Personally, I can't believe anyone would pay to see politicians - let alone the Clintons - speak. Sociopaths should pay people to watch them in action.
But this is the free market and there's apparently a demand (however weak) to watch a spent, corrupted force like the Clintons and their 1990s vibe.
The speaking tour (aka as the TDS tour) kicked off in Toronto at Scotia Bank Place in November and finally got to see parts of it. I have no idea why Clinton and the Obamas are keeping their faces in the public eye. While some people like it, I think it lack decorum.
A couple of things.
Hillary is as shallow and incompetent a miserable a person drunk on power as they come. It's not surprising she defended a coupe of deals signed under the previous administration. Notable the Iran and Paris deals - both with approval of Congress.
I particularly enjoy her claims of financial corruption when she profited to the tune of millions from her Foundation while in power as well as her own close ties with the Kremlin.
You can't make this crap up.
Bill, for his part, is just an example of why past Presidents should be just that: The past. Why he feels the need, other than to lend what's left of his credibility to Hillary for political currency, to stick around is beyond me.
He's simply not aging well intellectually. Worse, the more he's out there, the more people are sickened given his serial sexual predatory practices.
Two points in the talk I take issue with and would like to take a second to discuss and challenge.
The first is Bill's slimy assertion and attack on rural Britons who voted for Brexit. Specifically arguing that doing so was anti-immigrant and by extension a slap to the face of Poles living in the UK. That somehow, because Brits voted to leave they didn't respect, get this, Poland's role in WWII?
Talk about a false equivalence followed by a non-sequitur.
He tried to conflate, as the media does, the vote as anti-immigrant. The Brexit vote was no such thing. It was a direct vote against the increasingly paternalist power of the EU that was perceived to be a corrosive force on the sovereignty of nations.
I'm surprised he didn't pull out the 'alt-right' or 'vast right-wing conspiracy' canard.
In any event, you could be a Polish immigrant in the UK and still vote for Brexit. Moreover, to further poke a hole in his claim, Poland today is a Euro-skeptic country itself.
The other part is Frank McKenna - a former Liberal politician - made the remarkable claim that during the 1995 referendum Clinton came to speak in defense of a united Canada and the result was the No side winning. Something 'we're forever grateful' for in McKenna's words.
Except it's not true at all.
I live in Montreal. I am a Quebecer. I remember that night and the weeks leading up to it very well. The country was on edge. Where McKenna's Liberals under Chretien were flippantly mishandling the debate, world leaders like Clinton who spoke had little if any impact on it.
It was a Quebec vote pure and simple. No one talked about Clinton. Nobody.
A French-Canadian was not going to let an American sway his vote either way. The gratitude McKenna was showing was grossly misplaced and inappropriate.
These two, along with Obama's own 'I did that' tour is narcissism at its finest and are further damaging the image of the Democrat party as a liberal brand. It's to the left of that now.
I don't particularly care for Trump too much. There are aspects I like but for the most part he's too Don King for my taste.
However, it doesn't preclude me from examining his actions as they unfold with a healthy dose of skepticism and a critical eye.
The cold, calculating arrogance of the Clintons coupled with McKenna's sycophancy was a showcase in insufferable elitism.
But this is the free market and there's apparently a demand (however weak) to watch a spent, corrupted force like the Clintons and their 1990s vibe.
The speaking tour (aka as the TDS tour) kicked off in Toronto at Scotia Bank Place in November and finally got to see parts of it. I have no idea why Clinton and the Obamas are keeping their faces in the public eye. While some people like it, I think it lack decorum.
A couple of things.
Hillary is as shallow and incompetent a miserable a person drunk on power as they come. It's not surprising she defended a coupe of deals signed under the previous administration. Notable the Iran and Paris deals - both with approval of Congress.
I particularly enjoy her claims of financial corruption when she profited to the tune of millions from her Foundation while in power as well as her own close ties with the Kremlin.
You can't make this crap up.
Bill, for his part, is just an example of why past Presidents should be just that: The past. Why he feels the need, other than to lend what's left of his credibility to Hillary for political currency, to stick around is beyond me.
He's simply not aging well intellectually. Worse, the more he's out there, the more people are sickened given his serial sexual predatory practices.
Two points in the talk I take issue with and would like to take a second to discuss and challenge.
The first is Bill's slimy assertion and attack on rural Britons who voted for Brexit. Specifically arguing that doing so was anti-immigrant and by extension a slap to the face of Poles living in the UK. That somehow, because Brits voted to leave they didn't respect, get this, Poland's role in WWII?
Talk about a false equivalence followed by a non-sequitur.
He tried to conflate, as the media does, the vote as anti-immigrant. The Brexit vote was no such thing. It was a direct vote against the increasingly paternalist power of the EU that was perceived to be a corrosive force on the sovereignty of nations.
I'm surprised he didn't pull out the 'alt-right' or 'vast right-wing conspiracy' canard.
In any event, you could be a Polish immigrant in the UK and still vote for Brexit. Moreover, to further poke a hole in his claim, Poland today is a Euro-skeptic country itself.
The other part is Frank McKenna - a former Liberal politician - made the remarkable claim that during the 1995 referendum Clinton came to speak in defense of a united Canada and the result was the No side winning. Something 'we're forever grateful' for in McKenna's words.
Except it's not true at all.
I live in Montreal. I am a Quebecer. I remember that night and the weeks leading up to it very well. The country was on edge. Where McKenna's Liberals under Chretien were flippantly mishandling the debate, world leaders like Clinton who spoke had little if any impact on it.
It was a Quebec vote pure and simple. No one talked about Clinton. Nobody.
A French-Canadian was not going to let an American sway his vote either way. The gratitude McKenna was showing was grossly misplaced and inappropriate.
These two, along with Obama's own 'I did that' tour is narcissism at its finest and are further damaging the image of the Democrat party as a liberal brand. It's to the left of that now.
I don't particularly care for Trump too much. There are aspects I like but for the most part he's too Don King for my taste.
However, it doesn't preclude me from examining his actions as they unfold with a healthy dose of skepticism and a critical eye.
The cold, calculating arrogance of the Clintons coupled with McKenna's sycophancy was a showcase in insufferable elitism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.