The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and freedom of the individual. A party, most of whose members believe in immigration controls, reduced government intervention in business and a strong alliance with America. Traditionally therefore, UK Conservatives have been seen as natural allies of conservative Republicans in America.
But not now. it seems certain that a large majority of Conservatives (and the great majority of other UK citizens) will be hoping for a Clinton victory in November. Indeed at the annual Conservative Party Conference which is being held this week, the BBC carried out a survey of delegates, asking who they wanted to win the Presidential election. Admittedly the vote was unscientific and lighthearted (it involved placing balls into a 'ballot box' representing the candidate of their choice) but the result was predictable and telling - more than twice as many Conservatives voted for 'liberal' Hillary Clinton, as supported 'conservative' Donald Trump.
Why? I think because to most in Britain and indeed most in the rest of the world including most conservatives, this election is not about Democrat v Republican or 'liberal-left' v 'conservative' values. It is about a moderate, experienced politician who can (whatever her faults) be relied on to keep American as tolerant - and the world as stable - as possible, versus a self-publicising demagogue who is blatantly misogynist, xenophobic and bigoted in so many other ways, socially divisive, petulant, rude and crude, hypocritical, and deceitful, and of questionable business ethics, who makes up statistics, or distorts the truth, pretty much every time he opens his mouth. Indeed, hardly a day passes without some comment by him which would be considered scandalous in the UK, virtually ruling him out of consideration as a potential leader.
I anticipate in advance that some insular supporters of Mr Trump will say they don't care what people in other countries think. But perhaps it would be useful to consider why so many in the rest of the world, including your closest allies, fear that a Trump victory could be a disaster for America and for all of us in the world? And why - despite that concern - so many in America still regard Mr Trump as a credible candidate?
Not surprising. The Republicans among my relations and friends here in Kalamazoo County, Michigan seem from their remarks to be planning to vote for Clinton, for the Libertarian candidate, or not at all. Clinton is too conservative in my opinion, but Trump makes her look good by comparison, and I am campaigning for her. I am putting most of my volunteer time into campaigning for progressive candidates for Congress and state and local positions and into issues-based organizations.
That's good to hear. Hopefully it is the case that many naturally inclined Republicans will vote Democrat this time around, recognising that this isn't a normal election contest between two competent leaders of differing political philosophies. It's a contest between a politician on one side and a demagogue without a clue on the other.
All republican party line crossers are doing is supporting business as usual in politics , The GOP , the entire republican party has failed it's constituency horribly in the last eight years silently turning their heads to Obama's destroying of the American constitution for one , By that same silence they have handed Obama every single thing he has asked for !
Why ? Because they can silently do that looking forward to whoever the next leader is !!!!!!!
And not lose their jobs for this failure in the process ! That is what is called whoring yourself to keep your job ! Purely and simply THAT IS THE ONLY REASON REPUBLICANS ARE VOTING FOR CLINTON !
TRUMP THE CANDIDATE SELECTED OVER SIXTEEN OTHER CANDIDATES - BY THE AMERICAN VOTER ! What has the democratic voter done ? Nothing out of the usual !
Trump may win and if he does there is a grassroots movement afoot to dissolve those party line crosser jobs! The democrats have done nothing to back up THIER OWN calling for an outside change maker !
I sincerely hope that is not the case, and I doubt very much that it is. I suspect the main reason some Republicans will vote for Mrs Clinton is exactly the same as the reason one Conservative Party delegate here gave for putting his ball in the Clinton ballot box:
'I don't want a madman and an idiot running the United States of America'.
I'll leave aside the question of 'destroying the Constitution'. As a Brit, I don't know sufficient about Mr Obama's actions in that regard though I do know enough to know that Republican claims of unconstitutional actions are hotly disputed by independent fact checkers, and that Mr Obama has issued less Executive Orders per week of office than any American president since Grover Cleveland.
I don't want a criminal in the White House AGAIN , the Clintons , if you knew their history , Have been impeached , disbarred , and almost constantly are surrounded by documented scandal . That is enough for me . As they song says "I can see clearly now "
Many chose not to , Don't trust the American media - and all the others , like yours , cow tow to them .
Trump will likely win !
I wonder what crimes has Hillary Clinton been convicted of? Do you really think she - and her public pronouncements - are less reputable than Donald Trump and the things he has said and done throughout his career, and notably since he stood for the Republican presidential nomination?
If one doesn't trust any of the media, that makes it rather hard to form an opinion about anything. How for instance did you discover that Hillary was a criminal, if it wasn't via the media? There's no reason to believe the BBC is biased - the BBC Charter requires impartiality in news broadcasts and other output dealing with political controversies, and there's no advantage to them in favouring one presidential candidate over another. I've also watched CNN and Fox News on occasion. Of these, the only one which was very clearly and unashamedly biased was Fox News, where very suspect opinions frequently go unchallenged by news presenters.
