happy to see the rich pay more tax, although the punitive levels that Hollande brought in across the Channel simply drove wealth overseas leaving a bankrupt State to continue the Socialist race to the bottom on credit. There is an irony that the last Labour Chancellor, Gordon Brown, claimed to be following Keynesian economic theory but completely messed it up by borrowing for public sector works using the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and negotiating the worst terms possible on almost all of the contracts. Also that government only bothered to raise the top rate of income tax on their last days in office. In conclusion, John Simkin is right about Trump – his promise of tax cuts for everyone (including the richest) and corporations; and protectionist tariffs on imports cannot regenerate the white-collar sector whose votes got him elected. Where he suggests that Trump will make cuts does not look viable as the Republicans are generally committed to military spending and learned their lesson historically about isolationism.
