Six months or so ago—around about the time when it became clear that we were going to see a biffo between Hillary & Don—I made a prediction that the election was going to come down to Hillary hammering Trump for being a sexist pig. Obviously, I didn't foresee the surfacing of secret recordings of Trump boorishly boasting about groping women's boxes, but I think I'd still like to claim that one as a win.
Since the start of the weekend, I've had some free time, and a (mostly) working internet connection (sort of)—both of which I've used to listen to the Trump tapes—and I have to say, I found them pretty obnoxious (if not outright revolting). However … I've also been leafing through documents on Wikileaks.
In this post, I'm going to outline what I make of both candidates at this point in time, and whom I would vote for if it were up to me to cast a ballot. My conclusions may just surprise you … but probably not.
Caveats:
Just because a candidate holds a belief or desire to do something, doesn't mean they're actually going to get the opportunity to do it, or that their mind isn't going to be changed once they're in office. Also, there's probably a lot more made of the Presidential elections than there needs to be. Ultimately, a lot of what happens with the country is going to rest on congress.
Trump:
Trump appears to be a corrupt and clownish property tycoon from New York. Given the stories surrounding some of his business ventures, it's highly likely he's had dealings with organised crime. He's a boorish, bullying, braggart—full of himself and pretty much full of shit—so much so that it's hard to tell what he's talking about sometimes. Most of the time, it seems he has no real knowledge or understanding of how the machinery of government works. When pressed, he often releases half-developed brain-farts which waft out of his mouth and then disappear, never to be heard of again.
On the other hand, he seems fairly consistent on the following topics:
- Stop illegal immigration.
- End free-trade deals that disadvantage American workers.
- Force corporations and high-income earners to pay more tax by simplifying the tax code and eliminating loop-holes.
- Work with Russia to stabilise the middle east.
If Trump were to be elected, he would probably say and do a lot of stupid things, envelop himself in a never-ending series of low-consequence "scandals" in the media, and thoroughly embarrass the United States on the world stage. However, if he legitimately pushed for those four things he says he wants—and managed to get them—he may actually be a net benefit for the country.
Aside:
Specifically on the sexual-predator thing: Assuming Trump wasn't talking out of his arse on those tapes—y'know, in order to make himself sound like a big man in front of his mates—assuming he does swagger around grabbing whoever he sees by whatever body body part he wants—it's likely that someone like him will molest the same number of women over the next four years, regardless of whether he becomes president or not. That is to say, you wouldn't be saving anyone from being harassed by keeping him out of office—it'd just be different people he'd be harassing. I know that's a cold blooded thing to say, but the reason why I'm rationalising something as horrid as sexual assault may become clear by the time you get to the end.
Clinton:
As I see it, Hillary appears to be a calculating, manipulative, Machiavellian schemer, with no regard for democracy, the rule of law, or human life—who has spent decades building up the connections and resources needed to be a power-player on an international scale. She doesn't appear to have any particular interest in or allegiance to the United States, but sees things in a global context. Her vision appears to be some sort of gradual expansion of the European model to encompass the western world—and then presumably everything. The establishment of an unelected, international bureaucracy that sits above the level of the nation-state, which has the power to impose regulations and overturn laws, and will gradually see the dissolution of national sovereignty.
For clarification: I don't think that she and her people expect to accomplish this in eight years, or even in Hillary's lifetime; I don't even think they're thinking of it in the concise and concrete terms I've laid out here. Nor do I think they're malicious about it—they're not, after all, evil moustache-twirling villains. I think they look at both the democratic process and a world divided into separate nation-states, and they see the potential for dangerously unpredictable chaos—and their natural proclivity is towards consolidation and control. I also think they see themselves—by the virtue of their wealth and success—as the only people qualified to steer the ship.
Extra clarification: I don't think Hillary is going to establish a non-democratic world-government over the course of her presidency; but I do believe that she and the people she surrounds herself with are going to put in place measures that slowly see us moving (further) in that direction—if for no other reason than because they believe it's the best course for humanity.
But it's this idea of knowing what's best, being above the masses, and working towards a greater good, that justifies anything and everything; including mass corruption, rigging elections, destroying whole populations economically, and chucking millions of people into a fucking meat-grinder. See, it's all going to be worth it; it's all going to be—wait, just hang on for a sec—before we do anything else, we need to get control of the oil-fields in the middle east. Oh, and the pipe-lines and transport routes that connect them out of the middle east. See, it doesn't matter if the whole region has to suffer the same fate as Iraq & Libya; it doesn't matter if the whole thing devolves into a prolonged civil war; it doesn't matter if Europe is swamped by millions of refugees (in fact, they appear to mock countries like Germany for taking them in); it doesn't matter if we end up with dozens, or even hundreds of terrorist attacks in the west; it doesn't even matter if the instability consumes Turkey, and the fighting spreads all the way to the borders of Europe—all of that's been factored in—what matters is that any organised military force in the region (that can't be controlled) needs to go. Assad needs to go, the Ayatollah needs to go, Erdogan might need to go, and Putin … well, obviously Putin needs to go, but he's a bit of a tough nut to crack, and we don't want a fuckin' nuclear war & shit. But even if we have to have one, there's that whole greater good thing, remember.
Conclusion:
Given all the information I have at this point in time, I would probably vote for Trump. I don't think he's a good person and I don't expect he'd make a good president; however, I do believe he may be the lesser of two evils. If nothing else, the fact that he's a small-time crook and con-artist, without the Clinton's resources, connections, or political knowledge, means there's probably a limit to the damage he could do. There's a slim chance he might even do some good.
On the other hand, Clinton has enough skill and experience to keep the ship motoring up shit creek so steadily that most of us won't even notice.
Final Thoughts:
There's a lot of stuff on Wikileaks, and reading through emails without annotations or outside context is frustrating. I've had to rely a lot on 3rd party resources and analysis—much of it from small independent bloggers, podcasters, and youtubers—mostly because the mainstream media analysis seems to have been pretty superficial.
Click here to view unrelated rant about the ABC
Something that's given me the shits with ABC24 since it started: rather than digging deep on a story, they seem content to simply rake over the same six inches of topsoil over and over and over again until they drop the story and move on to raking the topsoil of something else. "Here's a quick summary with Virginia Trioli, followed by a quick summary of "THE SAME FUCKIN' THING" with the morning presenter, followed by a quick summary with the midday presenter, followed by a quick summary with the afternoon presenter, followed by a quick summary and some annoying professional talking-heads arguing shit for ten minutes on The Drum, followed by a quick summary on the evening news, followed by a quick summary and a five minute interview on the 7:30 Report, followed by a quick summary on The World, followed by another quick summary and another five minute interview on Lateline; and then, look at that—HOLY FUCK—WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME TO DO ANY IN DEPTH ANALYSIS!" By the way, ABC news radio is just as bad.
At one point in the Hillary/Podesta emails, they talk about how they've worked to manufacture an uninformed and obedient citizenry; however, they add that whilst said citizenry is still uninformed, their obedience has started slipping. I believe this is a reference to people using the internet to bypass the traditional news media, and the ensuing rise of unconventional leadership such as Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders. I also recommend doing your own research and reaching your own conclusions.
