The World View of Donald Trump & Cold Hard Truth

It seems that the insurgency that's pushing Donald Trump toward the White House is scaring the living daylights out of a lot of people around the world. Personally, I am thrilled that he did as well as he did in last night's debate. The polls are out today and he's still leading with a substantial margin in Florida and most other places. Just five days to go before Super Tuesday and a big step closer to getting the nomination.

In the meantime, Vicente Fox is tossing eff-bombs about the wall. I don't understand why. Okay, he doesn't want to pay for it, but what else is going on under that fury? Could it be that he wants Mexican people illegally entering the United States so they can work here and send American money back to Mexico? On top of taking advantage of the crap trade deals this country has negotiated with Mexico in the past twenty years he wants more of our money transferred in through various legal sources? You know the Mexican government is skimming off of that, taking part of that revenue stream for itself.

Sorry, Vic - I have no sympathy for you, or for the people of Mexico. If they want things to improve in Mexico, they had better turn their attentions to what's going on in their homes, their streets, their neighborhoods and communities. They would do well to stop relying on our economy to make things right. Stop looking to someone else to clean up the mess and corruption that your people have allowed to burgeon over the years. In short: Get your house in order by yourselves. Don't expect us to do it for you.

Canada is weighing in, too. They're not happy.

A lot of people in Britain want to ban Trump from setting foot on their land, even going so far as circulating petitions.

I'll tell you something, folks. This makes me wonder - are we really that big a deal in the world?

For decades we've been screamed at - 'Yankee go home' and 'Death to America' and all the rest of it.

Right after he was elected, Obie-One made the infamous 'Apology Tour', trying to make up to everyone else for their perceptions of us. That didn't go down too well, here at home.

I suspect that a large part of our society's distrust of Muslims are the stories and videos from 2001 and the fact that in 2015 the San Bernardino shooting was perpetrated by Muslims.

In the days right after 9/11, news reports talked about and showed people on the streets throughout the Middle East celebrating the deaths of around 3,000 innocent men, women and children. I'll never forget that. Could it be those stories and images have rooted in us a distrust of people from that part of the world? Is it possible?

Oh, and those reports of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11, the ones The Donald was vilified over? He was right. It was fact checked and confirmed.

http://nypost.com/2015/12/21/nj-police-captain-says-some-muslims-did-celebrate-on-911/

Maybe you just forgot what it was like in America in the days and weeks following that horrible day. Maybe refresh your memory by watching this video:

Did you see it? Did you notice the happy expression on that woman's face as she ululates in joy? And then the second video, which is stomach churning, and shows people leaping to their deaths to escape the flames. Read the article above - the one about the celebrations in New Jersey - within seeing distance of what was happening in Manhattan - with people dancing and ululating in the same way.

Yeah. We are so wrong to distrust the society that did that to us. We should just forget that, and images like this:

The Falling Man - www.rsvlts.com

Or the 911 call from a woman begging for people to rescue her before she burned to death. That one went on for nearly twenty minutes as I remember, because the 911 operator refused to just hang up. You could hear the fear in that woman's voice, the knowing she was going to die and not wanting to as she begged and begged for help.

Oh well, too bad, so sad. They were too late and she did die - hopefully from asphyxiation before the building around her collapsed into rubble.

You're right. We should just forget these images and those people. After all, as Hilliary Clinton famously said, 'What difference does it make?'


Still, when a country gets invaded (Kuwait, for example) or threatened, they immediately look to us to come to their aid. They expect us to expend our blood and treasure - our children and husbands, wives, mothers and fathers - to solve their problem.

Our treaties often are not reciprocal. If we get attacked, the other party has no obligation to come to our aid, but if they get attacked we are expected to show up with our blood and treasure, no questions asked.

Countries around the globe hold out one hand to take our money in the form of trade and aid and then stab us in the back with the other while saying ugly things about us - about our people and attitudes and actions. It happens routinely at the UN. It happens in individual trade deals. It happens in the press and media and a lot of other places.

Because of that double-dealing, because of the way the world has reacted to us over the past four decades during which I've been paying some attention, I'll be dead honest with you. I, for one, genuinely do not care what people around the world think of the man I'm supporting for president.

With the images that I saw the morning of September 11, 2001, and the news reports of people celebrating, and the aftermath of weeks of mourning and families eviscerated, I honestly don't care much what people outside this country think anymore.

After all, Donald Trump is not being elected president of the world. He is being elected president of the United States of America. I live in the United States of America. I pay my taxes here. I work here and I want someone who is going to put this country ahead of the interests of anyone else.

Will his election affect the globe? Yes, it will. Could it be devastating? Yes, it could - if he's the despot some haters think he is. Still, I can pretty much guarantee it won't be anything near as bad as some are screaming it will be.

See, we have laws and limits in this country. No one can be a dictator - no matter how much he wants to be. The presidency is the one position that has hard and fast term limits. It would require a coup - which would never happen here because we love our freedom too much.

US law prohibits the military from following 'unlawful' orders. Even when those orders come from the Commander in Chief. It's part of the oath they swear when they sign up. Same with the cops and the National Guard and all of our forces.

US law prohibits even a despot from pushing the launch button for our nuclear weapons. That order actually has to go through a process - President, Secretary of Defense, and on down the line until it reaches the poor soul who actually has to do the deed. Anywhere along that chain someone can look back up the ladder and call a halt - if they believe that it's the wrong thing to do.

So take a deep breath, suck it up and get over it. Face the fact: We are going to do what we think is right for our country, regardless of what you think.

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Last Night's Bloodbath on CNN...

Wow! Didja see that? It was... (insert your own adjective). Rough and tumble politics at its berst (best + worst = berst) and I'm still not sure who "won".

Poor Ben Carson. The left-behind nice guy, begging for someone to attack him so he could get at least a little air time.

Let's see now... thirty some years ago Donald Trump (actually, more than likely some underling in Trump's development company) hired a contracting company that went out and hired a bunch of Polish illegals. Because Trump didn't pore over the documents for the workers hired by his contractors, but because Trump had name recognition and money, Trump was sued and paid out some undisclosed sum in a settlement.

To me, this is the equivalent of you or me hiring a reputable gardening company, or roofing contractor, or cleaning service or some other service company and getting sued because that company hired a bunch of illegal aliens and mistreated them by not meeting minimum wage laws, etc. I don't see that this has a hook on which to hang anything. But that's me.

CNN and Fox, on the other hand, are saying that the allegation is 'True' - that it was Trump himself, personally, who hired these illegals. They're glossing over, completely dismissing the fact that it was another company that did it and that Trump probably had no idea what was going on until it was too late to rectify.

You don't suppose they (CNN and Fox) are in the pockets of the Donor Establishment, do you? Nah... couldn't be. Could it?

As for the Trump University claim, that is much more disturbing because it seems there might be some there, there. It sounds like a scam to me, based on what I read. One of those house-flipping things that were so popular in the early 2000's, leading up to the housing bubble burst. There were dozens if not hundreds of similar things but, because of name recognition and the presumption of deep pockets, Trump is being sued over it. If he did anything more than lend his name to it, that's bad. However, as bad as it is, it's a black mark not a devastating revelation.

Do I like or condone it? Hell no! But it is, again, one of those things that he probably nodded in the direction of instead of diving into up to his elbows.

To me, there's a difference.

Lots of people, big and little, important and not so important, down the ages have given the nod to things, not realizing the entirety of what was planned, and only found out too late to do anything to stop it. I suspect this is one of those things. Some weasel in Trump's company got this brilliant idea, sold it to his boss (and maybe that boss dressed it up some more and sold it to Trump or another level), and that's how it got started. In the meantime, Trump was off doing other things, trusting people who shouldn't have been trusted, and then...wham! Slapped with a lawsuit.

After all, the head of a company as large as Trump's is not doing everything himself. He's not answering the phones and typing the letters and doing the filing, etc. He's got people for those things, and he's got other people for managing those things and managers for other things. It's like Undercover Boss.

I don't regularly watch that, but I've seen glimpses of a couple of episodes and in each the boss is so distant from the line workers, the people who keep the day-to-day stuff going, that neither knows or recognizes the other. That's probably how it is in the Trump empire.

Now, is that an excuse? Sort of but not really because The Buck Stops Here is a true statement - and it's as true in business as it is in politics.

What Trump is not getting credit for is for not throwing the person or people who got him into those messes under the bus. He hasn't said, 'well, that's because so-and-so did this-and-that'. He's taking it all on himself, which is a sign of a strong character.

So the man has feet of clay. So what. Thirty years ago, when he was in his early thirties, he failed in judging the character of a company he hired. More recently he got involved, gave his name to some bogus 'university' scam. Okay, does that disqualify him from running for office? Mmm. No. Not really.

That's my take on it. And I still think that Trump is the best option of the three on stage last night.

Rubio is owned by the Establishment / Donors and so is Cruz and we don't need another four or eight years of that nonsense. We've still had enough, so Trump is it for me.

That said, I'm going to finish my lunch and get back to work because, in the end, I'll get to vote but I'm only one voice of many in this discussion and whatever is going to happen will happen. I'll just be interested in seeing what it is.

Have a wonderful day!

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Trump's Triumph?

We've all heard the news over the last few days. If you've been living at the bottom of the ocean or under a rock you might have missed it, otherwise not.

Donald Trump is gasp! not participating in tonight's debate.

Since the moment of his announcement about this, the newsies have been running in circles, waving their hands, and crying about the fact that Trump won't be there because he objects to Megyn Kelly being a moderator. Having gone back to read their exchange there, and the exchanges between them since, I don't blame him. She's not professional in her interviews with him. She doesn't like him and it shows.

If you didn't see the first debate, here's the start of this whole thing between Kelly and Trump:

Her first question out of the gate at that debate was qualified by some as a tough question and by others as an unserious "gotcha": "Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like, ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ slobs,' and 'disgusting animals.'"

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835994/trump-megyn-kelly-debate-boycott


C'mon, little girl. Pull up those grup panties and get over it. People say ugly things about other people all the time.

What is fascinating is that when I went back in time to find similar nasty remarks made by the Left's Golden Girl I came across a fascinating 2008 article in Scientific American - and this excerpt strikes directly at the heart of this discussion about Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump and will he / won't he / should he, etc.:

Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

Looks like this isn't a new 'controversy'.

Trump has made ugly remarks about women, many times. Yes, he does stoop down into the gutter, not stopping at generalizations but getting highly personal in his remarks. But! That proves he has a mile-wide character flaw and nothing more.

Kelly, by raising this at a political debate (not an etiquette debate), shows that she took this personally.

Now, because he's refusing to meet this dame across a debate stage and deal with her silliness, there's a big hoorah across the networks. Trump has been called 'childish', 'petulant', 'unprofessional' and just about everything else you can think of for days. Talking heads and pundits, commentators and pinheads all are weighing in.

After digesting this, watching and listening and thinking about it, I think I know what's behind the excitement.

It's so simple I had to take all the verbiage off and... It's because, by refusing to participate, Trump is marginalizing the organizations that have worked so hard for months to marginalize his candidacy.

Let's go back to the beginning: Kelly asked Trump a question about personality. It has zero to do with policy or what he would do as president. Why? Why, of all the questions she could ask, did she ask that?

This unrelated-to-the-presidency nonsense continued through the first half in a most unprofessional manner. I've gone back and looked down into the transcript.

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

The moderators tried hard to start a food fight between the candidates, attempting to pit one against the other in one-on-one challenges, like this one, almost immediately after the debate started:

WALLACE: Senator Rubio, when Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for presidency, he said this: “There’s no passing off responsibility when you’re a governor, no blending into the legislative crowd.”

Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is, a man who you say did a great job running your state of Florida for eight years.

 Now, this, at least, does have relation to the presidency and qualification for the office, but really? Asking one candidate to address another (and no doubt hoping for sparks if not fireworks as the result). Unprofessional in my view because it does nothing to allow Rubio to advance himself. It just invites him to disparage Bush and damage himself in the process if he speaks badly.

And here is the entire exchange between Trump and Kelly that night:

KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.
You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”
(LAUGHTER)
Your Twitter account…
TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: No, it wasn’t.
(APPLAUSE)
Your Twitter account…
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.
KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.
TRUMP: Yes, I’m sure it was.
KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?
TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.
(APPLAUSE)
I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.
And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.
(APPLAUSE)

Looking at that, and I grant that I don't have all of the background - what he's said - I really think she was out of line. What has that question got to do with anything?

So he's not going to tonight's debate in Iowa. So what. If Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Ben Carson or Chris Christie bowed out would there be this huge kerfuffle? No. There would be questions and perhaps some commentary if it was Rubio who walked away and the same with raised eyebrows if it was Cruz, but no one would be throwing the kinds of firebombs at those candidates that they're throwing at Trump.

