Tuesday 19th of February 2019

well said...

the thought of the day...

Henry Ergas is not all stupid... From time to time despite his entrenched erroneous opinions he will profess an amazing insight...

See also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/27358


See also: 

joe and tony's car crash with no air bags, only hypocrisy...



when the buffoon is in charge of the circus...

Donald Trump, just like any politician, made a wide range of promises during his presidential campaign, with many of them making headlines; from building a wall on the Mexican border to withdrawing from Trans-Pacific Partnership and moving the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But has he delivered on them yet?

Following his inauguration, Donald Trump sealed the traditional Contract with the American Voter, pledging to “Make America Great Again.”

Mexico Wall

Pre-election: Donald Trump delivered an explosive immigration speech at a rally in Phoenix on August 31, 2016, saying that illegal immigration is one of the greatest challenges facing the United States. It was the first time that he outlined the idea of building a wall along Mexican border to stem the flow of illegal migrants.

“We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it.”

Post-election: While Trump maintains that he will one hundred percent deliver on his solemn vow, Mexico insists it will never pay for the wall. As of January 21, 2018, not one brick of the “big, beautiful wall” has been laid.

Moving Israel Embassy

Pre-election: During his campaign, Trump pledged to relocate the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In a March 2016 address to AIPEC, he said:

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

Post-election: On December 6, 2017 President Trump made a controversial statement announcing his decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocate the embassy, sparking mass unrest across Muslim world.

Prosecuting Hillary Clinton

Pre-election: As a candidate, Trump threatened to jail his opponent Hillary Clinton for using her private email server during her tenure as a Secretary of State. Furthermore, he said that she “should get an award” from Islamists for founding Daesh, as her course as secretary of state accelerated the group’s formation. He was supported by Florida rally attendees, chanting “lock her up.”

“If I win I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation – there has never been so many lies and so much deception.”

Post-election: The president-elect made it clear that he had no intention of prosecuting Clinton, as he “hadn’t given [the prosecution] a lot of thought” and had other priorities.

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”

His demeanor radically changed after his victory: “Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.”


Pre-election: Trump made a pledge to “abandon” the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which has been considered an Obama legacy, which the former president fiercely struggled for. The TPP was regarded as a historic accord that would have slashed tariffs for American imports and exports with 12 countries, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Brunei.

He called TPP a “potential disaster for our country,” saying he preferred bilateral trade deals.

Post-election: Shortly after his inauguration, Trump pulled the United States out of the 12-nation deal, having fulfilled his campaign promise.

Read more:


western media's predictable yawn...

The full quote from Macbeth is: 

"a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The main document to be released was the so-called “Kremlin Report.” In its public version this report would contain lists of Russian government personnel and “oligarchs” alleged to be close to Putin for possible sanctions which the Trump Administration was required to file with Congress no later than on 29 January under the terms of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. 

CAATSA was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on 2 August 2017, notwithstanding the Act’s directly contradicting his expressed desire to normalize relations with Russia. His signature was forced, in the recognition that his possible veto would be instantly overridden and further embitter his relations with Congress at a time when his Administration had still no legislative achievements to its record.

In anticipation of breaking developments of great importance to the nation, Russian media spared no expense to ensure their coverage on the ground in the U.S. at the time of the release of reports relating to sanctions would be appropriate to the suspense at home.

The top-rated Russian state news channel, Rossiya-1 sent its principal talk show presenter Yevgeni Popov to Washington to head up a panel of local experts that would get extensive broadcast time back home. Among the American panelists chosen to speak about the Kremlin Report were the credible and well known commentators Paul Sanders of The National Interest and David Filipov, until recently the Moscow bureau chief of The Washington Post. Their live coverage began at mid-day Moscow time which turned out to be almost 20 hours before the Report about which they were expected to comment was actually released. No matter, talk shows often dwell on speculation and so the medium did not disappoint.

By contrast, American and European media reacted with variable speed to the release of the Kremlin Report by the Treasury Department after the fact. Part of the lag in timing and variable extent of coverage among Western media on two continents may be explained by the 6 hour time difference between North America and Europe: the report was released just before midnight on the 29th. This was an inconvenient hour for reporters, columnists and editorial boards on both sides of the Atlantic. Partly the differences in coverage may be explained by the level of prioritization the various players in the media give to Russian affairs.

In any case, be it known that notwithstanding the midnight hour of release, the European newspapers The Financial Times (UK) and Le Monde were right there in their morning online editions with excellent news coverage of the reports that remained factual and did little or no editorializing. This set them apart from other mainstream print media on the Continent who had zero coverage even in the middle of the business day on the 30th. I think in particular of The Guardian (UK), Le Figaro (France), Die Zeit or Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung(Germany).

Read more: