What if Trump wins and Clinton is locked up?

“Lock her up” has been a common chant at Donald Trump rallies for some time, prompted and encouraged by Trump.

This was still happening, at a rally in Pennsylvania on Monday:

This follows Trump’s controversial comments during Sunday’s debate:

Trump: “If I win I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. People have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one fifth of what you have done. And it’s a disgrace.”

Clinton: You know, it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.”

Trump: “Because you would be in jail.”

From The Atlantic: Trump’s Promise to Jail Clinton Is a Threat to American Democracy

This is not how special prosecutors work. There are a number of legal mechanisms for the appointment of special counsel by the attorney general, all designed to allow for investigations of executive-branch officials free from the threat of political interference. Trump proposed the opposite: directing his attorney general to appoint a prosecutor to go after a political rival who he’s publicly said should “be in jail.”

This is not how the presidency works. When Richard Nixon tried to interfere in an ongoing investigation, Attorney General Elliott Richardson resigned. And even if Trump could find a more malleable attorney general, and discard precedent, he’d still lack the power to jail Clinton unilaterally. Presidents are not in charge of the law, but of its faithful execution.

The President should not and can not instruct the Attorney General on what to investigate. It would be particularly bad for the President to instruct the AG to investigate a political opponent.

This is also not how democracies work. Elected officials do not jail their foes. The Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder—legislation designed to punish individuals, thereby circumventing the judicial process—to bar despotic rulers from persecuting their opponents. The jailing of political opponents is a feature of repressive dictatorships, not vibrant democracies.

bananapresident

But it is fully in keeping with how Trump’s campaign has worked. He accepted the nomination in Cleveland in July. The defining chant of that convention was not, “Make America Great Again.” It was “Lock Her Up!”

And on Sunday, that’s exactly what Trump vowed to do.

So what if Trump becomes President? If he tried to instruct the Attorney General it would get a huge amount of attention, and condemnation. It would pit the President against the legal branch and whatever resulted it would cause major problems.

What if the Attorney general independently chose to investigate Clinton? That would raise many questions and accusations of underhand pressure.

What if Clinton was found guilty and imprisoned?

US politics and the US judiciary would be ridiculed world wide.

By the look of current polling all this seems unlikely, they farce he has helped make out of the campaign is catching up with him as he burns more and more bridges to a majority.

It may well do the opposite to what Trump is promoting, and give Clinton a get out of jail free card.

If she becomes President the Attorney General (and the Republicans) may be reluctant to allow a perception they are doing what Trump wants.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

90 Comments

  1. Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

    Despite winning the second debate in a landslide (every poll), it is hard to do well when Paul Ryan and others give zero support!

    Full of bull and full of excuses, as usual.

    Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  12th October 2016

      I agree pg. It’s a little unnerving when a politician comes along and says what he thinks rather than the weasel words the public since time immemorial have been conditioned to hear from these tossers. Do you think that might be part of the appeal?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  12th October 2016

        It’s the not thinking when he says things that seems to be working against him, c.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  12th October 2016

          Trump is not a politician, he’s a wannabe. He’s bought just about everything else that an adult Richie Rich could want-including a gold-plated motorbike-and now he wants to buy the Presidency.

          If people find his bullying, obscenity and vulgarity appealing….well, there’s no accounting for taste.

          The fact that Hillary Clinton is standing up to the overgrown school bully is not a crime and would never see her sent to prison. If she was a criminal, she’d have been there long ago.

          So much is ‘I, me and mine’. HIS attorney general would not only be a bloody fool, they’d be going against the constitution and turning US laws into those of Amin’s Uganda, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and too many others to list here if they did this because a person was an opponent of the president.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  12th October 2016

            You have missed the point, Kitty. Clinton would be prosecuted for breaking the law, not for opposing Trump. Do you object to that?

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  12th October 2016

              As far as that misogynist is concerned, they are the same thing. He gives the impression that women are good for one thing only.

              How dare some woman oppose him ? Not only that, make him look like the sexist fool that he is and not be intimidated by him.

              As I said, if she had committed crimes, she would be in prison now. Don’t tell me that she’d have bought her way out of prosecution, money hasn’t helped people like the Madoffs.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              Your last paragraph is just ridiculous, Kitty. It wasn’t money that kept her out of court and then prison, it was being the Democrats’ presidential nominee and Secretary of State in a Democrat administration.

  2. Klik Bate

     /  12th October 2016

    It looks like Chelsea is taking it seriously..