And it's that which makes me believe that Fox is worried about their ratings and the after-effect of Trump's walk. After all, if Trump doesn't go, and I don't think he's going to since he's already made a commitment to attend a fund-raiser for military veterans, Fox's ratings for this 'do' tonight may spike at the outset due to curiosity, but will probably drop like a rock after the first commercial break.

We'll see, but I am glad that Trump has principles and is willing to stand on them. That is a good character component and one I can admire.

Think about it and have a lovely day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Didja Miss Me?

No yesterday wasn't an experiment or a test. It was a flub, an oversight or, in ancient parlance before the word took on a completely different and much less tasteful meaning, a 'boner'.

Yeah, yeah. You can stop snickering now. That's a slang word that was used to describe a misstep, not someone named 'Willie' standing at attention.

Truth to tell, I'm not quite sure what happened yesterday. Good intentions and all of that but, more than anything, I had a desk piled with papers - my avalanche - and a lunch date. Both took all my attention to the detriment of this. Then, when I got home, the debate was on and I watched that, then the analysis.

Lunch was nice. I enjoyed it and had a chance to talk one-on-one with one of the department heads. That's never the most comfortable situation because, no matter who you are or how confident, if you're an underling you can't help but watch your step. It's not the most relaxing situation. Particularly if it's the head of HR. However, it was nice and we spoke about all sorts of things, including my job and what I'm doing, which was expected and helpful. It gave me a chance to set a stake in the ground and run a line in different directions so she knows where my interests lie.

Now, to step backward and set it up properly, this was a thank you lunch. Last week there was a webinar that went sideways for about ten minutes before I got it back on track and saved the bacon. It wasn't a case of me being great (although I do like to think that I am), it's just familiarity with the program and its quirks and the other person not having the experience.

So, I got a lunch out of it. Which was nice, but not necessary since, in my view, I was just doing my job (even though it did partially take my attention away from other things on which I had planned to work). I learned some things from it, too, so double bonus.

Then, on the way home last night, I turned the radio to the Republican presidential debate in which, I think, the candidates rocked compared to Hilliary, Bernie and the other corpses the DNC dug up for theirs (it was so unmemorable that I can't even remember who was there aside from the two).

Last night, the questions asked by the moderators were the most unprofessional, least helpful or informative questions I have ever heard posed at a debate. Even the lead off question, which is one I've run across in job interviews, is a negative and it set the tone for the entire evening.

"What is your greatest weakness?" It's valid. If you're interviewing someone. Depending on the answer, it can show a certain level of self-awareness, but it's also a negative and it can so easily be gamed. However, asking that question as the opener at a presidential debate? Really?

"Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" That was the very next question. What kind of a question is that? It's disrespectful, denigrating, and absolutely non-substantive. It's pure and simple baiting. But, Trump, to whom it was posed, wasn't stumped by it. He said what I think a lot of people were thinking: "it's not a very nicely asked question, the way you say that." And it wasn't.

There were others like those. Overall, the tone and impression left was that the candidates are almost all strong, capable contenders, able to think on their feet and not get caught by petty traps, while the moderators came across as nasty, little-minded people with an agenda and zero professionalism.

I listened to an hour of it on the radio because I was driving, and the moderators seemed to have no control over the event. John Harwood was the worst of the group. Rude, biased, vicious like a junkyard dog - an ugly little man in character as shown on television last night.

One "alleged" question was posed to John Kasich: "That is, you had some very strong words to say yesterday about what's happening in your party and what you're hearing from the two gentlemen we've just heard from. Would you repeat it?"

So... let me get this straight. This vicious little man wants a presidential candidate to repeat something someone else said about him or about his plans. What schoolyard does this idiot spend his time in? That's the kind of stuff ten-year olds do, not adult professionals. Pure and simple, that is baiting and I am delighted Kasich and none of the other people on that stage last night fell for such paltry tactics.

Quintanilla was another one. What a nasty personality there, too. Snideness on the part of a moderator has no place in a debate setting. These people are supposed to be neutral - unbiased - yet the bias showed through again and again all night long.

On the subject of taxes, Quintanilla asked Fiorina about taxes and the tax code. The exchange, copied from the Washington Post transcript, went:

Quintanilla: "You want to bring 70,000 pages to three?"