So if our media is so unbiased , And Fox is one of the most watched and loyal sources of unbiased news , how would you explain the others ? Unless you're blind , the Clintons have run rampant across the legal system in America for forty years , its well documented .
Bill - disbarred , impeached , tried and convicted , in the real world ! Maybe some won't visit the real world , I don't have a problem with that !
Trumps trials - have all been tried in a completely biased media ! That is all .
I didn't say all media is unbiased, but it does seem that accusations of bias reflect one's political persuasions. In America the Pew Research Centre found that conservatives are more likely than anyone else to distrust news sources that don’t reflect their point of view.
Fox News is not unbiased. That is evident to any objective observer, but also proved to be the case by independent, non-partisan researchers such as Pew who say that the two most biased news channels are MSNBC on the left and Fox News on the right. I can give some of the evidence if you wish.
The question remains as to what Hillary Clinton (not Bill - different person) has been convicted of?
The Clintons have a freight train of crimes committed in their sordid and lengthy reign of power , Impeachment's , congressional hearings , FROM THIER humble beginnings in politics ,there are allegations of everything from murder to lying to congress and to grand juries , The great thing and probably only good thing about todays media is that the lies and contradictions in speeches is very well recorded !
Their entire political record of accomplishment borders on tyranny .graft ,corruption , lies , lies and more lies . The biggest problem in America right now is the relaxing of political voting requirement for character , If it wasn't for Bill Clintons Charisma , Hilary would be an unknown and disbarred lawyer . If it wasn't for the major plague of political correctness in the American voting public , we elected the first black president why not the first woman ? , neither one of these two dirt bags would be able to enter an office ,say nothing about a political office .
Read up on their sordid past , In America , A politician will never be held to the same legal standards as the working man - we have England to thank for that .
Yes it is good that lies and contradictions in speeches are well recorded, so one can see exactly which allegations have substance and can be proven, and which are merely suspicions, or distortions of the truth based on the flimisiest, often discredited evidence. I think all independent non-partisan fact checkers concur that Mr Trump's pronouncements are far less trustworthy and credible than Hillary Clinton's. Of course one has to look at the evidence objectively to see that.
Re-the last point. I'm not really sure that England (the United Kingdom) can be thanked or blamed for American legal standards. You have had more than 200 years to change things
You do realize that this system was styled almost exactly like yours originally ? we had to start somewhere . Sad part is for both countries , we have become incredibly softened on crime , especially corporate and government . Apathy by civilians I suppose !
And now both countries move increasing towards 'no -fault 'socialism .
I wouldn't want to continue arguing ahorseback, but I must make one point - I can't speak with certainty about America in this regard, but in the UK we definitely haven't gone soft on corporate or government crime. Far from it. Whether there's been an elevation in the moral standards which we expect, or whether it is just down to reduced respect for our leaders, but businessmen and politicians find it far harder to get away with dubious practices these days.
Indeed it's regularly pointed out that some of our greatest prime ministers of past centuries would never have made it into power today because they would have been undone by some scandalous revelations about their business or private life - fraud, mistresses etc, which were hushed up in their times by a press which showed undue reverence. Far more scandals leading to embarressment, resignation or conviction have been exposed in the past 30 years than in the previous 100 years. Which is good news I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ed_Kingdom
Well , we agree AND if in America , we ever get our fair and balance media -ethics and accuracy- back ,---- very doubtful ! We too will take that bull by the horns . Our political parties are gutting the tax revenue system for the benefit f their own financial portfolios , ALL the while protecting each other s jobs !
Greensleeves: For the record, impeached is when charges are brought. Conviction is the conclusion of the case. President Clinton was exonerated.
Thanks Kathleen. I never believed that Bill Clinton had actually been found guilty, any more than Hillary. But even if he had been, it seems that the sins of the husband are being visited upon the wife. In the same way Hillary Clinton now seems to be the focus of blame for pretty much everything that Republicans previously only accused Barack Obama of. During the presidential debate an exasperated Hillary Clinton said at one stage:
'I have a feeling that by the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened.'
Donald Trump's response was 'Why not?'
That amply demonstrates the attitude of Mr Trump and his supporters to facts and reality.
Come on Greensleeves, tell us how you really see Trump. ;-)
You take chances with so many "Most" statements, but I think you survived. I also think many Americans have a similar view.
The answer to your last question could be the same as why a thirsty man will drink his own urine. Some because they like the taste, and some to survive. That is the spectrum of Trump supporters.
The silver lining could be that the world will see the strength of our constitutional workings. Both as a guarantee that we have the freedom to put ourselves in such a pickle, and, in the constitutional structure to survive it.