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  12th October 2016

      Written by I M Spiteful.

      Using an innocent baby for this sort of thing is very low indeed.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  12th October 2016

        Far lower depths than that are being reached in this campaign, Kitty. And it is deliberately and well organised:
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/10/the-secret-network-of-political-tweeters-making-debate-memes-go-viral/

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  12th October 2016

          The person who used a baby, someone who can’t retaliate, is about as low as one can be. Adults can respond, someone who can’t talk, can’t. It shows what sort of person supports Trump, anyway. The bully who targets someone small who cannot retaliate.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  12th October 2016

            And exactly how does this bully the baby? Honestly, Kitty, your judgement is absolutely ludicrous re the US election.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  12th October 2016

              It is a form of bullying, although it should have been obvious that it was a figure of speech. The baby is (in the eyes of the person who did this) made to look ridiculous. It’s being used by someone for their own ends, without the parent’s permission. It’s an adult taking mean advantage of a baby’s helplessness, as the school bully does.

            • David

               /  12th October 2016

              “The baby is (in the eyes of the person who did this) made to look ridiculous.”

              Poe’s Law? It’s the right of all babies to be taken seriously and to never be made to look ridiculous. Next thing you’ll have is politicians kissing babies as electoral devices to assist in their campaigns, that’s not only bulling, it’s also exploitation and sexual assault!

              Won’t someone think of the children!

            • Klik Bate

               /  12th October 2016

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              The baby looks cute, not ridiculous. Hillary is the only one who looks ridiculous.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  12th October 2016

    What a load of ignorant partisan political b.s. Special Prosecutors/Independent Counsel have a long legal history in the US and specific rules and conventions governing their appointment and actions:

    http://www.lecs-center.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230%3Aon-special-prosecutors-usa&catid=44%3Aevents&lang=en

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

    The investigate a high government official accused of misconduct while in office. Clinton exactly.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  12th October 2016

      Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  12th October 2016

      All very straightforward – Trump has threatened to abuse the prosecutorial power of the presidency should he win it, in a direct breach of the tradition of nonpartisan rule of law.

      The last president to try that was Nixon – the Attorney General resigned rather than follow Nixon’s demand, and the outcome was the Saturday Night Massacre. The rest is history…

      Trump’s pledge to jail Clinton was literally one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon:

      In disregard of the rule of law , he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with . . . the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . the Department of Justice . . . in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
      – Article 2, Section 5

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  12th October 2016

        Trump hasn’t pledged to jail Clinton. That is a straight lie.
        He pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her.

        Reply
        • Joe Bloggs

           /  12th October 2016

          Because you’d be in jail

          From the lips of Trump himself… and caught on video – quod erat demonstrandum

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  12th October 2016

            It proves yet again only your partisan stupidity.

            Reply
            • Joe Bloggs

               /  12th October 2016

              @AlanI have no idea what your problem is but in my view you’d do well to take a long hard look at the way you talk to people who have a different opinion to your own.

              It seems to me that you are simply intolerant of anyone’s opinion that differs to yours, and rather than making the slightest effort to see things from other people’s perspective you resort to abuse. If that’s any indication of how you disrespect diversity then fill your boots.

              Evidently I’m partisan and stupid in your eyes – well whatever. No skin off my nose.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              I’m always willing to consider the rationality and facts behind an opinion that differs from mine. I have done so in your case and come to the blatantly obvious conclusion.

          • Conspiratoor

             /  12th October 2016

            So Joe I’m curious to know. If Trumps hadn’t added the retort “Because you would be in jail.” – how would this change the spin you are putting on this, if at all?

            Reply
        • Bill

           /  12th October 2016

          @Alan “Trump hasn’t pledged to jail Clinton. That is a straight lie.”

          The trail that follows the Clinton crime family is well documented and as you said, Trump never pledged to jail her.

          Trump, like millions of American’s do wish to see her investigated, its clear that the deleting of 33,000 emails after a federal subpoena had been issued is only the start.

          Yet this will soon be forgotten when the Clinton’s start a war with Russia to deflect attention.,Reported without any evidence, Russia is now being blamed for the Wikileaks and the red under the bed strategy has worked before so lets roll it out again.
          The Clinton’s, are more than prepared to use any means to achieve their ends.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  12th October 2016

            Clintons, not Clinton’s.

            As I understand it, the email thing was made illegal retrospectively, and someone who does something when it isn’t illegal isn’t a criminal.

            If that wasn’t a threat by DT, it was a damned good imitation of one.

            Nobody ever explains how it is that Hillary Clinton is NOT a convicted criminal if she really had committed crimes.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              Of course they explained it. The FBI political leadership was leaned on to decide not to allow the case to go to court.

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  12th October 2016

              Do you have evidence to support that claim Alan?

              After all as you’re so fond of saying, words count for nothing. So let’s see the evidence that you base your claim on.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              FBI Director James Comey on July 5 announced that although Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in handling classified information, the FBI did not find evidence that their actions were intentional. He declined to pursue criminal charges.

              The law she broke does not require any evidence of intent for prosecution. There was no basis for withholding prosecution other than political advantage to the Democratic Party.

              Here is the case against Comey from the non partisan FBI staff:
              http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  12th October 2016

              What a load of ignorant partisan political b.s. to use your own words.

              These are nothing more than unsubstantiated claims. So where is the real evidence?

            • Bill

               /  12th October 2016

              They have used their political influence to dodge convictions so far, that’s why. YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE TRUMP TO SEE THIS.

              Bill Clinton has over 14 rape and sexual crimes waiting in the wings and more to come as well.

              They have used their foundation to receive payments in exchange political favours and financial gain for anyone with the money to do so. 150 million alone in paid speeches (bribes) in the last ten years.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              If there is no real evidence, Joe, Clinton has nothing to fear and Trump’s “threat” is empty. But I don’t believe that and I think neither do most Americans.

    • artcroft

       /  12th October 2016

      The president can’t launch a criminal investigation against his opponent. Only the FBI have those powers. Bill was tried only for ‘misconduct’. (and found not guilty by senate).

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  12th October 2016

        Stage Three: “Special Counsel” f 1999-Presentl

        Current U.S. practice is governed by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 6. The CFR eliminates the judicial “Special Division” provided for by the EGA, the concept of “covered persons” and the opportunity for Congress to request that an independent counsel be appointed. In general, it provides the AG much wider discretion in deciding whether to appoint an independent prosecutor and gives the AG much greater influence over the investigation than the EGA. The main provisions of the CFR relating to the appointment of a Special Counsel are the following:

        (a) Grounds for Appointing a Special Counsel

        Section 600.1 of the CFR provides that the AG will appoint a Special Counsel (SC] when the AG determines that criminal investigation is warranted and that (a)investigation by the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest or “other extraordinary circumstance” and that “under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel.” The AG’s decision is unreviewable.

        http://www.lecs-center.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230%3Aon-special-prosecutors-usa&catid=44%3Aevents&lang=en

        Reply
      • Bill

         /  12th October 2016

        From the resent events, it’s clear the FBI itself should be investigated to determine whether pressure was exerted to not press charges on Clinton.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  12th October 2016

          Why would the FBI cave in, if this was true ? They’d be more likely to respond by telling the person/s to dream on. The FBI is a big organisation. It might be possible to ‘pressure’ them over an issue of national security, but over an individual ? Unlikely.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  12th October 2016

            You obviously haven’t read anything about the case and the decision not to prosecute, Kitty.

            Reply
          • Bill

             /  12th October 2016

            The Clinton’s are not just individuals, they are part of a huge machine, what a dumb comment to believe this political dynasty has been subject to the same rules as an ordinary individual.

            Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  12th October 2016

        Thank you for that, Artcroft. Ozymandias giving himself airs again.

        Reply
  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  12th October 2016

    US presidential ethics in historical perspective from Conrad Black:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440945/donald-trump-democratic-hypocrisy-challenged

    A refreshing attempt at objectivity from outside the US.

    Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  12th October 2016

      Putting it crudely, Barrack Obama made the decision (dishonest in my view) to avoid holding Clinton responsible for her ‘antics’ and AG Lynch, ‘made it happen’. Unlike the actions of the Nixon AGs (Richardson etc).

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  12th October 2016

        Exactly. And Trump is promising his AG will appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate that. Which would be interesting as both Obama and Lynch could be investigated for their roles in influencing the decision as well as Clinton for her actions.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  12th October 2016

          I thought his final paragraph was very good.

          ” It is good to remember that Donald Trump is not a monster and that Hillary Clinton is not a witch, and both surely would be better than the last two presidents, who by their failures have brought on this very nasty campaign. The election is now a bouncing (American) football and anything could happen.”

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  12th October 2016

            The president doesn’t make or control the laws, and they can’t prevent people from being charged. They don’t tell the Attorney General (I hope that this is the right name) what or what not to do, they can’t.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              Wrong:
              The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time;
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

              However, in the Clinton case it was the Director of the FBI who made the decision.
              The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and responsible to the Attorney General for its operations. The FBI Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

              These are all political appointees beholden to the President.

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  12th October 2016

              Trump has no idea what he’s talking about.

              Federal regulations require that the attorney general appoint a special prosecutor if a conflict of interest prevents the attorney general from investigating alleged criminal conduct. By design, the president should have no direct influence, and directing one’s attorney general to do so would be an overstep of authority.

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

              In other words, you only need a special prosecutor when the attorney general—the regular prosecutor—can’t do the job themself.

              Presumably, Trump’s own attorney general would have no problem investigating everything from Hillary Clinton’s e-mail habits to whether she separates her recycling on rubbish night. When Trump says “special prosecutor” here, it doesn’t mean a damn thing. He’s just loudly repeating important-sounding phrases that he learned while browsing Simple English Wikipedia.

              More fundamentally, though, Trump’s bs threat shows that he sees absolutely no problem with jailing his political opponents, a practice that is more common in places like North Korea, Iran, and Russia.

              It’s an illegal, anti-democratic, and morally repugnant idea, irrespective of what Alan claims.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              The reason for the Independent Counsel is that the actions of the FBI and DOJ themselves are in question re the Clinton case. That is the blatantly obvious conflict of interest.

            • Gezza

               /  12th October 2016

              We went over this yesterday and I won so I’m not bothering with it much today.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              Go on, Gezza. Ugly needs you.

            • Pete Kane

               /  12th October 2016

              Well the FBI Director is appointed for 10 years. Can’t be replaced at the whim of the President. AG is another story. Actually it is Justice that ultimately makes the decision to prosecute Clinton or not, not the FBI. They present the case options for Justice (and obviously recommendation). But as Mrs Lynch made clear, she had already agreed and announced that she would follow the recommendation of the ‘team’ (her term – Justice Prosecutors and FBI Investigators) prior to knowing what that recommendation would be (if you take her at her word). Most unusual. She claimed this was to ‘reassure’ public confidence following her plane meeting with Mr Clinton the day before the FBI’s one and only interview with Mrs Clinton. Disgraceful.
              Here’s a taste. A minute or two anywhere will give the flavor.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              I don’t think that’s true, Pete. The President can fire the FBI Director and Bill Clinton did. Also Congress can impeach him.

            • Pete Kane

               /  13th October 2016

              I said a whim Alan. And of course Congress have their procedures, but its not the snap of fingers.

            • Pete Kane

               /  13th October 2016

              BTW, Sessions made the mistake of using FBI planes for personal trips. Remember, as an example (and extreme circumstances), we once fired our own ‘public guardian’, Auditor General, Jeff Chapman. (Infact I think he did a stint in the pokey?)

              “President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.”
              http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/us/defiant-fbi-chief-removed-from-job-by-the-president.html

  5. Pete Kane

     /  12th October 2016

    Nixon’s VP avoided it, plea bargain (tax evasion), literally struck while driving to sentencing (1974 – while Nixon himself was near the end of the impeachment decision).

    Reply
  6. Pete Kane

     /  12th October 2016

    “(dishonest in my view)”. Sorry Alan, misspoke, Corruptly in my view. Which is very disappointing, because I don’t think Obama’s nature is, innately corrupt. (Anyone here care to say the same of Mrs Clinton?)

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  12th October 2016

      I suspect we won’t find out Obama’s real nature until after his presidency. That seems to be the pattern in the US. G W Bush and Bill Clinton possibly excepted.

      Reply
    • Bill

       /  12th October 2016

      We will have to see who Obama pardons on his exit from office, Bill Clinton pushed through 140 in his final hours.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  12th October 2016

        People who are given pardons are not let off, it’s an archaic legal expression that means a wrongful conviction being quashed. David Docherty wasn’t let off, he was freed because DNA showed that he was innocent. To think that it is a get out of jail free card, given by the crown (or equivalent) to criminals who have been proved to have committed the crime is to misunderstand the nature of it.