Fiorina: "That's right, three pages."

Quintanilla: "Is that using really small type?" - That, right there, is snide and demeaning. What was the point of that question?

Fiorina: "You know why three?"

Quintanilla: "Is that using really small type?" Again, what is the point of this?

However! Fiorina came back and blew the moron out of the water: "No. You know why three. Because only if it's about three pages are you leveling the playing field between the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected who can hire the armies of lawyers and accountants and, yes, lobbyists, to help them navigate their way through 73,000 pages."

That phrase, 'leveling the playing field', is a favorite of the liberal left. We're always supposed to level the playing field, handing out participation "trophies" instead of badges for winners. And she not only answered the question well, explaining her reasoning in a snapshot everyone can understand and assimilate, she didn't get tripped up by the snarkiness of the question as it was posed.

And so it went - nasty question and ugly poses by the moderators. It was, or it should be considered, an embarrassment for CNBC and clearly shows the attitude the media has toward anyone with a modicum of red in their blood.

Harwood: "...the fact that you're at the fifth lectern tonight shows how far your stock has fallen in this race..."

In all, Senator Cruz summed up what I and many others were seeing, beautifully: "You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.

"This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions -- "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"

"How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?"

 Beautiful!

And none of the people on that stage fell into the traps set by the 'moderators'. They said what they wanted to say, made the points they wanted to make and effectively marginalized the moderators' bias when it started standing higher than the intellects of the people sitting behind the moderator's table.

All-in-all it was a livelier, more engaging, funnier and better two hours than I expected. Comparing this match to the Democrat debate a few weeks ago? The Democrat love-fest was a sleep aid by comparison.

As for last night, I don't think anyone's mind was changed. I don't think anyone who has a favorite was swayed from their candidate to another.

It's early days, yet, and that will come later as people start paying closer attention. What was shown, though, is that these people who are running for the office of president are smart, mentally agile - they avoided the traps set with ease (which also speaks to the weakness of CNBC's staff since no one came up with anything that was a true 'gotcha' - which is what the network was looking for) - and capable.

I still think Jeb Bush looks like he's suffering from a terminal case of constipation, and John Kasich looks desperate - the expressions on his face coupled with his body language convey that. Trump was Trump, Carson was Carson but Christie was brilliant at times, even though I really don't like his 'strange bedfellow' approach to things political.

Based on what I saw, I'm interested to see how the next few weeks play out. The RNC obviously has their candidate picked - and it's not any of the "outsiders" - but I think they might be ready to switch horses, midstream or not, because Bush and Kasich just ain't cutting it. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming weeks.

Stay tuned!

Now - back to life and living. Have a lovely day!

Best~

Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Nope. Not a Curmudgeon. I'm Lewis Carroll's White Rabbit.

Bless my waistcoat and whiskers! I'm late, I'm late! I mean I'm really late - it's eight o'clock at night and I'm just getting started on this.

Last night I watched the Democrat Debate (I refuse to call it the "Democratic Party" because that implies neither the Independents or Republicans or Greens or anyone else are part of a Democratic process). What a bore.

I learned nothing new about anyone, except that Bernie Sanders is woefully unequipped to be President of the United States - unless we change the office from President to Santa Claus, up to and including the bag of freebies.

Let's see... Single-payer healthcare and free college and increased minimum wage - which will also apply to government workers which make up almost fifty percent of the workforce in this day and age. There were so many give-aways I can't remember what they all were, but those stuck.

Now I don't know how you run your household, but if I don't take in enough money to pay for all the nice things I want to have, I can't have all those nice things. Unfortunately for us, government doesn't have that same restriction. They look to us and hold out their hands and legislate that we have to give up more of our hard earned money to pay for the freebies they're giving to someone else. It's called "redistribution of wealth". In a democratic republic such as ours, that should be illegal. It's highway robbery, theft, and there's no really nice way to call it what it is. Unfortunately, the politicians talk over and around it and here we are.

Oh, wait! I did learn that Bernie Sanders is either naive, stupid or both. His comment about Putin "regretting" going into the Ukraine and Crimea was ridiculous, at best. Putin knows precisely why he's in the Crimea. It's the same reason Russia tried to overrun the Crimea about a hundred-fifty years ago. It's a warm-water port with unfettered access to the Mediterranean, along with the oil and gas and provides a secure and easily protected naval port.

