The Times editorial board opted
for a front-runner and a moderate underdog in endorsing Clinton for the Democrats and Kasich for the
Republicans.
"Voters have the chance to
choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in
modern history," the newspaper said of Clinton, a former secretary of
state, senator from New York
and First Lady….
The Times credited Sanders with
generating enthusiasm among Democratic voters, but in the end, it said, he
"does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs Clinton
offers."…
In assessing the Republican
candidates, The Times appeared to have settled on Kasich through a process of
elimination.
It rejected Donald Trump, who has
dominated the Republican race thus far, as a populist "who invents his
positions as he goes along." "Mr Trump has neither experience in nor
interest in learning about national security, defence or global trade," it
said….’
Would out local media be so bold
or be allowed to endorse any presidential candidates in the PE, if there is
going to be one? It is just unthinkable that the media will be given such a
free hand. On second thought they had
actually been doing so without openly saying so, I think. The local media would not dare to say they
endorse so and so as the Elected President for sure.
There is another interesting
angle to look at the US Presidential Election and the comments on endorsement
by the NYT. It was based on the experience of the candidates. This reminds me of the great number of very
experience politicians in this island that would definitely be chosen by the
NYT if they are Americans by birth. We have so many talented politicians with
better qualities than Hillary or John Kasich, with a string of straight As that
would make George Bush Jr blushed.
Unfortunately the American
Constitution forbid any Tom, Dick and Harry that were not born in the US to become
their President. Otherwise we could export our talents to the US to vie for
the crown of the President of the USA . Then again, the pay may not be
attractive enough to lure our political talents away. The only attraction is
the use of Air Force One. At the pay the US President is getting, the
Americans would never smell the goodness of our politicians. They would just
give it a miss, not in the USA ,
not anywhere in this world, except Sin
City that could afford to
pay for such exquisite talents.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
can feel safe that they would not have to face the best of the best in their
Presidential Election. Whew.
8 comments:
Now CNN live awaiting Trump and Sanders Victory speeches.
PRC would prefer Donald Trump.
Will not focus enemity on PRC.
Wah lucky, my two children both single. So ends with them and no descent for further sufferings.
Kong Hee Fatt Choy
@ once-upon-a-time-a-great-newspaper:
>> The New York Times on Saturday (Jan 30) endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination and Ohio Governor John Kasich for that of the Republicans <<
Of course they would.
IMO Trump and Sanders are the MOST HONEST candidates...they tell it as they see it and don't try to "impress" citizens just to get their votes. Sanders is an unapologetic socialist, and Trump...well, Trump is just Trump...anywhere the wind blows he will go as long as he can negotiate "a deal" where he will win. (A Pragmatist)
I have a feeling the voting public will silently disregard the NYT's "endorsement", and tell the NYT (a truly faded glory a worse newspaper than the Straight Times) to get fucked.
Both Trump and Sanders have a better feel for the voters; i.e. they RESONATE with voters concerns. People are pissed off with banks and corporations, sick and tired of no job security, and simply don't trust their elected governments anymore, can't afford Obamacare, carry crippling tertiary education debt (about USD 70k for the average young couple just starting a family)...etc etc. Trump has already indicated that he has no problem paying more tax...a point which would make Bernie Sanders happy!
So IMO, I think it'll be Trump and Sanders...but in politics, anything can change, for NO REASON, at ANYTIME.
P.S.: It doesn't matter who wins...in America...or any where else for that matter. These days government is losing its purpose, and fast becoming IRRELEVANT!
Sanders just said have the wealth for the people of USA instead of the top 1percent
Sounds familiar in somewhere here??
Top 3.percent?
"I Don't Trust Deutsche Bank" David Stockman Unleashes Truth Bomb: "When The Crunch Comes, Bank CEOs Lie"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-09/i-dont-trust-deutsche-bank-david-stockman-unleashes-truth-bomb-when-crunch-comes-ban
.......................................................
Following this morning's proclamation by Deutsche Bank co-CEO John Cryan that Germany's largest bank is "rock solid," David Stockman exposed the ugly truth that everyone appears to have forgotten from just 7 years ago...
"in my experience is that when the crunch comes, bank CEOs lie"
Stockman details the Morgan Stanley, BofA, Lehman, and Bear Stearns bullshit that occurred before exclaiming...
"I don't trust Deutsche Bank. I don't trust what they're saying. And there's reason why the banks are being sold all across the world... because people are realizing once again that we don't know what's there [on bank balance sheets]."
Neither can you trust those banks that sold their shares to Temasek and GIC when they were all in shit but did not disclosed them.
Also recently Deutsche, Stanchart and DBS were banned from trading RMB by China for speculating against the RMB.
I'm posting this in case we have scholars in Temasek or GIC who might want to invest in Deutsche Bank shares:
- Deutsche Bank may have total derivative exposure of $64 Trillion
- that's Trillion with a "T" ... not Billion
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-09/investors-have-completely-lost-faith-deutsche-bank-top-10-shareholder-admits
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-12/deutsche-bank-next-lehman
Would DBS be next? Who should be responsible should DBS ended in the shit hole?
Post a Comment