        I would be extremely surprised if any US president was able to end someone’s sentence or have their crime wiped of their own volition. They probably just sign them off. I doubt if the NZ PM did this for David Docherty or other people wrongly convicted-or not, just because the PM liked them.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  12th October 2016

          If you actually read the article you would find that some had their sentences terminated, others had prosecutions cancelled. As to the President’s powers, they are exclusive and comprehensive:

          The power to grant pardons is vested in the President alone. No hearing is held on the pardon application by either the Department of Justice or the White House. You will be notified in writing directed to the last address you provided during the pardon process when a final decision is made on your petition. There is no appeal from the President’s decision to deny a clemency request. The Office of the Pardon Attorney does not disclose information regarding the nature or results of any investigation that may have been undertaken in a particular case, or the exact point in the clemency process at which a particular petition is pending at a given time. As a matter of well-established policy, the specific reasons for the President’s decision to grant or deny a petition generally are not disclosed by either the White House or the Department of Justice. In addition, documents reflecting deliberative communications pertaining to presidential decision-making, such as the Department’s recommendation to the President in a clemency matter, are confidential and not available under the Freedom of Information Act. If your petition is denied, you may submit a new petition for consideration two years from the date of denial.

          https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

          Reply
        • Bill

           /  12th October 2016

          This pertains to US Law not New Zealand law, that’s why it’s called a presidential pardon for gods sake. Clinton released all manner of drug mafia etc.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  12th October 2016

            It also has to begin with an appeal-and don’t bother for some crimes, it’s waste of time. It then has to go along a very long line, taking five years if you’re lucky, before it reaches the White House. There are criteria. Anyone who thinks that knowing the president is a criterion will have a rude awakening. As will anyone who has committed a state crime as opposed to a federal one. From the sound of it, the record remains.

            Some people seem to have a grossly exaggerated idea of the president’s powers. Here it’s a Royal Pardon. Does that mean that they are only granted at the whim of the Queen ?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              I can’t put the President’s powers any more explicitly than the DoJ does.

              They are clear, comprehensive, exclusive and obviously exercised.

  7. Zedd

     /  12th October 2016

    hopefully not ww3 :/

    Reply
  8. unitedtribes2

     /  12th October 2016

    The thing is I think. He can only win if Clinton is put in jail.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  12th October 2016

      “Apparently the Israeli Massod has been setting up politicians all over the world so they can Black Mail them to support Israel. This is what Satanists (Lucifarans) do – they will create the most perverted, sexually decrepit situation and lead politicians into this trap and then they record it and hold it over their heads in the future.

      So these Lucifarians (Satanist) place in political office those that they can control.

      In this situation – now that everything is being exposed – the Massod is attempting to kill the Hillary’s Campaign because she plans on a full scale Nuclear War as soon as she is elected and these Massod Agents – as perverted as they are – do not wish to die in a Nuclear Blast.

      In this little Israeli Massod extravaganza the Bill Clinton’s Sex Tapes are now about being released and apparently Hillary destroyed the women who objected to being raped.
      Next – as we stated would happen years ago – all of Hillary’s Sex Tapes are about to be released if she does not step back. She, and her 3 doubles, are furious.”

      Sounds legit. 🎃

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  12th October 2016

        Oh good. You were already on Ugly’s case.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  13th October 2016

          Just one of those linked articles inside that linked page:

          “How You Can Prevent Alien and Military Abductions

          HOW TO STOP ABDUCTIONS
          1. Ask God to send angelic protection for the house that we were living in and to seal it off from the attacks of the enemy.

          “Heavenly Father, in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ, I ask you in Jesus name to please send hundreds, hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of billions of legions of angels to surround and encamp around this house and within striking distance of this house and set up angelic shields, protective devices, impenetrable force fields and angels to seal this house off from creation.

          In Jesus name Father I ask you to send angels to bind up all the free demons trapped inside this house when the shield is closed and to send them to where you want them to go, in Jesus name.

          In Jesus name Father I ask you to break, destroy, cut, dissolve, and sever every line of remote viewing, energy drain, energy supply, remote influence, command and control and surveillance that the enemy would try to put through this shield. In Jesus name, Father I ask you to make this shield impregnable to all the attacks of the enemy”.

          2. Then put your hands in the air, as though you are laying hands on “space” for healing and say the prayers below.” … 🙄

          Come on Uggers, stop taking the mickey.

          Reply
  9. Gezza, who the hell were you quoting? I don’t believe that you take any of that comment seriously? I have just looked at today’s summary of the polls in the USA. They show Clinton ahead by 6 points as the mean of nine different polls. That is not too far removed from where things started (6 points I think). Trump has now decided that he is no longer constrained by the Republican Leadership, and has declared he is going to become the next President with or without their support. My guess is that this will increase his grass roots non-Democratic support. The real question is going to be “What will the non-Voter percentage be? Will it be so large as to deny Clinton her lead. I add that already allegations are being made of a plan by Democrat supporters to trash pro Trump noticeboards and plant Pro Democrats signs in people’s front yards with or without consent. So called Black Ops. I wonder who wrote the Hollywood script for this”C” class movie?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  12th October 2016

      “Gezza, who the hell were you quoting?”
      That’s from Uggers’ linked doc bj. Straight from the horse’s other end.

      “I don’t believe that you take any of that comment seriously?”
      Drat. You’re onto me like a robber’s dog.

      Both camps are out to sling as much mud at & cause as much wreckage as they can to their opponents. And why not? It’s been the strategy for both of them since they got started. The whole US political system is a cesspool from what I can see. Either Trump or Clinton it’s pure guesswork who’ll cause the biggest mess if elected. My guess is Trump, but others think Hillary.

      The biggest problem with Hillary is that allegations & attempts to investigate & prosecute her will dog her throughout her whole term.

      The biggest problem with Trump is he’s unstable, narcissistic, bombastic, belligerent, lazy, wilfully ignorant, and imo a pretty dubious ‘businessman’ as well. And those are his good points.

      Reply
        • Gezza

           /  12th October 2016

          I don’t like her Al. Horrible creature.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  12th October 2016

            I don’t know either of them and am wary of making personal judgements based on second hand reports most of which are highly partisan in a toxic and vicious conflict. I’m inclined to agree with the last paragraph you liked of Conrad Black’s article.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  12th October 2016

              Ok I gave you an uptick for this. Did you givr me one up there? It’s looking a bit light in the uptick department 😟

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th October 2016

              Think so. Can’t be sure now. Have a virtual one just in case.

            • Gezza

               /  12th October 2016

              Looks like only you and I did then. 😕

      • GEZZA, you/we better pray the result is not for Trump. I still feel in my gut he has some unused dry powder, but there you are!

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  12th October 2016

          The Clintons have given him plenty of ammunition to choose from over the years & Julian’s busy adding to his armoury as well. But El Trumpo the Bozo is a bit inclined to blow his own foot off when reloading, and the Clintons should be able to dig up a few more stink bombs on him too bj.

          Sorry state of affairs but it’s been decades of legal corruption of their political that’s got them to this point. I’m more worried about Bozo getting the job than Hillary, but both of them are scary.

          What tips you in favour of Hillary over Trump, bj?

          Reply
          • I really am scared about the extent that Trump will change the US approach to foreign policy and trade to the real disadvantage of NZ. His talk of erecting barriers (walls included) between the US and the rest of the world is not just about immigrants from South of the border. It is more about an introspective US happy in its own borders and to hell with the rest of the world. With the Clinton camp in power, we should see more measured approaches to the intractable problems faced by the US today. I acknowledge that the top 5% will continue to hold the rest of the world to ransom, but I am too old to have to learn Chinese.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  13th October 2016

              You make a good case for your position there, bj.
              I’d really like to hear Al’s opinion on this.
              Must try and dig up that link c posted the other day to Trump’s apparent policy program & see if he’s stuck to it all or vacillated on some of it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  13th October 2016

              The reality is that our incoming tourist trade is learning Chinese fast following in the path of our exporters. It’s already the case that we are far more closely trade-connected to China than the US by a factor of two. Trump will have his hands full balancing the conflicting interests within the US on trade. I cannot see him being anything but pragmatic. That is the only way business is done.

              I think there is a bit of a culture clash showing here. The business approach is to demand the moon and settle for a lighthouse. The political approach is never to scare the horses and hope to sneak a deal while no-one is looking.

  10. patupaiarehe

     /  12th October 2016

    Reply
  11. patupaiarehe

     /  12th October 2016

    I really wonder which of them would be worse, or if there is any difference at all to be honest…..

    Reply
  12. patupaiarehe

     /  12th October 2016

    Goodnight all 🙂

    Reply
  13. Zedd

     /  13th October 2016

    hair drumpf calls Clinton a crook.. maybe someone should hand him a mirror ! :/

    no-one makes that much money, without being a ruthless crook..

    Reply
    • Money is not the root of all evil, and being better than their opponent doesn’t mean that someone is fit to be a leader.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s