So Bernie hasn't a clue and cannot extrapolate potentials even when they're laid out right in front of him.

Besides, can you seriously imagine Bernie Sanders or Hilliary Clinton going toe-to-toe with Vladimir Putin?

I mean, really. Can you see this:

or this:

going up and winning against this:

If there was a confrontation over something important, who among these three people do you think would come out on top? Look at their faces. Sanders looks desperate. Hilliary looks like a fanatic (and no, this was not the least flattering picture I found). Vlad looks confident and determined.

BTW - if you want to see one of the worst pictures of Hilliary I found, there's this:

So - between Bernie, Hill and Vlad, who would win? Particularly since Hilliary, in all her time as Secretary of State, has accomplished zip, zero, zilch, nada-thing.

You don't agree? Okay. Name one thing in international circles she did that was and is a sustained success.

Did she bring about peace in the Middle East? No.

Did she resolve the issues between Israel and the PLO? No.

How about between Iran and Israel? No.

Did she bring about change in the laws in Saudi Arabia when it comes to women? No.

Did she get China to sign and keep to the Climate Change deal the UN wanted? No.

Did she manage Benghazi? Hell no. Even in the weeks leading up to it when the people on the ground there were begging for help she denied it or ignored their requests. Then, when push came to shove, her boss sat on his thumbs and did a 'numunah, numunah, numunah' indecisive dance until the matter resolved itself. The fact that four people lost their lives didn't and doesn't seem to matter one speck to either of them.

Okay, yeah, she traveled a lot. And she lied. Remember the gunfire in Kosovo? The time she claimed that she and Chelsea had to run for cover? That was then proved to be a flat-out baldfaced lie she tried to defend by saying she was 'tired'.

And there are the national security e-mails no one wants to talk about. The ones that were probably hacked and read and acted upon by the Chinese and half the rest of the world. But that's okay. Our national security must take a backseat to Hilliary's convenience and laziness. God damn! It's so hard to live, act and work by the rules that have been put in place over the past 100 years or so in order to make sure that state secrets stay secret.

So, no. I was not impressed last night. I learned nothing new. Just saw the same pandering idiots doing what they do: Pandering to the masses. Promising free stuff to all and sundry in exchange for votes so they can then shrug their shoulders, spread their hands and said, "Sorry, folks, it's Congress."

It's BS and I'm disgusted. Which is why I like Trump.

Yes, the man is a blow-hard. Yes, he's rude, loud-mouthed and boorish. But you know what? He says what he means and doesn't care what people think. Which is fine. We've had namby-pamby and nice and look where that's gotten us.

Trump has spent his entire adult life negotiating with people, probably who didn't much like him or who he didn't like, but with whom he needed to strike a deal in order to get what he wanted done.

None of the other candidates on either side of the line have that skill to the same degree The Donald has.

And, if it came to it, I think this:

Could take on that:

The same determination, the same grit, and I think The Donald is someone who could actually garner at least grudging respect from someone like Vlad.

The Donald has management experience. He knows how to organize large-scale operations. He's not obligated to donors or lobbyists. He's clean, as far as debts to special interests go. Which cannot be said of any of the other candidates, at all.

So, no. I was not impressed with last night's debate. It was boring as hell, boring as watching grass grow (at least with paint you can get a high off the residual fumes).

Now we'll see what happens in the next few months. Obviously the Shadow Bankers and the Power Brokers have decided Hilliary will be the next President if they can manage it. That way their power won't be impacted. Things won't change at all from what's been. At best, Bernie will be offered the Vice Presidency so he'll have a lower Bully Pulpit from which he can toss out candy to the masses and keep the masses happy.

However, The Donald might just manage to upset their apple cart. If he gets elected, it will be interesting to see how things play out. PACs, special interests and lobbyists won't be able to just pick up the phone and demand that The Donald do whatever they want him to do. They don't have the leverage on him they have on the others.

Whatever. We'll see what will develop in the next few months.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy watching the drama play out.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Fox News = Fair & Balanced? Uhhh, no.

Okay - I used to be a Fox News junkie. A year or so ago and before, it was my solid go-to for news and world events. Then things changed, as they do.

I had less time to watch, the commentators became more... whatever they already were.

Megan Kelly = drama queen
Bill O'Reilly = know-it-all blow hard (I live with one so I know 'em when I see 'em)
Brit Hume = RNC sycophant / disciple or whatever synonym you care to apply
Sean Hannity = well-intended, weak-kneed choir boy with a solid Catholic bent

Susan Estrich is impossible to listen to. Her voice makes nails on a blackboard sound downright melodic (I'm sorry - maybe it's my hearing, but that's how it sounds to me).

Anne Coulter - the personification of a shrill, well-informed BITCH (all caps - done deliberately). She cannot moderate her tone yet keep her opinions flowing in something that faintly resembles reasoned thinking. She must and does come across as much like a shrew or fishwife as she can manage. As a thinker, she is borderline brilliant. As a commentator, she is a complete shrew / harpy / fishwife - you pick your adjective, but I think you get the theme.

At this point, I'm right at my husband's side when it comes to Fox News. When my MIL wants to watch it, her favorite go-to for the talking heads and empty suits, I leave the room.

The debate the other night is the entire thing in a nutshell.

Chris Wallace, the self-appointed arbiter of what makes a good conservative (even though he's a party-line apparatchik of the first order), went after Donald Trump.

So did Megan Kelly. Snarky is the nicest thing I can find to say about her performance.

Bret Baier was the only one on that stage, or in the Fox News spin room, who showed even a modicum of 'fair and balanced' - Fox's much Trumped tag line.

Okay - they don't like Donald Trump. Personally, I don't either. He is another pumped-up blow hard - just like Bill O'Reilly with a major difference.

Trump is so self-evidently an egoist (selfish, self-centered, arrogant, etc.) that it doesn't make any difference. He's not an egoist who tries to hide his egoism. He's honest about it, embraces it.

His ego does not allow the man to prevaricate about his opinions. Love it or not, there's something to respect right there. He speaks his mind - says what he means, means what he says.  As he declared to Megan Kelly the other night when her panties were all twisted up because The Donald is mean to and an ass around women, 'if you don't like it, too bad because I don't care'. Good! Because neither do I.

I do not need another incompetent touchie-feelie moron sitting in the oval office. Ladies and gents, we need a MAN. Someone with the stones and guts to go toe-to-toe with those who wish to do us and our people harm.

How many crucial contracts or deals has Obama negotiated? One. Just one and he gave everything to the other side.

In exchange for handing Iran the keys to their own nuclear arsenal - which will, inevitably, be used against Europe and the United States, we got zero. 0.00000000000 = ZIP, zilch, zed, nada.

Our hostages? Still held hostage. Thanks Mr. President! Couldn't even bargain them out of Iranian jails.

Israel? I give them, ohhh, maybe two years. Why do you think Iran sent one of its senior political members to Russia this week? Could it be to negotiate for rocket technology so they can put one of their nuclear weapons on top of it to launch it in the direction of Israel? Mm?

Then, once Israel is turned to cinder, who do you suppose will be next?

Ever hear of Armageddon, the end of the world, end of everything foretold in the Bible?

Guess what! It's a real, honest to goodness place - smack dab in Israel. It's now called Meggido, but it's a real place (Google it if you don't believe me) and, if Iran launches a nuke at Israel, that might well be the place where World War III - the Annihilation of Civilization begins.

What do you think the result would have been if Donald Trump or one of his delegates was sitting across the table from the Iranians during those negotiations? Do you think that hard-nosed man would have walked away with nothing to show for the effort?

In our house we call John Kerry 'Herman Munster'. First, for the physical resemblance:

But also for the vacancy between the ears. Just Google: "kerry admits iran deal failure" and you will get a plethora of articles calling it a hoax and worse. And he was the chief negotiator for God's sake!

So Donald Trump couldn't do better? With all of his years of experience in negotiations he couldn't do any better than Kerry and Obama?

Give me a break.

Our hostages would be free and those voids called 'inspection requirements' would be filled. Do you realize that to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities, based on the deal cut by Obama & Co., we have to not only provide 24-hours prior notice - meaning Iran has 24-hours to clean things up and hide what they don't want the inspectors to find - we have to go through a series of other steps beforehand? That means the flag of Upcoming Inspection soars up the flagpole a week or more before the 24-hour notice period, so there's even more time.

Great job, Obie One! And here's what Israel children have to look forward to because of our knowledgeable leadership:

Well, just resurrect and export Bert the Turtle with his built-in air raid shelter.