Haha! Yes, maybe I should have added a few more adjectives to make my position clear :-)
But I'm a Conservative supporter (in the UK) and believe it or not there's huge numbers of people here who view Mr Trump in a less charitable light than I do. After his calls for all Muslim immigration to be stopped, there was a popular petition (not one I agreed with) to have him barred from entering the UK as an undesirable alien. Sufficient signatures were collected to oblige Members of Parliament to debate on a possible ban. Imagine the UK banning an American president from entering?? :-)
It's certainly true that Mr Trump couldn't get elected to any senior post in this country - so much of what he says would be seen as bigoted, deceitful or just plain unpleasant. But to be serious about your last point - our democracies by their nature are strong and resilient. (One only has to remember the scandal of Watergate and the peaceful transfer of power after Nixon's resignation, to realise that.) America would recover. The fear is about what mayhem will happen during his four years in office if Mr Trump does manage to get elected.
Following your thought that a concern is what could happen in four years... and, shooting from the hip as I think aloud...
My thoughts would be that you are right to be concerned. Domestically, and economically, I believe we have the mechanisms and flexibility to vet radical changes before they are, or can be, implemented.
Foreign affairs' mechanisms are trust and confidence. Foreign affairs are not advanced by statistical or ideological persuasions - they are advanced by finding acceptable common ground, by trust in the handshake and confidence of action.
Those are not things I think Trump will be able to bring to the table. I can certainly see why much of the world would be interested in this U.S. election.
I wonder GA, wouldn't the ability to effectively vet changes depend upon the make-up of the House of Representatives and the Senate? A genuine question, as I'm unfamiliar with all the rights and responsibilities, but I do know that the President's powers to get legislation passed can be impeded or aided by these branches of Congress, both of which I believe currently have Republican majorities. Would that make things easier for Trump?
I'm more concerned with two other things. Firstly, Donald Trump's habitual inclination to insult people of different racial, religious or cultural minorities, may lead to an increasing divide and violence within American society, irrespective of what legislation is actually passed. Secondly, as you say, trust and confidence - and careful diplomacy - are all important in foreign affairs. More often than not I've supported the American-led, Western-backed approach to international affairs in the past, but Donald Trump's erratic approach worries me - American foreign policy almost inevitably affects those of us who live in other countries.
You are right that the House and Senate, (and The Court), were what I had in mind. My faith in that lies in my belief that both are less controlled by extreme factions. Might not be able to stop an action, but may be able to mitigate it.
Henry Kissinger's White House Years is a great read regarding the complexities and nuances of foreign relations and policies, and the importance of trust and confidence. Every word has meaning and consequence. Imagine the effects of Trump's vocabulary.
I think a man in his third marriage, especially when infidelity was an issue in two divorces, should not point out the flaws in anybody else's marriage - especially one that has survived.
The key word is "allegations" - no convictions. And the allegations go back 30 years, non-stop, with no proof of anything ever.
That's right Kathleen , And yet todays liberal driven media would have us all believe that we must believe everything IT SAY"S about Donald Trump ? Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet ? Al Capone wasn't charged with much crime either was he , Gee was Hitler ever charged with murder ? How about Jack Kennedy , was he ever charged with adultery ?
Do you remember the day when reputation actually mattered ?
Fortunately when it comes to Mr Trump (not sure about Mrs Clinton?) there is plenty of provable evidence in the form of videos and speeches, Twitter posts etc to demonstrate the number of occasions he has either lied, been mistaken, grossly exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented the facts about things he's said or done in the past - including statements he made during the recent presidential debate.
We can however certainly agree that reputation, integrity, honesty should all matter far more than it appearently does today. That applies across the political spectrum. But it is the reason why I've said in previous posts, Donald Trump couldn't even be considered for any major political office in the UK.
by Alternative Prime 6 years ago
A FACT that some Americans might be unaware of is that Ted Cruz’s Father is actually a refugee from Communist Cuba ~ We all know Ted Cruz has other issues shadowing his campaign, but once the majority of conservatives find out his father lived in a RED Country while growing up, how much do you...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
Who will WIN the American Presidency- Clinton OR Trump?
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
How will the Left react when Hillary Clinton loses the election to Trump?Even with her cronies fixing the polling, she's declining and Trump is rising. Trump is moving into new territory, talking directly to Democrat voters such as blacks; people she has been taking for granted as...
by Greg Schweizer 5 years ago
If 60% of America can't trust Hillary, why are they still willing to vote for her?If you say it is better than voting for Trump, that is a very poor excuse.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
There are people who strongly contend that the witch hunt against Hillary Clinton regarding past scandals & e-mail escapades are because she is a woman. They maintain that Hillary Clinton is more than qualified to be President of the United States. They maintain that Hillary Clinton...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
Many people who call themselves Conservatives, IMO, aren't. Many people who Conservatives call Socialists, aren't. In studying politics, I ran across a couple of lectures which identified what the professor called minimal-state liberals (Libertarians) and active-state liberals (modern...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|