O'Reilly says he's out to help 'the folks' but I don't buy it. He isn't able or willing to step out from behind the desk and speak his mind - without apology.

As Trump said the other night, America spends far too much time on 'political correctness'. As Ben Carson pointed out, because of 'political correctness' we spend far more time fighting non-existent race wars pumped up by segments on both sides, than we do trying to fix what's broke.

There has been a firestorm because The Donald wouldn't toe the Republican Party Line at the start of the debate.

The people on the stage were asked something like, 'No matter who gets nominated, will you pledge to support them (even if you think they're just as incompetent and weenie-like as the present incumbent of the oval office)?' Trump was the only one who refused to make such a pledge.

Why? Not because of what Fox News is trumpeting. It's probably because underneath all that bluff and bluster the man has at least a minor streak of ethics left. If he had made that promise and if Jeb Bush were to get the nomination - the third Bush in a row of lily livers - Trump would have publicly committed to support him.

After what Bush I and Bush II did to us - 'read my lips' and the still on-going devastation of printing money we don't have so we can spend money we don't really have so we can fix the recession - I don't think we need Bush III to seal the deal for the U.S.

Obama may be incompetent and dangerous to the point of maniacal, but he did not single-handedly get us into the economic mess we're still in. He made it worse, there's no question, but he was not the cause. We had twenty years of cause before he showed up.

Bush I's reneging on his 'read my lips' promise and other weak-kneed policies led us into Kuwait in the first Gulf war. Hussein thought we were weak, because that's what he saw in Bush. Bush's advisers shoved him in the right direction, thank God, but left to himself he would have wrung his hands, wet his pants and generally behaved like George McFly.

Clinton's policies led to the technology bubble in the NASDAQ bursting in 1998. That threw us into recession. Congress repealed Glass Steagall, which was instituted to solve the Great Depression and make sure financial speculation didn't reach the same levels at some future date. Clinton approved it.

Glass-Steagall was what kept us from economic devastation for nearly seventy years. Then Congress, in its infinite stupidity, repealed it. Seven years later the housing speculation bubble bursts and... here we all are, eight years later.

Wikipedia.org Glass-Steagall_Legislation

Then we got Obie One. Our sports loving, golf playing, multi-trillion dollar spending lazy-ass incompetent president.

Do I like Donald Trump? No. I don't, but for our next president I think we could do one hell of a lot worse.

Now, I suggest you do some reading and research - in more than one place and from more than one point of view. There's a lot here.

Read up on the Great Depression and what led to it - financial speculation, just like the tech bubble of the late 1990's and the housing bubble of the mid-2000's.

Read up on Glass-Steagall, what it meant, what it did and why it was effective.

Do a little research into the candidates on both sides.

Bernie Sanders talks like a kindly ol' socialist, but check his voting record. Look into him a bit. The left might not like the fact that his voting record is quite (very) pro-gun. He didn't support the Brady Act. He didn't support legislation that would allow the Sandy Hook families to sue the gun manufacturer (although why the manufacturer has any liability is beyond me).

For the liberal-socialist base, though, they'll adore him. He is another profligate tax-and-spender. He's sponsoring a bill, now, that opens voter registration up to everyone who gets a driver's license - American citizen or not, which means that any illegal from anywhere can influence our nation's government. Personally, I have a problem with that. Personally, I have a problem with the idea that suing a manufacturer because someone uses a product and causes harm to others is okay. But that's red meat for another post.

We all know Hilliary. Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, lying, being charged with (and acquitted of) perjury (although I do believe the evidence was there, just ill-prepared and poorly presented). All the rest of it.  BTW - anyone seen her lately, doing the grocery shopping for her and Bill? How about at the cleaners, the gas station standing by the pump watching the gauge, or doing any of the other things those people whom she's so in touch with do on a daily basis?

Oh, and while you're checking things out - read up on Benghazi. Refresh your memory and then ask yourself: Would an ego-maniac like Donald Trump take such a thing lying down, or would his massive ego step in and force us to actually try to do something?

After all, the US military maintains rescue forces all around the world, specifically to save people caught in situations like Benghazi. Obama was too busy crapping his pants to send them - as they are trained to be sent - so instead of, perhaps, saving a few Americans, all were lost. Whatever happened to the credo: leave none behind? Hmm. Perhaps some more reading is in order.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories