Which US presidential candidate is better for the Philippines? Clinton or Trump?

trumpclinton gannett-cdn dot com

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton [Photo credit: gannett-cdn.com]

This is great. I spend most of my time commenting on things Filipino, and now it’s your turn. You get to weigh in on the likely US American presidential candidates, Republican (conservative) lead candidate Donald Trump and Democratic (liberal) leader Hillary Clinton.

The context is Philippine best interests.

What do you think about it?

To get the discussion started, let me profile some of the pros, cons and top-line policy positions of both candidates as I understand them. You can correct me or clarify your own understanding. And then I’ll talk about Philippine best interests which are for sure debatable. So go ahead and debate them!

The policy debate will consider the four main topics: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), China, the Global Economy and Perspectives on the Philippines.


Donald Trump is a dynamic orator, a showman, charismatic and sharp of word and profound of decision. His background is in the real estate business where he has  made billions in hotels, offices and gambling casinos, and in entertainment, where he has hosted a series of “Apprentice” reality shows where individuals compete on business acumen. He hires, and he fires. As a political leader, he has proven skilled at drawing a huge following of Americans who are tired of the same old gameplaying in Washington. He promises to tear up the rule book and make America great again.

Hillary Clinton is a woman . . . America has never had a woman president  . . .  smart, with a huge depth of experience in government capped by her position as Secretary of State under President Obama. She fought the early health care battles for her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has stood up for the under-privileged and human rights, and was the architect of Obama’s foreign policy, including the pivot to the Pacific. She has strong backing from the nation’s minorities, as did her husband. She argues for realistic solutions to problems, rather than rhetoric, and says she will bring unity to keep American great.


Donald Trump has history, and that history is filled with bankruptcies, womanizing, and misrepresentation of who he is (Trump University is regularly panned for being shoddy). His outsized comments during the campaign have been shocking and abrasive . . . yet they seem to speak for a lot of Americans. He both offends people and attracts them.“Ban all Muslims from coming to America. Put up a wall between the US and Mexico. Tear up the Iran agreement. If someone protests at my rally, punch them out!” He talks in generalities and big decisions; he will let his people deal with the details. He is vulnerable to charges of demagoguery and bigotry – race, religion, gender, handicap – and there is a lot of video evidence that supports this. The Democratic video files will be voluminous.

Hillary Clinton has history, and it includes her husband’s philandering while in office, huge income from speeches, some delivered to upper eschelon Wall Street firms, her use of a private e-mail server in her home, and the tragic deaths of the American ambassador and other staff in Libya. Any perceived failures of the Obama Administration will get attached to her, especially the idea that America is weaker today than before Obama because of “socialistic” domestic policies, the Iraq withdrawal, poor relations with Israel, and a stand-back approach to Russia’s incursions into the Crimea and Syria.

Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP)

Donald Trump ardently opposes both the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership (TTP) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the latter put in place under President Bill Clinton. He believes these agreements penalize American businesses and take jobs out of the US. Plus, the TTP does not protect the US against currency manipulations from nations such as Japan, which have adjusted their currency value to protect the nation’s price advantage. Trump believes China would come in the back door and take advantage of the agreement. His argument that cheaper foreign products would put Americans out of work is essentially the main Democratic argument. [Donald Trump slams Pacific free trade dealIs It Possible Donald Trump Was Right About China and the TPP?]

Hillary Clinton opposes the  current draft of the TTP because it does not properly protect American middle class interests (more jobs and higher wages) or national security interests. Like Trump, she believes the agreement does not protect the US against currency manipulations. However, she will withhold final judgment until the wording of legislation is finalized. Her view represents a change from that of her husband who put NAFTA into place, and it is a surprise considering her own promotion of trade initiatives as Secretary of State and her primary role in developing Obama’s the pivot to Asia. Some say her opposition is an election-year political expedience catering to trade unions who oppose the pact. [Why Hillary Clinton Is Right on the TPPHillary Clinton comes out against TPP trade deal]


Donald Trump, in the broadest sense, is an advocate of commercial conquest, not military conquest. He appears to admire China’s aggressive acquisition and building of islands for commercial purposes. His objection to China is not addition to territory, but how North Korea is managed, and China’s currency manipulations. Trump finds the stationing of US troops around the world in peaceful places such as Europe to be ridiculous. He has not opined on the US/Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) specifically, but has advocated build-up of American presence in Asia to counter Chinese power. His engagement over the islands is likely to be subordinate to a broader policy that is concerned with commercial interests. [Trump throws China, Spratlys into campaign mixChina getting nervous about a Trump presidencyChina using trump to mock western democracy ].

Hillary Clinton is the architect of the Obama pivot to Asia, and clearly supports EDCA. China would prefer “anybody but Hillary”, whom they see as a hard line opponent on two fronts: human rights and infringement upon open seas. China holds the view that most US presidents bend to global realities and shrink back from confrontation. Hillary Clinton is different: “But in Clinton, China sees a politician who is demonstrably devoted to furthering a campaign to ‘contain’ China.” Furthermore, she has said that: “legitimate claims to maritime space in the South China Sea should be derived solely from legitimate claims to land features” which suggests she is well-versed on the technical arguments in the Philippine arbitration case against Chinese claims.  [Why China dreads a Hillary Clinton presidency]

Global Economy

Donald Trump’s policies, both domestically and globally, are so far outside the norm that economists worry greatly that he will provoke instability. In addition to a hard line on immigration (America is for Americans; ship out illegal immigrants!), he holds hard-line views toward Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and especially China that are troubling to those who want  economic certainty. Here’s what The Economist observed: “A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States . . . . Electing Trump could also start a trade war, hurt trade with Mexico and be a godsend to terrorist recruiters in the Middle East.”[What Does Donald Trump’s Tough Talk on China Mean for the U.S. Economy?The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks]

Hillary Clinton’s economic policies are influenced by humanitarian issues such as immigration, climate change and human rights. She is an experienced, pragmatic leader with stern views about trade, China, Russia and the players in the Middle East. She knows Wall Street and is not exactly an enemy there, as is the other Democratic Candidate, Bernie Sanders. She projects stability and old-school diplomatic leadership, with US interests foremost in mind. [Does Hillary Clinton have a better plan for the global economy than Barack Obama does?Commentary: If elected president, I’ll level the playing field on global trade, Clinton says]

Perspectives on the Philippines

Donald Trump, making comments regarding the luxury condominium tower under construction in Manila that bears his name:  “I’ve always loved the Philippines. I think it’s just a special place and Manila is one of Asia’s most spectacular cities.” He is for sure not a Philippine nationalist, though, for he is the guy who said of the Miss Universe mix-up that Miss Columbia and Miss Philippines should share the crown. His interest in the Philippines is commercial. [Trump brand; Trump Tower Manila]

Hillary Clinton’s view of the Philippines is diplomatic and political. She understands that the Philippines is in a tough contest with China over sea rights. She supports EDCA and the Philippine law-based approach to the island conflict. She visited Manila in 2011. The declaration signed during that meeting reaffirmed the Mutual Defense Treaty and stated: “Our common values, commitment to democracy and the rule of law, robust economic relationship, and strong people-to-people ties will continue to ensure that our partnership remains strong and vibrant well into the future. [Clinton on Manila Declaration (US Embassy)]

Philippine Best Interests

Donald Trump views most things through commercial or business lenses, and wants to make America great again (after Obama policies). Hillary Clinton views most things through humanitarian and political lenses, with US interests foremost in mind. She thinks America is already great and needs to keep pace with global developments.

Let me start the conversation by giving my read-out, and you can bounce off that in the discussion thread.

  • Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP): The Philippines is working toward compliance with standards set forth in the agreement, but has not agreed to join because of concerns that farm producers would be disadvantaged. If the Philippines does not endorse the TPP, it doesn’t matter which US candidate is elected. If the Philippines supports a negotiated agreement that protects Philippine interests, Hillary Clinton speaks that same language.
  • China: Under Trump, the Philippines would be a player on the board, with the US driving matters. Under Clinton, the Philippines would be a partner, with both nations speaking the same language. Clinton is the better candidate IF the Aquino approach is continued in the Philippines.
  • Global Economy: The Philippines is fairly isolated from global economic cycles due to self-containment and OFW remittances, but certainly would be better served through stability than disruption. Clinton is the better candidate.
  • Perspectives on the Philippines: Donald Trump loves every place that gives him commercial profits. Hillary Clinton respects the Philippines. Clinton is the better candidate.

All that said, if Hillary Clinton visited the Philippines, she would be welcomed as a diplomat. If Donald Trump visited the Philippines, he’d be welcomed as a rock star. Donald Trump would likely get more enthusiastic popular backing of US initiatives from the Philippines than Hillary Clinton.


441 Responses to “Which US presidential candidate is better for the Philippines? Clinton or Trump?”
  1. Joe, you forgot “the Art of the Deal”!!! The greatest book ever— next to the Bible.

  2. Jonathan says:

    Slightly off-topic, or maybe not:

    Bombing at the Brussels airport, multiple dead and wounded.

    If, as I suspect, it’s the work of Islamic terrorists, guess who “wins” in this matchup.

    • Joe America says:

      Very on-topic, Jonathan. It is exactly the kind of thing that is fueling Trump’s support. The fear and frustration . . . Which, of course, means the terrorists are winning.

      That’s why they are called terrorists.

  3. andrewlim8 says:

    1. On foreign policy, I have not heard much on whom Trump gets advise from. He said he relies on himself, and that’s scary. The only thing less scary is peering into Poe and finding her channel her inner LaVina- Escudero. 🙂

    2. If Trump wins the presidency he will soon find out that running a business is so different from running a country. He may think it’s just about vision, management and leadership, etc etc but international politics is like playing several different games simultaneously, each with its own rules, or little or no rules at all.

    Sometimes the goal is not to win, but to simply outlast the enemy. Sometimes even the objective cannot be clearly defined at all. Often the results cannot be measured; and well-intentioned strategies blow up in your face and get more complicated. In these scenarios, values and wisdom count a lot, and I don’t think Trump possess enough of these.

    Imagine if it were Trump during the Cuban missile crisis. Que horror!

    • andrew,

      Trump named 5 of his policy advisers today (Sessions, we’ve long knew),

      “Trump’s team of foreign policy advisers, led by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, consists of counter-terrorism expert Walid Phares, energy consultant George Papadopoulos, former Defense Department inspector general Joe Schmitz, managing partner of Global Energy Capital Carter Page and former Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg.”

      This afternoon, Trump did his first read speech ever, which was for AIPAC,
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHmINZRwiZU (it was Iran heavy, but couple that with what he ‘s said about NATO and Saudi Arabia of late, I think he’s on his way—- remember I’ve been talking about how only Trump seems to get what’s going on in Syria/ISIS).

      I hope Trump gets Gen. Zinni, Ali Soufan and Robert Baer (last two for granular view on things) on board— hell Col. Rick Francona too.

    • Joe America says:

      Yes, and as with Duterte supporters here, Trump’s fans have no inkling about what the job actually entails. They are going from emotions attached to headlines. The parallels between the two campaigns are striking.

      • Thought this was interesting also, from Nov. 5, 2014:

        “Note the big swing in the Asian voting bloc, too. In 2012, strong support for the president among Asian-American voters was a surprise. Asian voters preferred the president by 47 points. In 2014, the (low turnout) group split about evenly. It was a 46-point swing.

        Another way to look at the change is below. It shows the split in support among each group, with bars scaled to the percentage of the electorate that each group comprised. Switch between the elections and watch how the density of the red and blue blocks shifts.

        Elections come down to turnout, yes, and Tuesday night was great turnout for the Republicans. But when every demographic group votes more heavily in one direction than two years prior, that effect is multiplied significantly.

        And you have your wave.”


        • Joe America says:

          I’m not sure what to make of that. The Philippines has a whole lot of new, young voters who are not attached to the past. The US has a steady, fairly low birth rate, but a changing demographic composition with more elderly and non-white people (immigration). Asians are more commonly well-educated, a lot of businessmen and professionals, and perhaps less dependent on social services. So I don’t find the trend surprising. I would say that Asian policy is probably rising in importance to that growing minority bloc.

          • I believe that most Asians in the US are Democrats, especially first generation immigrants. There’s a trend among succeeding generations to identify as Independent but when push comes to shove, they will pick the elders’ brains and will often vote for a Democratic bet. Most Asian votes are family votes. That means, long before the election, several “political meetings” had transpired within the family and in all likelihood, every voting age member of the family will vote for the same candidate(s).

            Asian Americans Political Affiliation:

            Democrat Leaning – 50%
            Republican Leaning – 28%
            Independent – 22%


            • Hey, Juana,

              Would you have the Filipino-American break down, Democrat/Republican/Ind.? I read somewhere, that Filipino-Americans, like Cuban-Americans, were disproportionately Republican compared to their respective groups (Asians and Latinos). Let me see if I can find it…

              sonny, what’s your take on this?

              • Juana Pilipinas says:

                UC Berkeley deduced that “Filipino Americans now have the strongest identification with the Republican Party, a designation that has previously consistently belonged to Vietnamese Americans” in interpreting
                the 2012 National Asian American Survey, conducted in September 2012. According to this survey, 45% of Filipinos were independent or nonpartisan, 27% were Republican, and 24% were Democrats.

                Click to access 2012-aapipes-national.pdf

            • Joe America says:

              Thanks, JP. I hope you, family and garden are well.

      • Vicara says:

        As you say, the parallels between Trump and Duterte are striking. But I find that Duterte resembles more closely the Trump of the Art of the Deal and “You don’t sell. You thrill.”

        Duterte’s bombast and demagoguery have been directed towards supposed threats internal–drug dealers, petty crooks, etc–rather than external. Likely because–like GMA, Erap, etc–he’s really ONLY about business (with pressure from his campaign backers,one imagines), as his first public comments about China would suggest.

        Right off he wanted “joint exploration” of West Philippine Sea resources. But anti-China sentiment among ordinary Filipino citizens is at an all-time high, and so he’s done a little samba away from that, and instead has floated the words “bilateral talks,” which in the current geopolitical context translates into “I’ll roll over and play dead.” Then this man who had pointedly posed for campaign photos in a gun store goes all frugal and says fighter planes for the country are a waste of money. Most recently, at last Sunday’s debate, he airily stated that he will make China go away from the Spratlys, anyhow, just like that; and in another neat samba sidestep, asked Poe what SHE would do.

        (Poe–who weeks before had also floated the words “joint exploration”–of course replied what her multiple advisers have instructed her to do, which is that she would call on yet another set of advisers–on national security, this time. She talked a little wildly about surface-to-air missiles, and calling in the U.S. for military assistance. Here’s a reminder: The updated U.S. Oath of Allegiance–I’m not sure if this is the one taken by Poe–asks citizens-to-be to promise to “bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law.” So is she planning on calling for U.S. military assistance as a quid pro quo for her personal bearing of arms on behalf of the country she has recently abandoned in order to become president of the country she came from originally?–shelving aside of course the foundling issue, which might end up having intergalactic implications, who knows at this point.)

        To get back to the less complicated topic of Duterte and Trump: As noted, there are signals of where Duterte may be headed in terms of our foreign policy. As for Trump, I’m as flabbergasted as the rest of the world, and can feel only deepest alarm. One can’t even begin to compare him with Clinton. It simply does not compute. The PRC will run rings around him.

        The only positive thing about Trump is that even Fil-Ams, many of whom are deeply conservative Republicans, are also beginning to be alarmed, and this will hopefully edge them into voting for Democrat centrist Clinton.

        Clinton has been described by the U.S. media as a “hawk,” but she comes across to me at least as pragmatic and knowledgeable as President Obama. During his first term, he was hobbled by public repugnance over increasing U.S. military deployment abroad, and maybe as a result of that, many criticized his “Asia pivot” for supposedly lacking direction. Others feared that the U.S. was more concerned with China as its major business partner rather than a belligerent great-power-on-the-rise. (It’s both, actually). Years have passed, and one senses clearly the heightened focus on East Asia in Washington. As president Clinton perhaps will have more leeway, militarily and politically, than Obama had in implementing U.S. foreign policy in Asia–while continuing what he started in terms of an enhanced–and nuanced–partnership with the Philippines. I liked very much how she quickly used the name “West Philippine Sea” as China started making its moves a few years ago.

        • Vicara says:

          Sorry, that was Binay I think who said fighter planes would be a waste of money. Another who is all about business. In all shades. Mostly murky.

        • Joe America says:

          “The PRC will run rings around him (Trump).” I’m presuming that is because you see him as all bluster and no grasp of the issues and intricacies that underlie the conflict. You don’t buy his dealmaker reputation. I think a lot depends on who he picks as policy advisors and cabinet members. He will go with “his people” when he does not know himself.

          • Vicara says:

            Indeed I don’t buy into his dealmaker reputation. Just google “trump dealmaking,” and analysts from Bloomberg to Mother Jones assign him mediocre scores at best. And those are the deals made over decades in his own industry, on his own turf. International trade and international security is not just about clinching deals. It’s about facilitation, regulation and balance. It’s about wanting to get others in the game, not about shutting them out. Trump is all about shutting out.

            I wouldn’t pin so many hopes on Trump’s advisers, either. Because at the end of the day, the president must filter the advice he/she is provided, and then make the decisions. There are few things worse than a proliferation of ambitious advisers, each jockeying for position, without the central intelligence (small “c” and “i”) of a seasoned manager to keep things in line. The result will be policy incoherence. Or policy by Post-Its.

            The U.S. presidency is the loneliest job on the planet, with decisions affecting untold millions and generations, like it or not. Inevitably, one will not always agree with Clinton’s views and decisions, but one may be assured that her actions will be most likely weighed well and thought through, compared with those of the scary, as-yet-unknown cohorts of “Trump’s people”.

            • Joe America says:

              You do paint a clear and disturbing picture of a Trump presidency, largely shared by The Economist and others. For sure, Clinton knows the Philippine situation HERSELF, with no need of interpretation by others. Trump, I suspect, has no idea whatsoever. He’d be inclined to rant “Philippines, schmillipines, we’ll use ’em if we want.”


            • “It’s about facilitation, regulation and balance.”


              Although, I agree with you that win-win negotiations/deals are the ideal, Trump is correct re Iran, NATO, Saudi Arabia & Israel. We are getting the short end of the stick here. Saudi Arabia, we subsidize their military, and the oil industry gets all the profit, what’s in it for the American people? NATO/Israel?

              Iran, gets millions from us which they can easily siphon to Hamas/Hizbullah, they still get some room to screw around, though nuclear material is easy to find. But to Trumps point when you make deals, you bundle when you can—- so the fact that American prisoners are still there, and others were released much later, suggests a weak deal.

              Better deals is what he’s promising. Whether or not he can actually deliver, I’m still on the fence— I’m voting for Mr. Grey Trump, not really for Deal Maker Trump.

              • Vicara says:

                Thank you for the clarification. I can understand now why you would vote for Trump, seeing things in the context of the ME. But Asia needs a different, more calibrated approach, so (as a non-voter), I would want the more experienced Clinton to win.

              • Vicara,

                I’m on the record here (I think it was with Mary or sonny or karl) touting for more funds to go towards Asia, instead of the ME (there’s nothing in the ME for us). Base on Trump’s speeches, I gotta feeling he’ll follow Obama’s pivot out of the ME region— the days of ME oil’s long gone.

                Leaving the ME means, more funds open to SE Asia, but with Trump, as per NHerrera’s reading of him, what’s in it for us, that will be the first question– gone also are the days of hand-outs, we lost too much in the ME money pit.

          • Joe, Vicara, et al.

            Trump’s mentioned a bunch business deals of his with S. Korea and Japan, and his deals with the Chinese in California— he’s always talking about how a lot of his tenants are actually Chinese big shots.

            So I think personally, he’s got experience dealing with East Asians.

            But diplomatic and military, I too am curious who he has as advisors. But so far, in his rhetoric on NATO, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, ISIS, etc. he’s become more nuanced since last summer, that tells me he’s listening— a quick learn.

            So it’s up to the Filipino leadership to be ready to deal with Trump, in case he wins. They’ll have to make their case as a solid partner, and not just there for the free-bies. The gravy train will wind down, under Trump.

            • Vicara says:

              “Gravy train”? The $79 million and small change we now get annually compared with, say, the $1.5 BILLION Egypt gets for doing precisely not much? In the ME region at that, which is chock-a-block with other well-funded U.S. allies? (The ones President Obama recently referred to as “freeriders.”) If your choice of words was made deliberately to get a rise out of Filipinos, congratulations, you’ve succeeded with this one.

              But yes, this is the kind of language that the Trumps and Dutertes (and Binays and Marcoses) of this world can understand. Because it’s the opening for making a cold hard cash deal.

              • I meant gravy-train in general, not Philippine-specific. Hence the need to show importance, so tax-payer dole outs I’m sure will be negotiable under Trump— I’ve stated over and over that Philippine leadership needs to ask more, if we can throw out trillions (no ROI) in the Mid-East, the Philippines can get more.

                But in general, under Trump the gravy-train will wind down.

            • Joe America says:

              The “gravy train” from the US to the Philippines is pretty watered down, I think. Not much coming over. The US has two initiatives they are engaged on in the Philippines that are of US interest. Terrorism, to keep ISIS out. China, to keep the seas and skies open. I can’t imagine Trump being soft on terrorism. He might deal with China though, and negate all the legal work done by the Philippines. I’d like to know his position on EDCA.

              • re EDCA he’s pretty pro-military, so if DoD wants EDCA, EDCA will stay (and expand). I agree with the rest, Joe.

                A Trump presidency or Hillary, will look about the same, so much as the Philippines is concerned, the only exception is consistency. You know what you’re getting with Hillary, not so with Trump.

                The concept of Return in Investment will be heavy under Trump (this is his mandate, and reason for his popularity), all this seems to have been largely forgotten since awhile back.

              • NHerrera says:

                LCpl_X, Vicara, Joe:

                Though he may not know the theoretics, I sense Trump, among others, is a game-theory man in spirit — game theory without the complication of emotions. What is the payoff, what is the downside, what are the essential options. Cold assessment.

              • Joe America says:

                That rings nicely in the ear. I believe he does, and I don’t think he lacks the ability to be decisive.

              • NHerrera,

                That’s interesting. I’ve watched a lot of his talk and speeches, I don’t know if this is part of game-theory, but he listens to his crowd when he speaks and adjusts accordingly— “listening with your mouth”.

                I do sense that the guy will evolve/grow into office. I feel safe casting my vote for him (I just wanna spank the Koch bros.) because I know he’ll be doubly watched over. His bluster aside, I agree with you completely.

    • Edgar Lores says:

      Now that La Vina is mentioned, he appears to me to be Pygmalion — or Professor Higgins to Poe’s Eliza Doolittle.

      La Vina avers that Poe is her own person, but one cannot discount the heavy influence that La Vina, Habito, and Escudero have had on her thinking.

  4. Gemino H. Abad says:

    I definitely agree with your sharp assessment: Clinton is the better candidate for the Philippines. (And I think, for America, too!)

    • Joe America says:

      To the extent we want stability, yes. If people want a flamboyant, risky ride, with economic and overseas woes attached like a Trump bankruptcy, then go with the deal-maker. Overseas countries are already starting to backlash against Trump. That can’t be good for America. Isolationism in an era when the planet is small and connected and on the climate path to disaster?

  5. Ron Z says:

    You left out that Trump is a bigoted, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic idiot – which I would think is relevant.

    • Ron Z says:

      Left out Fascist.

    • Joe America says:

      I was trying to be discreet so as not to prejudge or rant. But you have done a fine job articulating what many . . . even Republicans . . . think. A half century working on values respectful of difference, and aimed at diversity and inclusion, trashed overnight.

      • Ron Z says:

        Joe, I was thinking that by posing a serious question about whether Trump would be good for anything, you must have lost your marbles. I particularly think countries like the Philippines would suffer. Given power, Trump would take what he wants, and force his opinion on everyone. I like to think there is no real chance of a Trump presidency, but no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, and incidents like the bombing in Brussels today play into Trump’s hand like 911 played into Bush’s.

        • Joe America says:

          I write not to sell ideas, but to promote discussion. If I wrote a rant on Trump, we would not get the thinking that digs a little deeper into what is happening.

          Trump seems to be backed by, oh, say 20% of American voters right now. As I expressed in my prior blog here, the same phenomenon exists in the Philippines. A share of theh population who is not us likes a dominant figure. I also resist derogatory comments about “people’s” intelligence, whether they be Filipinos or Americans, because what we are often reacting to is a mix of government policy results and a context we don’t live in. Americans are as smart as anybody. Their social issues and institutions are different.

          • Ron Z says:

            Actually, Joe, the comment about the intelligence of Americans was not flippant. I am an American (well educated) and I have seen the steady decline of education and critical thinking as an intentional strategy by conservatives, and the media (i.e. Fox news and Limbaugh, etc.) There is a large anti-intellectual and anti-science component of the American electorate.

            • Joe America says:

              That’s true, in terms of trends. You’d have to give me a reputable source before I would believe it was an “intentional strategy”. I think it is more a reflection of social, economic and technology trends. The subject is in the platform of all candidates, I believe. Guns, butter, or books? Those are real choices.

              • Ron Z says:

                I’ll look for a source. Shouldn’t be difficult. But there is no doubt in my mind that conservatives have defunded and degraded education as an intentional strategy to generate more poorly educated voters to whose ignorance they can appeal to and manipulate.

              • Ron Z says:

                Have you seen the movie – Idiocracy? It’s a must-see. But it basically argues that it is a natural trend, having to do with entertainment mostly.

              • Joe America says:

                Makes sense. I don’t watch movies. They are fake and sinful. I’m channeling the book burners in Don Quixote today . . .

              • Ron Z says:

                Sinful ??

              • Joe America says:

                Don’t mind me, Ron. I was being wryly satirical, doing a joke to myself. I get exasperated when new people enter the blog without understanding the framework, that it is for teaching and learning rather than winning and losing, and they set out to conquer their imagined opponents, no holds barred.

                Don Quixote was not really about lunatic knights and windmills, but about literature, and the emergence of a new brand of writing, called the novel. The book burners portrayed early in the novel set the scene. Why are they burning the books? Because novels are fiction. Not truth. Therefore sinful.

                So the idea is that thinking must be constrained, not enlarged. Same idea in a blog discussion. Many arrive to constrain discussion. To wield their point of view like a hammer and shut off opposing views. Book burning. Film burning. Your comment about the movie, which I can’t watch because it is hard to get movies to the province and I’m a busy guy performing the obligations of being retired, just inspired that incomprehensible joke.

              • Ron Z says:

                I am well familiar with Don Quixote and Cervantes, although it’s been a long time since I studied it. (Of course the novel Tom Jones was published 50+ years earlier to similar criticism.) I must admit I didn’t remember the book burning scene, but there have been may other book-burning descriptions in literature with similar intent. I’m from Amish country and know people in America who still consider dancing and seeing movies sinful.

              • Joe America says:

                I’d invite both you and Tom to take up your debate elsewhere. The topic of this blog is Philippine well-being, and you are battling the American battle of Trump vs. not-Trump, and it adds nothing for my audience. They can pick that up elsewhere. Your long list of links was blocked by policy. We are here to converse, not argue. Wrong forum. Wrong topic. I’ve put you both into moderation and will likely dump further comments to trash.

            • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind

              The Closing of the American Mind is a 1987 book by Allan Bloom, who describes “how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today’s students.” He focuses especially upon the “openness” of relativism as leading paradoxically to the great “closing” referenced in the book’s title. Bloom argues that “openness” and absolute understanding undermine critical thinking and eliminate the “point of view” that defines cultures.

      • NHerrera says:

        Ron Z is doing a fine job.

        All ye others — not Ron I believe — complaining of Joe, the Philippine “meddler,” have now been invited to meddle back on the politics of our host’s country of origin.

        Let’s go and do it! 🙂

    • Tom says:

      How is Trump a bigoted, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic idiot and fascist? Name calling without a valid basis is just parroting left wing radicals and those who have little substance.

      • Joe America says:

        Okay, Tom, this is a discussion about the Philippines, so kindly propose in a positive expression why Filipinos should favor Trump over Clinton. Try to summon up the discipline to set the angry name-calling aside and work the calm, intellectual side of the debate. You can’t cure emotional conclusions here. You can add to our insights.

        • Tom says:

          Hey Joe, I simply was asking how Trump is those things that he was called. Someone else was doing the name calling. I guess you missed that.
          Many people have called Trump unsubstantiated names and it is wrong.

          • Ron Z says:

            It is not wrong. Which one would you like me to defend first?

            • Tom says:

              Take your pick.

              • “Trump is a bigoted, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic idiot…”

                Tom, if you don’t mind, let me jump in here. Firstly, I think my political views is closer to Ron’s. I’m no Republican. I’m more a Ron Paul libertarian (especially when it comes to foreign affairs). I’m pro-Trump precisely because he’s no Conservative (social that is, though I’m not sure what he is fiscally).

                Here goes,


                How is Trump…

                a. bigoted

                b. xenophobic (how’s this different from bigoted?)

                c. racist

                d. misogynistic

                e. idiot

                and I’ll leave out f. narcissistic (though I’d like to hear your take on whether this trait strengthens or weakens a leader)

              • Joe America says:

                I’ve invited Tom and RonZ to leave the blog. This is a Philippine centric discussion forum, not a discussion of American political candidates. There are a lot of forums in the US people can visit to argue or gain confirmation of their views. There aren’t many that are reflecting on the well-being of the Philippines.

  6. Ron Z says:

    I suppose Trump would be good for anyone that profits from a war time economy, For mothers with military-age sons, not so much.

    • Joe America says:

      I like your style, Ron. Acidic.

    • DAgimas says:

      didn’t he say he doesn’t war? he wants to withdraw from Europe and Japan and Korea. if ever they wanted the US to stay, they should pay more

      its Clinton and the other candidates to maintain the status quo

      • Exactly, DAgimas!

        In the debates, Trump never let up on Jeb Bush’s brother GW. GW and his staff were let off easy, and Trump reminded them of that. Republicans (inspite of Obama) are still pissed off with what the Neo-Cons did with 9/11. And I’m forever thankful of Trump for doing this, it’s too bad Jeb left, I would’ve enjoyed more of that.

        Between Cruz, Trump and Hillary… Trump’s actually the dove. Ironic— but, all because of Trump’s “What’s in it for me [us]?” mentality, where Cruz (crusader mentality) and Hillary (bleeding heart mentality) will be slaves to their own ideologies.

        • DAgimas says:

          did you see the “please clap” plead by Jeb Bush? that’s embarrassing

          if Trump promise to tax the rich some more and require employers to E-verify all employees , I think he will win. that would make the democrats vote for him.

          • Trump ripped apart Jeb… after GW, no Bush should be ever be elected into office.

            It’s a race to the middle now, Hillary’s still got Bernie wrapped around her heels, slowing her down, so I think Trump can get there before her, we’ll see what his centerist rhetoric will sound like. Though I think, we’ll still be regaled with his antics— the best thing that ever happened to Twitter is Trump.

            April 5 Wisconsin

            April 19 New York

            April 26 Connecticut/Delaware/Maryland/Pennsylvania/R.I.

            May 3 Indiana (After Indiana, which I think will go to Trump, winner-take-all, we’ll see Trump stake claim to the center)

            May 10 Nebraska and W. Virginia

            May 17 Oregon

            May 24 Washington

            June 7 California/New Jersey/S. Dakota/New Mexico/Montana

            • DAgimas says:

              for the first time I think we in California can finally decide the nominee of the GOP

              its an anomaly that such a big state cant decide who the winner is

              nobody campaigns here whether democrat or republican

              • Maybe I’ll see you in one of his rallies. I’ll be carrying a big sign that’ll read “More Money for the Philippines— an equal and solid partner in Asia from the Society of Honor” in honour of Vicara, so don’t punch me. I’m sure it’ll get rowdy.

  7. josephivo says:

    I have the feeling that is much more than just two people and their opinions. It is about the type of government, an authoritarian government or a democratic government.

    It is about civilization too, how to move away from our instinctive violent past, away from primitive fights for supremacy. The “human” side of us is such a thin veneer and Trump is scratching it so deeply…

    As the US is the leader of the world and even more as the embodiment of many Filipino dreams, an autocratic example would be dangerous for all civil Filipinos.

  8. karlgarcia says:

    Re: Notes from the editor.
    Cost of Desalination Plants.
    Answer from Quora
    Ronan McGovern, PhD in desalination from MIT
    10.4k Views • Ronan is a Most Viewed Writer in Desalination.
    There are two ways to think about the cost of desalination: the cost of a desalination plant, and the cost of water.

    A typical large scale desalination plant produces 100,000 cubic meters of water per day. Assuming a per capita consumption of 300 liters per day, this equates to 300,000 people. The installed cost of desalination plants is approximately $1m for every 1,000 cubic meters per day of installed capacity. Therefore, a large scale desalination plant serving 300,000 people typically costs in the region of $100 million. The costs of infrastructure to distribute water must be added to this.

    The cost of desalinated water, the majority of which is accounted for by plant capital costs and energy costs, is typically in the range of $0.5 to $3 per cubic meter of water (0.05-0.3 dollar cents per liter of water). The lower end of the scale corresponds to regions where electricity costs are low (e.g. Middle East) and the higher end to regions where electricity costs are high (e.g. Australia, where electricity is sometimes mandated to be from renewable energy).

    • A desalination plant using purely the sun, concentrated by lenses would be an invention for the Philippines… similar approach to the salt fields that used to be around NAIA in Paranaque just much faster… get salt AND pure water out of direct solar heat.

      You need to get water to boil and then recondense it somewhere else… such a plant would be sophisticated but standalone… a big version might even create power and water for an entire island if you ask me if you manage to course the condensing water through turbines.

      • karlgarcia says:

        I remember joking that all salt fields are gone now,because Paranaque residents got hypertension.
        submit your proposal to your DOST friends.

    • Joe America says:

      Expensive. How about hauling bags of glacier ice from the arctic? (Just kidding.) On one of the survival shows I watch, the guy did a one-man desalinization rig with a big can of sea water that he sealed tightly and boiled, sending the condensed steam down a long copper tube that cooled the steam into clear water. I figure I’ll get about a dozen LPG cannisters for fuel, a barrel welded tight, and some copper tubing.

      • karlgarcia says:

        It might work.Speaking of survival shows,I miss the show Mac Gyver. Somehow his swiss army knife is always handy,I wonder what his swiss knife can do in situations were there is no water,but salt water.

        • There are many versions of the Swiss Army knife, but with the magnifying glass I guess you can start a fire… but then how do you recondense water that you get to boil in a pot?

          • karlgarcia says:

            Macgyver must find an old refrigerator and cut the copper tubes.

          • edgar lores says:

            Use the blades to cut plant leaves, hollow stems, twigs and twine. Using the twigs and twine, form the leaves into a cone that tapers into the hollow stem. Cover the pot with the cone such that the vapor rises into the cone… and into the hollow stem. The hollow stems should be joined together to form a pipe and should be of such a length as to allow the vapor to cool down and condense. In effect the smoke pipe becomes a water pipe. The pipe should end in another pot into which the condensed drops of water will drip.

        • Joe America says:

          Use coconuts to boil the water and bamboo pipes to cool the steam. A Swiss army knife is a thing of beauty and joy.

  9. edgar lores says:

    Purely on the basis of political philosophy — Democrat is liberal and left-leaning while Republican is conservative and right-leaning — I would go with Clinton.

    I might have preferred Sanders over Clinton.

    • Joe America says:

      Have you heard Sanders speak? He has the same kind of power that Trump has, only his indignation is directed differently. I think economists would also be concerned about a Sanders presidency, for the jolts to the economic framework resting on the pillars of big corporate America. A lot of those companies might simply relocate outside the US, as some already have. So it is just like Trump extremism promotes an opposite reaction and instability instead of success, so might Sanders. I also think Sanders would not be standing strong against China. Trump might be a better deal for the Philippines than Sanders. I don’t really know and am open to enlightenment.

      • Edgar Lores says:

        I haven’t heard Sanders speak. I haven’t been following the US elections closely. My preference for him is based thinly on his initial open letter wherein he defined his platform. And Hillary has some points against her because of her more prominent exposure to public service.

        But as I said I am left-leaning — not in any way, shape or form anti-business — but in the focus of government to policies of social justice… as exemplified, for example, by Obamacare.

        What is the basis for companies relocating? And how is Sanders a cause of that?

        • Joe America says:

          He wants to substantially increase taxes on big business. It is his main platform plank. Also, I think break them up.

        • Jake says:

          I don’t see how Obama care is social justice. Upon its effective date, premiums actually doubled. Some contents are good, but the administration refuses to admit it has big flaws.

          The system is now clogged. It takes you 3 months to get an appointment. Obama care is not healthcare reform. It just gave reasons for insurance companies to raise the premiums

          Real healthcare reform will demand transparency prices from healthcare providers. I know people who work in the healthcare and I have been informed that when one pays cash for blood drawing, it can be as cheap as $15. Now, if you pay through your insurance, the lab will charge your insurance $150 for the same procedure.

          When I did not have insurance, I was paying $50 per visit for routine check up. When I was forced to have insurance, the drs office was charging $180 to my insurance for the same routine check up.

          • “I don’t see how Obama care is social justice. Upon its effective date, premiums actually doubled. Some contents are good, but the administration refuses to admit it has big flaws.”

            It’s doing pretty well here in California, Jake, so I’d guess it’s the state implementation that’s at issue here— this whole thing works better with everyone pitching in, ala Social Security or Medicare. The VA and our prison system gets to offer universal healthcare to vets and prisoners alike, and that’s a one way street, so Obama care has the potential to work, it’s just been obstructed.

          • “When I did not have insurance, I was paying $50 per visit for routine check up. When I was forced to have insurance, the drs office was charging $180 to my insurance for the same routine check up.”

            What state, Jake?

            • Jake says:

              California. Specific region: Central Coast. It does not help that there are a couple of Drs office that will refuse to take health insurance bought via Covered CA.

              I knew of someone who had the Medi-Cal and when she went to Urgent Care and presented her Medi-Cal, she was told they can’t accept her and her insurance. She has to go CHC facility. The problem is, CHC urgent care are close past 6 and on weekends.

              I think the bigger problem in the US healthcare is that hospital and clinic costs are jacked up. It’s no wonder why insurance companies want to “bargain” with these overcharging healthcare providers

      • Ron Z says:

        I have heard Sanders speak – on TV and the internet – and his main thing is that too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few, the wealthy and corporations don’t pay enough taxes. Government should protect the people from exploitation by the wealthy, not work as an agent of the exploiters. America’s government more resembles an Oligarchy than a Democracy.

  10. Jean says:

    Allow me to balloon the conversation a bit. Instead of just considering just the Philippines, I’d like to throw in the rest of the world. I’m for Hilary. Donald is too contentious for my taste. I see him stepping on too many toes and some world leaders out here are too sensitive to just let it go.Too many countries itching for a fight. Many of them most likely will turn unlikely allies against America for either actual or fictitious offense.

    With today’s arms technology, that could lead to some scary conclusion. World War 3 anyone?

  11. sonny says:

    Broad stroke: Trump has the same DNA as Cheney. Given only two choices, I go for Hillary as better for the Philippines.

    • I am wondering how large the US population defined as FilAm is…

      And how many of them are dual and voting in both elections. How many are NOT dual but still interested in Filipino politics and other stuff. The Asian Journal, Positively Filipino and the Filipino-Canadian Inquirer show that the Filipinos in North America are a well-informed and interested group – Positively Filipino has been regularly reminding overseas Filipinos of voter registration and procedures for their voting which already starts in April.

      • sonny says:

        There are Filipinos in all 50 states and as can be expected also reflects the American cultural diversity: West coast, East Coast, Midwest, upper and lower, Southeast, Southwest, Northwest, big city urban and suburban and also rural America. Taste for college degree, strong for the immigrant generation (zero-generation), declining for the first-generation American (born and/or raised in the US). Will look at the US census for Filipino distribution. Filipino is named category.

      • Joe America says:

        3.5 million residents I believe. I don’t know the other statistics.

      • Juana Pilipinas says:

        As of the last US census in 2010, there were 3.5 million FilAms as Joe said above.

        There is no info on dual citizenship as far as I know. The US look at all immigrants as dual citizen of the US and their country of origin. The only time that an immigrant will be asked to formally denounce his/her foreign citizenship and claim sole US citizenship is when he/she is being considered for a US government job requiring a secret or top secret clearance.

    • Joe America says:

      The question, as it is in the Philippines, is why go with revolution when stability is so much more likely to provide for funding of needed changes? I don’t get this fascination with chaos as providing direction.

  12. I’ve been following Bernie Sanders for a while now and I have to say his foreign policy experience is his biggest problem if governing is the issue. I’d like to say Barack Obama also had the same problem his first term.

    Also as a side note his single payer health plan, his free college education plans can be funded.

    • Tom says:

      You must be impressed with Obama’s performance in Cuba too.

      • Joe America says:

        Don’t troll the blog, Tom. If you have comments to make about Clinton vs Trump as it pertains to the Philippines, please make them without getting to this personal stuff.

    • Jake says:

      His proposed economic policies are also a very big problem. You’d even wonder if he does actually have a sane economic advisor

      It sounds nice if you do not factor in inflation, but that’s the problem. Inflation is a very real thing and kicks off almost immediately

  13. Tom says:

    Hillary Clinton belongs in prison. She will likely go there for her disclosure of classified emails. But she also belongs there for running a shakedown operation from the Department of State. Her role in the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi alone should disqualify her as Commander in Chief.

    As for Trump, Americans are tired of the betrayal of the political establishment. Democrats are crossing over to support him as are minorities. He is for America first.

    The most autocratic unreliable president is the one we have now. Hillary Clinton would continue this terrible pattern as Congress is weak and more interested in taking care of itself.

    • Joe America says:

      Okay, Tom. And so Trump is best for the Philippines?

      • Tom says:

        Absolutely Trump is better. He would be a more competent and reliable partner with the Philippines. What has Hillary ever accomplished Joe?

        • Joe America says:

          I have not really followed Hillary Clinton. She often rubs me the wrong way with her preaching, but I prefer stability and continuity to disruption. Also, as I said in the blog article, she seems better suited to the needs of the Philippines.

        • Madlanglupa says:

          > He would be a more competent and reliable partner with the Philippines.

          Oh, he could put us in harm’s way instead, he has little idea about this country except to make a buck out of it. On top of it, his rhetoric can only encourage anti-Americanism, even more if he takes the White House and starts trying to bend the government to his wishes, to the point of flirting with impeachment.

          • Joe America says:

            I’ve invited Tom to leave the discussion. He and RonZ have no interest in the Philippines, from all that I can tell. I don’t really want to read two Americans hammering at one another.

            • Madlanglupa says:

              They should know that any decisions and utterances made by US presidents can have far-reaching effects across the globe, and those decisions can be interpreted differently by different parties, and hence affect US foreign policy and relations.

              • Joe America says:

                That’s true, and the same can be said of the Philippines in todays global arena where alliances for trade and defense are being updated actively. Who do we want representing our well-being to China, the US, Japan, Malaysia . . . who do we want hosting state dinners. I laugh. People regularly say they won’t vote for Roxas because of Korina. Hahahaha, so they go with the spouses of the other characters, a crook, a single woman, an American. Ahahahaha. I die laughing at the logic.

              • Madlanglupa says:

                They don’t want her partly because they’re rooting for the other television station (you ask me, sir, television hooliganism i.e. ABS vs GMA makes my eyes roll).

            • “I’ve invited Tom to leave the discussion. He and RonZ have no interest in the Philippines, from all that I can tell.”

              I shoulda read this before leaving a comment for Ron (and Tom).

              But I agree with Joe, Hillary is the best for the Philippines. The same way you don’t advise your 20 yr old niece to date a bad-boy in college, Hillary’s a good stable partner— but more of the same, boring.

              Trump is right for American right now. These guys need to be slapped around a bit,

              It’s 50 Shades of Grey time for the Koch bros. and their ilk, and Trump is Mr. Grey– that’s his popularity, across the political spectrum over here.

          • Jake says:

            Between Trump and Clinton. I’ll go for Clinton. If it’s between Trump and Sanders, I’m leaning towards Trump.

            Sanders is just too anti business and trade. Besides, Trump being a businessman, I don’t think he’ll bring back jobs that have been offshored to the Philippines if we grant him some economic/business favors. Sanders is not a businessman and I doubt he will be able to relate to Filipinos in the BPO and workinvLG for US semiconductor and Aviation company.

            It will be easier for Filipinos to sway Trump to retain the jobs or bring jobs here as long as we do not show anti-Americanism. I can’t the say the same for Sanders.

    • Vicara says:

      I don’t know about Trump being for America first, but even the more hawkish among the Republicans’ U.S. security leaders are definitely for Trump LAST:

      “Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.”


    • Tom,

      The whole email scam is a fool’s errand. Heads of Depts and Agencies “own” the intel they produce— that’s why they are responsible for sanitizing their intel, before sharing it with the rest of the world. So this email thing is totally arbitrary, FOX-induced drama.

      From what I’ve read so far, the issue isn’t so much on Hillary’s end (email and servers) but that she received “classified” stuff from those below her. If the classified stuff went from her on down (no crime, cuz as head she owns the info), so the issue is that classified stuff went up to her from her staff.

      In the Clinton world, that’s exactly what staff are for, sacrificial lambs.

      • Madlanglupa says:

        I imagine how Trump would handle classified information, but then he would be embroiled in a little skirmish with the Pentagon, the CIA or the NSA, as the last thing they need is the Commander-in-Chief publicly speaking about their most sensitive operations.

  14. NHerrera says:

    Off topic


    We are bombarded with all of these survey results and like you guys, I am getting tired with all these. But bear with me a while because the numbers reported, I discovered, do not “compute.” This is especially significant because the 4,000 respondents used is supposed to give a narrower variation of +/- 1.5 and hence give a more accurate statistics compared to previous surveys: Poe, Duterte, Binay, Roxas: 26, 25, 22, 20 (let me set aside Santiago’s and Seneres’ numbers for this post).

    The contributing percentages from NCR, BL, VIS, MIN are given in the report as follows:

    Poe — 30, 34, 20, 15
    Duterte — 29, 16, 18, 46
    Binay — 23, 26, 21, 14
    Roxas — 9, 15, 36, 20

    Now Comelec’s registered voters for 2016, when consolidated into the four groups NCR, BL, VIS and MIN in millions are: 6.3, 24.2, 11.3, 12.6 which total 54.4. In fraction the numbers for NCR, BL, VIS and MIN is found by dividing the numbers by the 54.4 total and we get: 0.1158, 0.4449, 0.2077, 0.2316.

    When these fractions are multiplied with the corresponding numbers for the four candidates above and totaled, we get (rounded): 26, 25, 22, 20 as we should and as reported.

    So everything is nice and dandy. Right? Wrong. If one adds the numbers above for Poe, Duterte, Binay, Roxas from the contributing regions we get 99, 109, 84, 80. They should all be either 99, 100, or 101 if we just consider round-off errors. But as it is Duterte’s number is 25 is overstated and Binay and Roxas numbers of 22 and 20 are understated. I do not wish to go beyond this point. IT IS ENOUGH TO STATE THAT SOMETHING DOES NOT COMPUTE.

    I do not wish to belabor this. Roxas camp who reads this blog should know what to do. I hope Pulse Asia is also reading this blog.

    • Joe America says:

      Interesting, thanks old guy. I hope they pick it up, too. Or Binay’s people, even, who are more likely to get the point across with a punctuation mark attached.

    • cwl says:

      I did my own calculation and I found Binay and Roxas numbers correct. But the numbers of Duterte and Poe I found puzzling.

      I do not know what math Pulse Asia is using or I could be the one wrong here. My calculation, based on the facts given by Pulse Asia, is that Poe has 25 percent rating while Duterte has 28 percent.

      But here is the catch. If you translate those percentages into actual votes based on the voters’ figure given by the Comelec, it will give you results invalidating those percentages as Poe will have more votes than Duterte.

      Poe—- 24.5 percent rating. If translated into votes. 14.268 million assuming that all registered voters will go to polls.

      Duterte—– 27.25 percent which is higher than that of Poe. But if the percentages were translated into votes, Duterte will get 13.529 million, lower than that of Poe.

      How come? I could be wrong.

      • NHerrera says:


        If you can kindly be explicit about your calculation, we may be able to look at it together.

        • cwl says:


          First of all, my knowledge of mathematics is quite limited but I am always fascinated with statistics

          How do you get the average ratings of each candidate? I think you get their average by adding all the regional ratings (NCR, BL, VIS, MIN) and divide it by four. If not, then my computation is wrong and you can disregard this.

          Based on that premise, Roxas will get 20 points, Binay 21, and surprisingly Duterte will have 27.25 points while Poe will have 24.75 percent.

          Going further, you can actually translate those points into votes as we have the number of voters in each region. If we make NCR as the point of reference which has 6.3 million voters , Santiago will get 189,000, Roxas will get 567,000 votes, Binay 1,443,000, Duterte 1,827,000 and Poe 1,890,000 for a total of 5,922,000 voters.

          The votes are less than 6.3 million as 5 percent of voters in metro manila are still undecided based on the Pulse Asia survey. I also discounted the margin of error as it will apply to every candidate.

          But if we apply the same formula to all regions, Duterte who has 27.25 points based on the earlier calculation I made ( assuming that my formula is correct) will have lesser votes than Poe who has 24.75 points. How come?

          Is there data suppression here?

          • NHerrera says:


            Thanks for your additional note. First please note my subsequent apology below on the grievous mistake I made. I pride myself in knowing my math but I make mistakes often enough — even without the aid of a large dose of lambanog. (My only consolation is that I own them when I make the bobo.) My note earlier is correct up to the paragraph preceding the one which starts with “So everything is nice and dandy.”

            Second, I admire your patience in going through the numbers and not just accept the results. We have all been sobered a lot here in The Society for looking at things with a wide lens. Your math is ok, perhaps a little from statistics will help.

            With that preamble, let us go down to business. The explicit explanation I was seeking from you and which you kindly supplied is:

            How do you get the average ratings of each candidate? I think you get their average by adding all the regional ratings (NCR, BL, VIS, MIN) and divide it by four. If not, then my computation is wrong and you can disregard this.

            cwl, that is not correct. The correct way is to weigh the regional numbers of Pulse Asia by the regional ratings from Comelec, as I explained in my note above before the incorrect subsequent paragraphs. Explicitly for Poe’s case, and you can do the same for the others:

            1. Take the numbers of Comelec and convert it to fractions as I did above:

            NCR BL VIS MIN: 6.3, 24.2, 11.3, 12.6

            Convert these to fractions by dividing by its total of 54.4. You will get

            0.1158 0.4449 0.2077 0.2316

            which totals 1 as it should.

            2. The percentage numbers from PA for Poe reading the row for the regions are respectively

            30 34 20 15

            Now multiply the above fractional weights from the region with these PA numbers for Poe and you get

            0.1158*30 + 0.4449*34 + 0.2077*20 + 0.2316*15 = 26.2279

            And Pulse Asia rounds this to 26 and validates PA number. You may try the exercise on the other candidates.

            I hope this helps.

            • cwl says:


              Thanks a lot. Pardon for my crude math and statistics. I just don’t know the right formula so I made one. I stand corrected.

              Perhaps, I am still in the denial stage. Can’t accept that Roxas will get that small percentage in NCR and the country, in general.

              Do I prepare now for the Poe-Duterte presidency and Escudero-Marcos vice presidency?

              I also compiled data for the 1998, 2010 elections and it showed that the one leading in surveys released at the end of March always end up winners. Be it “presidentiables” or “senatoriables”.

              • NHerrera says:

                I again admire you for the patience of compiling relevant data. You may be proven right on that one. But let us wait a little more. But nothing lost in preparing for eventualities. 🙂

    • NHerrera says:


      My post above (March 22, 2016 at 10:01 pm) is based on percentage contribution from the regions — NCR, BL, VIS and MIN — reading by row Pulse Asia’s Table on Presidential Preference. PA’s table WAS CONSTRUCTED with COLUMNS totaling 100 (rounded) through all the numbers up to Don’t now/ Refused/ Undecided/ None.

      Worse, I didn’t even drink a drop of lambanog before I wrote that post. Joe, you may degrade my expertise in Arithmetic down a notch or two.

      • Joe America says:

        Blame it on the slide rule, NHerrera. Never accept accountability for a mistake lest you get ridiculed for the rest of your life. After blaming it on the slide rule, head directly to the lambanog and pretend it was all a joke. Trust me, these techniques work. I’ve seen top officials and candidates here use them.

      • NHerrera says:

        In computer speak, that is a fatal error. What is the phrase edgar — a blue screen of death? 😦

        • edgar lores says:

          The “blue screen of death” was/is for Microsoft Windows only. A more generic term for a fatal error is “abend” — pronounced “ahb end” — meaning abnormal termination of a program. A fatal error can cause a “system crash.”

          Your “grievous error” was not on the order of a fatal error, an abend, nor a system crash. It may be simply classified as a “bug” because the program ended normally but the results were incorrect. The nature of the bug was a “logic error” in that correct mathematical logic was applied to a portion, rather than the whole, of the population in the columnar matrix.

          In computer language, you were using a “Do… Loop” command structure and the boundaries of the “Until (or While)” condition was misspecified.

          • NHerrera says:

            Thanks a lot indeed. The clinical analysis is superb. Thanks Doctor edgar. I will take the medicine from now on. 🙂

      • Juana Pilipinas says:

        Might as well, Kuya. I see Digong and Bongbong as frontrunners on the most recent poll as a GRIEVOUS ERROR.

  15. DAgimas says:

    Trump, like Duterte, knows how to win the voters, at least to those who are affected by all the trade deals. he tells the inconvenient truth, which is the ruling elite lied to the American people about the effects of NAFTA, WTO, illegal immigration and Iraq War.

    I agree with Trump in principle, which is, the trade deals were not fair. how could they be fair when the strict standards required of manufacturers in the US were not required when they pack up and manufacture in Mexico and China? and how could they allow China to have Most Favored Nation status in exchange for nothing? not even easing of freedom of speech or elections? in short, Clinton and Bush sold the American people in exchange for the profits of the ruling class.

    both Clinton and Trump will continue to challenge China on the South China Sea with Trump more effective of his threat because he is willingness to back it with punitive tariffs.

    regarding trade and outsourcing, seems the Philippines will be affected if Trump makes true of his promise to make America will win again and again but then, Congress still makes the laws and lobbyist seems to be betting on individual members of congress just in case Trump will win. and in America, money still talks (at least to Congress who makes the laws)

    like most Americans, I don’t like Clinton, not because she is not qualified but because, for me personally due to my conviction, dynasty is not good. don’t tell me, with 320M americans, you have only 2 families to choose from? (Bush and Clinton) . its good the Republican base repudiated dynasty already. but the Democrats seems not to mind as long as they can put the first woman in the White House.

    I like to watch the Democratic debates. how I wish our politicians debate like Sanders and Clinton. you just know they are professional politicians the way they answer questions with proposed policies of their own. the local tv networks should show these debates. the Republican debates are just like the debate in the Philippines hahahaha but Cruz is brilliant, no doubt.

    I will vote for Sanders hahaha but then we live in California where it doesn’t matter whether you vote or not.

    • Joe America says:

      I appreciate the analysis, as this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. The strongest point you make for me is that Trump, being a commercially oriented guy, would use commerce to wage war with China. That would actually, I think, be more effective than military, because economic problems hurt China in the eyes of her own people. Military makes the US the enemy and rallies the people to an emotional cause, and China doesn’t mind body count, I suspect.

      The dynasty argument is weak to me, because I doubt Chelsea will emerge as a political force. For sure, Clinton had an advantage by being in the public eye for so long, but she was selected to be Secretary of State for her skills and knowledge, not name. That . . . for me . . . is the bigger consideration than family relationship.

      I agree the Democratic debates just rocked. Strong people battling in the arena of ideas and policy. And politics. But I enjoyed the second Philippine debate, too. It was wild, but you could certainly distinguish between the candidates on knowledge and suitability for the position. CNN (US) is in the Philippines on some cable packages, so a good many people can watch the debates if they choose.

      • DAgimas says:

        don’t know if you know this: Jeb Bush asked his audience to clap in one of his campaign sortie. it just shows that even the most diehard Republicans were tired of the Bush Brand or to the establishment

        im afraid Roxas will end up like Jeb Bush all because of the incompetence of his party mates

        • Joe America says:

          Well, you’d have to get to the specifics of who is incompetent in LP and then we can talk about the incidents that make up the factual base of incompetence. To me, LP is a batch of characters who have their own styles, but are not crooks. Most are competent, but they work in a legal and political system, and a culture that does not respond well to assertive, progressive change. There are 105 million cooks in the Philippine kitchen, and about 37% are also crooks. They can make even good people look incompetent.

          • DAgimas says:

            seems everybody is pointing at the DOTC. if they did their job, im sure Roxas would be reaping the gratitude of the people. as they say, people only see the dot, not the whole paper

            • Joe America says:

              Well, for sure, Abaya probably should have been reassigned long ago when the pot was warming rather than boiling. Is he incompetent? Maybe, at that job. Is he capable, I’d say so, based on other achievements. We have such a simple and removed idea of the pressures he works under. I see all the uninformed, incorrect judgments people are making (candidates and followers), and think it is the critics who are incompetent, not the people they are criticizing. Plus, using one guy as representing the whole of an Administration or party is one of those basic argumentative fallacies that was discussed the the other day.

              • DAgimas says:

                im a sucker for those who have good schooling but all those credentials from the US didn’t help him. I guess leading a dept is not his forte..he should have just stayed in congress or the senate

    • Jake says:

      Sanders will bring massive inflation to the US (due to his economic policies — possibly massive loss of well-paying jobs in the Philippines – think of the BPO, TI, Moog) and his suggestion to China’s military build up is bollocks. His best is to come up with a bill that will “forbid foreign sales to China”. As if foreign countries, especially non US allies are binded by US law. Heck, China does not even head international law like UNCLOS (which it ratified), what more with US laws that do not apply to China. China is NOT like Egypt that can be bribed by Western nation. If ever, it is the opposite.

      Sanders is also anti-immigrant, albeit covertly, compared to Trump who is overt. Sanders was against the immigration reform bill because he thought that “foreigners will drive US wages down”. Obviously, he isn’t talking about the farm jobs that Americans do not want.

      • “Sanders is also anti-immigrant, albeit covertly, compared to Trump who is overt. “

        Agreed, and to this point Trump has changed his tune on work visas (science, tech, engineering, etc.)— so I think Trump’s got some Silicon Valley advisors.

        Sanders is more pro-America, then Trump will ever be. But I still lump Sanders, Trump and Rand Paul in the same group, while the rest are more of the same.

        • Jake says:

          IMO, Sanders is just another non-businessman version of Trump, though a lot worse in economic realities. He is just covert. Besides, a lot of those who are complaining that they can’t get a job are millennials who have degree in Literature, Liberal Arts, English, etc. Not the ones who have degrees as Business Analysts, Computer Programmer. They might just be better off going to Korea or Japan to teach English. LOL

          The problem in the US is not the lack of jobs but a huge job mismatch. At one point in time, the US had to import nurses from the Philippines because of shortage. That was until the US encouraged its citizens to take up RN courses.

          The problem with liberal Americans is that they want things to be handed down/spoonfed to them, rather than them adapting to realities, making the best out of things. It’s the Big Data era now, and many inexpensive community colleges offer certificates to qualify even as a database administrator.

  16. Cesar Torres says:


    On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:00 AM, The Society of Honor by Joe America wrote:

    > Joe America posted: “This is great. I spend most of my time commenting on > things Filipino, and now it’s your turn. You get to weigh in on the likely > US American presidential candidates, Republican (conservative) lead > candidate Donald Trump and Democratic (liberal) leader Hill” >

  17. Joe America says:

    The Inquirer today ran a lengthy story reporting the views of Filipinos in America to Donald Trump. He has his backers, but also strong critics, mainly based on his race remarks.


  18. uht says:

    Disclaimer: I’m new to this particular blog, and rather young. If there is anything wrong with what I say next, please feel free to correct me.

    I’ve been looking at the US candidates for some time and pondering which among them is the best one in terms of the Philippines’ interest, so thank you to the OP for writing this blog.

    Personally I feel Clinton would be better for the Philippines, as much as I don’t like to say it. Clinton’s rep is and can be quite dubious, but from what I can see she is much more of a pragmatist than Trump is. Trump’s selling point from my POV is being a businessman who can steer America “back to greatness” much like he would a company, but a company is not like a country in many ways. Not to mention, it’s very likely that if he went through with every one of his economic plans then all the American companies would move to China. This isn’t what we want, or what he wants.

    It is, however, interesting to me why Sanders isn’t included here. Discussing what he might do would be a nice thing too–though whatever is revealed of his foreign policy seems oddly like isolationist pre-WWI America, which would not be good for us IMO

    • re Sanders, I agree with your assessment he’s more a Ron Paul when it comes to the rest of the world. Hence his absence from AIPAC yesterday.

      • DAgimas says:

        no his fellow jews don’t just think he will beat Clinton so they didn’t invite him. the hudyos are siguristas hahahaha

    • Jake says:

      Sanders is so naive about China and international geopolitics. He probably does not even know that China, although it ratified UNCLOS, blatantly violates it. Sander’s proposed “solution” is to pass a bill barring foreign countries to sell arms in China. What a joke. As if foreign countries, esp the ones that are antagonist to the US, will willing accept a US law that does not bind them.

      He also voted AGAINST the selling of new F-16 to Taiwan.

      • uht says:

        To be fair, it would kind of work if the Chinese weren’t good at reverse engineering….

        Joke aside though, I have to agree. Laws like that are a no-no in diplomacy. It’s like showing off your hand at a poker game.

  19. josephivo says:

    Reflecting on Brussels and hearing John Lennon’s “Imagine” with tears in the eye.

    “Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace…”
    See http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnlennon/imagine.html

    But is it only countries and religions that people kill for? In the Stone Age or in tribes still living in the Stone Age, violence and unnatural deads were much higher than today even with our wildest terrorists.

    Isn’t it more about Civility? The young George Washington’s book “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation” devoted to Civility. Terrorist indecent behavior or Trump’s indecent in conversations all the result of the lack of civility.

    As I said before civility and high-culture are such a thin veneer hiding our primitive instincts, we have to cherish them at all costs. And thanks Joeam to keep this site civil.

    • Joe America says:

      And condolences to those hurting in your homeland.

      • josephivo says:

        The NYT editorial said it well: “But the response to terrorism must also be a reaffirmation of core democratic values and a rejection of demagogues and xenophobes who would exploit public fears and tears.”

        Closing doors, refusing to speak or violence can never be the answer. Presidential candidates here in the Philippines, are you listening?

      • karlgarcia says:

        I am sorry for what happened to Belgium.
        I hope the presidential aspirants,can give a definite stance on violence and terrorism,not just promise 6 months elimination. ‼️‼️‼️‼️

        • karlgarcia says:

          That was for PH aspirants ,for US candidates….
          banning of muslim tourists from entering US soils is Stupid then and it is stupid now‼️

    • Edgar Lores says:


      Sad, very sad. Part of the problem is that Islam sees almost all non-believers as infidels. In their eyes there are no noncombatants. Thus foreigners can be taken as hostages. Women are converted by rape. And the public at large are targets of terror… to create instability for the establishment of the caliphate.

      What is the proper response to incivility? Non-violence? Greater incivility?

      • Joe America says:

        Tough questions. Let me intrude, because I am typing as I think this through. Some of the unbelievers are within the Muslim faith, so we see states Saudi Arabia and Iran head-to-head against one another in a battleground called Syria, and that is also why Iraq is a pit of murderous contention for the true faith. To rational people, it is crazy, uncivil, even bestial. To those within the faith, it is the reason for being. As you recognize, there is no way out. To concede is to die. To fight is to participate in the incivility, against our desire for civility and sense. Many Americans would agree with Donald Trump, forget about rules prohibiting torture. An eye for an eye. As his words are used by Muslim extremists to recruit the passionate and the lost or lunatic, the deeds of violent Muslims are now promoting the rise of Donald Trump. If not now, four years from now. Until moderate Muslims change doctrine to accept living side by side with those of different faith, it will be a horror and innocents will pay a horrible price. ISIS is a horror and needs to be wiped from the earth. Let them recruit. Send them all to meet their God, Satan. Make sure moderate American Muslims understand that it is their job to control their violent brothers or we’ll put Donald Trump in charge of domestic religions.

        • NHerrera says:

          Defining only the four mutually exclusive categories, then:

          1. MW = Muslim World (in whatever country)
          1.1 PMW = Peaceful or Moderate Muslim World
          1.2 TMW = Terroristic Muslim World

          2. NMW = Non-Muslim World
          2.1 PNMW = Peaceful or Moderate Non-Muslim World
          2.2 BNMW = Biblical (Old Testament Eye for an Eye, Pragmatic, call it even Vengeful) Non-Muslim World

          Your view is that the status quo cannot remain and it will lead to TMW coming head to head with BNMW — no quarters spared — unless PMW becomes active to effectively restrain TMW. That if not now, a Trump-like US President will emerge to radically change the status quo on this Terrorism Mess.

          I quite agree, only that it may lead to a messy Preventive Jittery Anti-Terrorism World with its brand of Terrorism? A Duterte-mode world, unrestrained? Of course, that may be programmed too before it leads to that? Sort of return to barracks after the mess is solved. It may not be easy.

          • Joe America says:

            There is no easy way when people are willing to rape your daughter and behead your brother because you won’t do the same. It can’t be easy because there is no sense, no compassion to this form of worship. Not our fault, as far as I can tell. I agree with josephivo that peace is the only solution, but it is the getting there that is the problem. If there is a nasty virus eating the brains of children, we go all out to wipe out that virus. I’d say ISIS is worse. We ought not be too moral about it, I think. Sorry for the graphic depictions.

            • NHerrera says:

              I share that view. And this may explain the attraction of Duterte to a worker trying hard to survive with a third of his waking hours fighting the traffic only for his daughter to be raped or murdered or his son drawn to drug abuse — our virtual terrorists Duterte wants to wipe out.

              • Joe America says:

                Right. The real enemy in the Philippines, I think, is poverty or helplessness at changing anything. It warps thinking.

              • Exactly, Joe, like over here it’s traffic related injuries and death. Then industrialized related health concerns, from food poisoning to cancer, ie. from fracking or from food processing (salmonella, other crap in our food).

            • caliphman says:

              Joe, I put up a comment on your article remarking how ironic it was that American voters who are supposed to be much more sophisticated and mature than Filipino masa voters both end up placing megalomanic buffoons in the lead according to surveys, Irineo replied by posting a cartoon of Duterte preening himself to look more like Trump. It seems now that both the comment and cartoon suddenly vanished. If they were withdrawn deliberately, would you mind giving the reason why it was objectionable and if this a new procedure for editing out comments without having to leave any explanation? It would be very strange and upsetting if thats what happened which is why I am asking.

              • Still there, but if you don’t mind, caliphman, I copied it here (along with Ireneo’s cartoon),

                caliphman: “If the same Filipino respondents used in the presidential surveys were queried on who they would prefer among the US candidates, I would bet their top choice would be Trump. For many Republicans he is seen as the best alternative to the American version of trapos who have mired the government in gridlock. His forceful can do manner, his willingness to dispense with political correctness, his outrageous behavior echoes Duterte and his style which apparently is very much in demand in large segments of the US and Philippine public.It says a lot about both population’s widespread frustration with government’s inability to deal with their key problems inspite of good economic progress on the national front. That a billionaire with the manners of a buffoon and whose experience in government pales with that of a certain US school teacher and possessed by a megalomanic personality like Duterte’s ends up being poll favorite raises the following question. Where is this greater sophistication and more mature electorate in the US and other first world countries that differentiates them from our own masa voters? Maybe they both have local agendas, attitudes and different priorities that come before what is allegedly in the best of the country.”

                Though, I agree with you that the Republican base is pissed off. I think the support for Duterte isn’t of anger but of ethno-linguistic solidarity. The KKK stuff a month a go with Trump would’ve been similar to this ethno-linguistic phenomenon, but the Republican anger isn’t as confined.

                It’s wider.

                I (Ron Paul libertarian, lower case ‘L’, independent, who voted for Obama twice) share in this anger. I know the Hillary vote is the most stable, but I don’t want more of the same (Koch bros., Wall St. etc. getting away with murder).

                Non-Republican pro-Trump supporters like him precisely because the Koch bros. don’t (like a hungry chick, Cruz already has his big mouth open). Hillary and Obama were hand in hand in the domestic fracking policy (sure, broke our dependence on foreign oil, but as Democrats they shoulda kept a close eye on the oil/gas folks, they didn’t).

              • http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents

                your thoughts lcplx?

                I agree that fracking was a major let down.

                And The Paris Accords shine a bit lighter because of Fracking. This may well be big oil’s last hurrah.

              • caliphman says:

                Thanks Lance. I checked a couple of times yesterday and today on my smartphone and could not find it. As for Trump and Duterte, its very obvious just looking at the results by region that the voters from Mindanao are all out for their local boy in the same way that Ilocandia is for Marcos. But Duterte would no way and no how be tied for first place unless his appeal was much widespread and stronger than that. What really counts is that he has a bigger masa following picked up from Binay and Poe and I think thats because like Trump, he is an icon for radical and non-traditional change. It is no coincidence that even the Tea Party fanatics have deserted Cruz and Rubio in favor of Trump because he is more anti-establishment in style and views than they are. Why would the masa want a change from Daang Matuwid? Because the vast majority of them still feel trapped in a poverty cycle and the economic progress and reduced corruption accomplished by Aquino means diddly squat for them.

              • gian,

                Fracking here domestically, I can understand. We’re trying to get independent from foreign oil— makes sense. But fracking exported outside, seems like a bad idea on so many levels. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

                Obama from the git-go has always been cynical of the ME, so I tend to level most my disapproval (Benghazi and the Arab Spring) on Hillary (and Samantha Power). Fracking is my biggest issue with Obama.

                Balance positive or negative. Obama’s presidency is positive for me. Where GW’s was waaaaaay negative (mostly because of 9/11, which side-tracked a lot of his mandate, GW was the Rubio of 2000, hopey/changey Republican style).

                I’m a fan of Obamacare.

              • caliphman says:

                Lance, if its there I still cannot find a trace of it. Anyone who does, please post a link to it as then I wont have to return this brand new Samsung smartphone for being stupid.

              • here, https://joeam.com/2016/03/20/two-reasons-the-philippine-national-election-may-go-south/#comment-167374


                So aside from Visayans and Mindanaoans, there’s a lot of Tagalogs, etc. supporting Duterte right now? Is there polling that breaks down ethno-linguistics groups?

              • caliphman says:


                Lance, the link is to Manong Herrera’s post upstairs in which he breaks out Comelec voter registrations by region including Mindanao and Luzon. Basically Mindanao represents about 23% of the electorate and Luzon 44% if my short term recall serves me right. This tells one right away that on a regional basis that the nearly half share of Mindanao Duterte has corraled must come with at least a proportionate slice of greater Manila and Luzon votes for him to be tied in the lead. Ariithmetically, one could figure out precisely what the local boy factor contributes to Duterte by coming from Mindanao, Roxas/Poe from the Visayas and Marcos from Northern Luzon by subtracting from their regional share what should have been their proportionate share assuming no regional bias and weighting the result withthe petcentage shares that region comprises of the total Comelec voter population. For example, Duterte’s almost half share of Mindanao less a 25% proportionate share gives his regional local boy advantage at 25%. Being that Mindanao is 23% of the electorate, that leaves only 5 to 6 percentage of his latest PA survey rating being contributed by his local boy factor. One could contribute the local boy factor and I leave it to Manong Herrera because it is numbingly tedious for my taste. But my basic point is, this ” one of us” advantage is not significant and that increasing widespread popularity is why Duterte is tied for the lead.

              • I’m familiar with Luzon’s (especially urban Tagalogs) opinion of Mindanao. Many of their servants are from the Visayan and Mindanao regions. I know they look down upon them. I’m curious now of the psychology of a poor Tagalog looking to Duterte as the bearer of hope— is it just his Big Man rhetoric, or something deeper, like Davao as the anti-Manila maybe?

                When I saw NHerrera’s numbers my eyes just glazed over (No offense, NH 😉 ). But this cultural development is interesting, caliphman. Thanks.

              • caliphman says:

                Its as I have observed and said many times, its not so much regional but class related. Even the Manila or NCR vote is proDuterte/Poe/Binay and anti-Roxas or Straight Path because they are seeking someone who can make a change in their lives and status quo candidates are not it.

                What is really troubling is Marcos looks like he has momentum going for him and unless Robredo catches up with him, he is going to be VP. The chart in the link below demonstrates this momentum and recalls how Binay beat Roxas by steadily but surely catching up to and taking the lead.

              • karlgarcia says:

                That happens to me a lot over at Irineo’s blog.
                He says it has something to do with using different devices….Methinks it is a syncing thing.
                Sometimes refreshing works,sometimes it does not.

        • caliphman says:

          Living here in a city in the US which I am certain is in the ISIS crosshairs, it is hard for me not to be affected by the events in Brussels and listening to Trump say that we are too moral and politically correct in the way the US fights an enemy whose brutality knows no bounds. That is the kind of argument in the past was used to justify the Allies carpet bombing German and Japanese civilians in their cities and to finally unleash nuclear blasts to wipe out the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would want to think we have gone a long way since those times when it was morally ethical for terror to be dealt with counter terror. Its our own moral compass as Americans or Filipinos that should dictate our conduct and not how the enemy conduct his, as deadly or barbaric his attacks may be. Otherwise might as well drop a couple of hydrogen bombs over Raqqa, and why not Qom for good measure? That should fix things for starters.

        • DAgimas says:

          at least the shias don’t try to export their beliefs just like the sunnis. I think Saudi is really the root cause of all these. they should be warned by the West to fix their house or else

          • DAgimas,

            The Shi’a tradition, since Ali’s sons were killed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descendants_of_Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib#Sons , has always been about taking the low profile approach.

            Most Shi’as ended up in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, at the periphery of Sunni Islam. When the Persians decided they were into the Shi’a brand, they procured most of their clergy from Lebanon. Even when they became official in Persia, they kept a low profile.

            Khomeni changed all that.

            Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is the root cause, but because of oil, everyone’s turned a blind eye. A bunch of Saudi princelings still actively donate to Salafi causes (from education to ISIS), all from petro-dollars.

            Shi’as traditionally has been inward. Where Wahhabi is outward, it’s all about getting a callus on the middle of your forehead to show people you pray a lot. The rest of Sunni Islam is pretty mellow.

            The iteration of Islam that’s been fighting Wahhabism isn’t really the Shi’as but these guys, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibadi

            • I’ve been hounding at the parallel danger of the Evangelical movement over here (Liberty and Regent law schools are specifically eyeing gov’t positions local/state/Fed), https://joeam.com/2015/11/22/the-islamic-renaissance-in-the-philippines/#comment-148664

              Ted Cruz ‘s recommendation of surveillance on Muslims got shot down big time by Comm. Bill Bratton NYPD today, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OiioszFW4M

              On the other hand, Trump’s still pushing for lax torture laws— I’m pretty sure the FBI or the military’s not asking for this, that goes for the CIA also who were the only ones who used watering boarding, etc.

              The difference I think is that Cruz because of his religion really believes he should punish Muslims (as an Evangelical), while Trump is simply pandering, pandering is easier to adjust.

              • DAgimas says:

                don’t know why Trump needs to shout the need for these laws. the front liner/operators will do it anyway with or without authorization.

                the only problem was those generals involves allowed it to leak. its also a sign of breakdown of discipline of the troop who leak it

              • Joe: “Many Americans would agree with Donald Trump, forget about rules prohibiting torture. An eye for an eye.”

                Sadly true, hence the pandering, Joe— it’s a strawman for Trump, he looks tough, while knowing that the FBI, the CIA and the Military aren’t really asking for more “lax” laws, this issue is long buried and it was basically a small program headed by Coffer Black.

                You already know my position on torture and drones. Trump’s position on this seems just bluster.

                Ones you get a taste of Trump’s poetry, it’s easier to differentiate.

      • josephivo says:

        This is more than Islam. This is extremism. This is bestiality. John Lemon thought that violence stems from nationalism or religion, but these are just excuses. Violence is inborn, it is the ultimate adrenaline. Give me an religious excuse so I can get a shot.

        Islam is more consequent, if you submit to God, than do it in every aspect of life. No distinction between the supra-natural and the natural, the religious and the secular. This is an easier construction. Centuries long also the wet dream of the Church too. Still in the Philippines bishops and cabinet secretaries are both leading prayers and both do on politics. So Islam is a good growth medium for extremism, you murder for me and I’ll give you 80 virgins in heaven.

        On average Muslims in Belgium are children or grandchildren of poor farm helpers from the Magreb. They came to Belgium to work during the 60ies in the least jobs, mostly in mines or as cleaners. They stayed in the bottom layer of society, poor, no education, no prospects, living in our style of shanty towns, inner-city housing where nobody else want to live. Flawlessly sliding from petty crimes, alcohol and drugs into the criminal theology of sick imams. (Very different with the average American Muslim who is educated and has a job better than the average white man, they came from the middle class from a large variety of Muslim countries.)

        Peace is a difficult concept. It is a specific type of relationship with an enemy, not with a friend. It is a cerebral concept, not instinctive. Unfortunately the only lasting answer to violence is peace.

        • (Very different with the average American Muslim who is educated and has a job better than the average white man, they came from the middle class from a large variety of Muslim countries.)


          In CA, especially in the San Joaquin valley and the desert towns, there are a bunch of Lebanese and Syrian-Americans, many of them started out as menial workers.

          So not always professionals, like Trump’s grandfather started out from scratch— remember Gen. Abizaid?

          The difference with EU (and Belgium) is ratio/proportion, Muslim (and other) immigration trickles in the US, while in the EU you have floods of these migrations, where they then end up in ghettoes.

          I was watching a BBC coverage yesterday with some British pundit commenting on how Muslims in Belgium were less involved in Belgian community, than say in the UK or Germany— ie. in politics, etc.

          Compared to the rest of the EU, is Belgium really that different in its treatment of its Muslim community and vice versa? (I hope Ireneo chimes in also).

          I hope more people watch this film,

          • DAgimas says:

            don’t know why these arabs ended up in Belgium. they didn’t have arab colony in the old days so how come? if I remember it right, their king made congo his private hacienda but seems there is no Congolese migrants there.

            if only they allowed only Filipinos to migrate in there, they would not have these problems

          • josephivo says:

            @ LCpl_X
            Notice that I said “on average”. Of course there is the whole range from the worst criminals to the best professors. The back ground of American Muslims and their prospects in life are different (maybe with and exception for black Somalis) the came from many countries. And yes the States is better than Europe in integrating immigrants but the social mobility is less, the chance to be better off than your parents.

            @ Dagimas
            Most Muslims arrived as migrant workers in the 60ies. Before the main source of cheap labor were Italians. In the 60ies Italy had a boom on its own and labor cost became higher. Cheap labor however was available in the back areas of the Maghreb, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, they had French as second language as coming from former French colonies, so their destinations were mainly France and Belgium. Later also Turks from the undeveloped East came to Europe, mainly to Germany but also to the Netherlands and Belgium. Turks came from a proud independent country, were more industrious, the Berbers from Morocco were second hand citizens in their own country still living in medieval conditions. The “guest laborers” overstayed their limited visas, employers insisted in extensions, later family reunions, married man being more stable employees. Guests became residents, but residents with little aspirations, education had no value for them. The industry they worked in, coal mines, steel disappeared, with no education they remained at the bottom of society. Satellite TV kept them in their original cultural environment. Than came our “Black Panther” not to Black slumps but to Moroccan slumps.

            • Joe America says:

              Social mobility and chance to be better off than your parents is less in the US than Europe? Source of this conclusion? It conflicts with what I know and see when two of the top four Republican presidential candidates and half the Democratic candidates (Sanders) are sons of immigrants. Certainly Asians are rising in the Tech field. Hispanics are no longer the neglected lower class because they are moving into positions of authority everywhere.

              • josephivo says:

                We are not talking individuals, we are talking about averages in the whole population.

              • Joe America says:

                Okay, we have two variables in that chart, income inequality (high in the US and low in Finland) and social mobility (low in the US and high in Finland). The source of the information is “The Equality Trust (https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk), a British advocacy group seeking to reduce income inequality. I couldn’t find the article attached to the slide, so if you have it, I’d welcome a link. I want to see what the terms mean.

              • josephivo says:

                I see that the internet is flooded with articles confirming this.

                Click to access 44582910.pdf


              • josephivo says:

                Ex uno disce omnes. Such a favorite logical error, especial with populists. Smoking is not dangerous, look at my uncle he died at 95 and was smoking his whole life, Muslims are murderers look at ISIS, Mexicans are rapists, social mobility is high look at 2 presidential candidates…. and don’t waste time to check the evidence or to look at perspective.

                … think I’m still upset with what Trump is saying about Brussels.

              • Joe America says:

                Trump, chump.

                Right, but most of us go by those individual cases and generalize from them. I’m not combating what you say. I want to understand it.

              • NHerrera says:


                I find interesting the chart — Figure 3H — shown in your second link (March 24, 2016 at 11:17 am) which shows the Intergenerational correlation: father-son earnings.


                – US at 0.47 versus
                – Canada, its neighbor in the north at 0.19

                Considering the proximate land distance between the two countries, it says a Canadian middle class father is more likely to have a son getting rich (or the reverse) compared to that in the US where middle class father is more likely to have a son stuck at a middle class status; or rich father – rich son.

                Any thought why this is so?

              • Joe America says:

                I’d be inclined to think that widespread automation is somehow involved, that if one measured the number of career track jobs that, from start to finish, had promise, it has gone down as a share of all jobs, and what is left is service industry jobs with little upside. Plus two jobs are now needed to buy houses and cars, so the lack of distribution of wealth to the middle class is presenting even career people with little gain. Summary: (1) automation, (2) poor distribution of wealth.

                Just guessing out loud. That’s easier than researching.

              • NHerrera says:

                @Joe: Seems reasonable. Thanks.

            • Migrant history in Europe is interesting. Spain has its Moroccans and Latin Americans. Nowadays you have (had) the migration of Eastern Europeans to the West – Poles to Germany and UK, Romanians to France, Spain, Italy, UK and Germany, Russians to Germany where they are a major group next to the Turks. Vietnamese from the socialist period all over Eastern Europe, former communist OFWs who lived in camps before, Chinese workers on Romanian construction sites. Iranian former refugees from the times of Khomeini were mostly middle class and are mostly professionals now or their children here in Germany, I suspect that it will be the same with Syrians if things go right this time. But whether that will go well is a good question given recent right-wing trends over here.

              As for integration… the UK is I think No. 1 this is just an observation. You can have an immigration officer in a hijab proudly doing her duty for the queen… or in a Sikh turban. Trump would get a heart attack. Germany has evolved from before but there may be a backlash. Nordic countries and Netherlands were always tolerant but there is a backlash because of many things that happened. Belgium and France were definitely more elitist and less open than even Germany and definitely less integrative than Nordics/Holland.

              Spain/Italy are far from being integrative – Latin Americans happy about Spanish doing the same work in Germany they forced them to do before a sign of this. It is a very mixed bag, of course Eastern Europe is far from tolerant, Romania still best Hungary I think the worst but only if you don’t count in Russia as being part of the real Europe. They treat migrant workers from Central Asia far worse than a “self-respecting” US redneck treats Mexicans. A Russian told me better kill them than “demean” them like Americans and Germans do…

              • josephivo says:

                Quite accurate picture I guess, But I still miss the sub-Sahara Africans and Caribbean blacks from former colonies, e.g. the large group of Surinamers and Antilleans in Holland and then the Filipinos and other Asians everywhere. In Belgium also a large group of Italian ex-guest-workers, rich French and Dutch tax refugees and “Internationals” working for the EU, NATO and other multilateral or multinationals’ head quarters.

              • Thanks for pitching that in… lots of Africans in France, Spain, Italy… some in Germany but mostly already French, Italian, Spanish citizens who find here more open and tolerant but there are a few asylum seekers as well. Carribean blacks in Holland and England mainly.

                Filipinos strongest in UK, Spain and Italy, Germany growing again since the recent Triple Win program is recruiting nurses and since the Bologna reforms in the educational system and internationalization offers the free German university with course in English more often there are more students as well coming in. Filipinos in France are a small crowd, Geneva you have many UN Filipinos Bonn as well ever since it became a small UN place. Indonesians of course in Holland, including Mollucans who even founded a biker group…

              • Bill in Oz says:

                Irineo, I wonder what you would say of Australia & Immigration…I could offer comments but I am an Australian and have my biases…So it would be interesting to hear what you or others think…

                Joe in the USA massive illegal immigration has been a major, major source or impoverishment for USA citizens.. Latinos from all over Latin America with no visa, green cards or SS number now live there. And they do dirty work that locals do not wish to do for cash in hand payment..Mind you if these illegals were not there in the USA the wage rates & conditions for these type of dirty jobs would be a lot higher and locals would be more attracted to do them …Over the long term this process has white anted the USA middle class from below….

              • karlgarcia says:

                I could not find this at first,
                so I commented on your farming comment.

                Seems that from your SSS article and recent comments,OZ seems like a nice place to retire.

                Edgar has to confirm,but I see Filipinos studying there and most decide to stay.
                I have cousins and friends who took Culinary courses and migrated there.

                Is there a return the jobs to OZ like Jake mentioned about a program by one US candidate, and the thing I commented about Saudization?

              • R.Hiro says:



                Now does the present low oil prices caused by the structural changes in China and the weak economies in the industrial economies affecting politics around the world?

                What about the Philippines dependence on remittances?

              • edgar lores says:


                I cannot say whether Oz is a better place to live in or retire. It all depends on individual taste.

                It’s quiet here which suits me. Like shops close at 6:00 pm. Like one cannot mow the lawn earlier than 9:00 am. Like no carollers during Christmas and no firecrackers on New Year’s Eve.

                Sometimes I miss the excitement of Manila.

                The quality of life is better — in standards of health, employment, air quality, etcetera — but the cost of living is high. Generally, a can of Zero Coke is $2 (P75) when you eat out. Haircuts would be about $15 – $20 (P525 – P700). A movie ticket is about $12 – $17 (P420 – P595). My pre-loved 2008 Toyota Aurion (with 94K mileage) cost me $12,500 (P437,500). The annual car registration is $846 (P29,010). You get the idea.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Cost of living,the thing most Pinoys take for granted here,Para sa Karamihan kulang sweldo ang mahal ng bilihin,they go abroad and you earn foreign currency,you also spend foreign currency.I wonder how they can still remmit money back home.Many thanks,Edgar.

              • karlgarcia says:

                There are over 1 million Filipinos in Saudi Arabia, when they return here how can we absorb them? If problem is worldwide moving from one place to another will be the norm.

                Who was that who predicted peak oil?It did not happen as predicted.

                over supply if oil will continue.

                China can source oil from Siberia until it runs dry.iran is talking to India for a captive market.

                Now back to Saudi,they are now diversifying,more privatization,etc.But Are oil companies too big to fail? That issue again, this time Saudi version.

                This will all end once China and India runs out of space to build infrastructure and cars.

  20. Ron Z says:

    Joe, you are right – I was arguing the wrong issue for this. I accept your invitation to leave, but can’t figure out how to un-follow. I find I have little interest in the issue you want to discuss.

  21. chempo says:

    It’s tough luck when the world needed great leadership from the US we are left with Clinton and Trump.

    Trump and Philippines :

    Trump / Poe —– Lance’s gravvy train issue will crop up. You’ve taken benefits from the US, then when it’s convenient, you dumped US.

    Trump / Duterte —– I shudder at the idea of putting the 2 of them together in the same room.

    Trump / Mar —– The Apprenticeship show may be discussed. Mar would win.

    Trump / Binay —— Please keep your hands on the table where I can see them, Mr Binay. Trump knows Mexico and China very well, he knows Binay even better.

    • NHerrera says:


      For the last line:
      🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Joe America says:

      Interesting take. I rather think the US has not had a normal president since . . . um . . . since . . . nevermind. The President operates within a bubble of laws and institutions that provide some measure of limitation on excesses. The press operates as a watchdog organization, very different than the Philippine press, which acts as an excessively powerful “Committee of the Oligarchs”. If Mar Roxas can overcome their headwind, he truly is a genius. Hillary Clinton is not a crook, not a philanderer, not a Papa’s boy insecure in his bomber jacket . . . she’ll be fine. The Donald would be flamboyant, but the office would make the man grow a more compassionate brain. There is no “tough luck”, no Lee Kwan Yew, no Jesus Christ, just people with personality who eke their way to the top. Cheers to any and all of them!

      • DAgimas says:

        whether Trump or Clinton wins, its just like the 3rd term of Obama. The GOP controls both houses of Congress so they don’t want to pass what they think is not conservative agenda. They see Trump as a Democrat in GOP clothing but at least Trump have the art of the deal

        • Exactly, DAgimas,

          I don’t think a lot of people are getting that Trump is basically a Democrat.

          • DAgimas says:

            they only see his vulgarity and they want a woman in the WH that’s why if he promise more taxes for the rich and penalty for businesses who don’t use E-Verify, I think he is shoo in

  22. Victor says:

    Eight quotes for eight reasons someone would vote for Hillary

    Sorry about the language but these are Hillary’s actual words.

    (1)”Where is the Gxdamn flag? I want the G*damn fxxking flag up every morning at f**king sunrise.”
    From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244;
    Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991.

    (2) “Fxxk off! It’s enough I have to see you shxt-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too!!
    Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.”
    From the book “America Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p.90; Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.”

    (3) “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fxxking ass over here and grab those bags!”
    From the book “The First Partner” p. 259; Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.

    (4) “Stay the fxxk back, stay the fxxk back away from me! Don’t come within ten
    yards of me, or else! Just fxxking do as I say, Okay!!?”
    From the book “Unlimited Access” by Clinton’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p. 139; Hillary is screaming at her Secret Service detail.

    (5) “Where’s the miserable cxxk sucker?” (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”)
    From the book “The Truth about Hillary” by Edward Klein, p.5; Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.

    (6) “You fxxking idiot” From the book “Crossfire” ~pg. 84;
    Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.

    (7) “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need
    those fxxking sunglasses! We need to go back! |
    From the book ” Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72; Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.

    (8) “Come on Bill, put your dxxk up! You can’t fxxk her here!!”
    From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243; Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.

    This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander and Chief of our Military; the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life.

    Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “what difference at this point does it make?”
    “A little history of Hillary Clinton:
    When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts that went for nil.

    Then, president Bill gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – president Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas our own US citizens David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    President Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, president Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

    Those selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (supposedly) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
    Many younger voters will have little or no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime, and that of the extremely heinous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptitude president, Bill allowed Hillary to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and president Bill denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    When she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying and unethical behavior.” Jerry Zeifman, who is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation…“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by president Bill, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo defense”. Some of her more notable decisions in that debacle were: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Ken Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Starr as a Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to president Bill lying about and later admitting to his affairs.

    Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in president Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
    What a swell couple – ready for another four to eight year embarrassment by this low-life panderer & her husband occupying the White House?

    Now we are told of the intended destruction/cover-up of classified documents/e-mails on an unsecured personal server by Hillary when she was Secretary of State. Not to mention the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation, AND the influence peddling by foreign governments/individuals with huge amounts of money to her 2016 campaign fund.

    How about the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, most notably our ambassador to Libya, who pleaded for extra security 600 TIMES to the State Department before his death at the hands of terrorists & was given none, AND all 4 deaths were later described as a “reaction” to an internet video by – guess who – then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which was later proven to be false?
    We have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    But to her loyal & misguided supporters – “what difference does it make?”

    • Joe America says:

      Okay, so you think Trump is better for the Philippines then. Thanks for the inputs.

      • Victor says:

        This was just a reply on your:

        Hillary Clinton is not a crook, not a philanderer, not a Papa’s boy insecure in his bomber jacket . . . she’ll be fine.

        • Joe America says:

          Okay. May I ask, Victor, have you been in the Army or other branch of a male dominant fighting force? Would make a difference if that language had been uttered by a man? I’m not justifying it. I’ve just heard a lot worse. And your selections are a compilation of years of allegations. There is no presentation of the times she is civil, or a full representation of the context, or a response to the accusation from her. I take your point. She is a harsh and crude woman under stress or when things are not going her way. Good point.

          • Joe America says:

            Could be seen as a strength by some. How is Angela Merkel, I wonder?

          • Joe America says:

            By the way, her comment about “What difference does it make?” was not a vile comment as you suggest. I actually saw that exchange. She was making the point that the people are dead, and the Committee was persisting hour after hour to get Hillary to crack and say she killed them. She didn’t. The cruel people were the Republicans who used an investigative hearing, non-partisan by ethical rules, to politically try to fry Sec. Clinton. They failed. That is why I say context is important, and why I don’t accept your portrayal at face value.

    • NHerrera says:

      Whew! What a list of dirty-mouthed statements.

      While the dirty-mouthed statements uttered outside the glare of TV may be documented/ true, I was trying to see the strong argument while Hilary is a bad choice versus Trump with respect to the Philippines. We have our own dirty-mouthed potential President who make similar statements in the full glare of media who love to display these. But who promise a solution to a lot of Philippines problems 3-6 months after being elected (which this writer does not believe).

      • Victor says:

        The Scandals

        1) Clinton Foundation Scandal
        While serving as the Secretary of State, Clinton interceded 6 times in federal affairs in favor of companies that had directly contributed to Bill Clinton’s not-for-profit foundation. At best, this is woeful negligence on Hillary’s part. At the worst, it is a blatant example of Hillary Clinton’s willingness to “scratch the backs” of those who help her and her husband.

        2) WikiLeaks Scandal
        Julian Assange and his organization WikiLeaks revealed in 2010 that Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued an order that mandated for all U.N. officials to be consequently spied on in order to illegally gain passwords, credit card details, DNA, iris scan, and more. International condemnation ensued after Assange’s revelation of this order, but Clinton consequently claimed to have no knowledge about this nefarious order even though her signature was affixed to the bottom of the document.

        3) 2000 Senate Campaign Donation Scandal
        Peter Paul made an extremely large donation to Hillary Clinton’s Senate Campaign. When the Federal Election Commission examined the donation, they discovered that Hillary Clinton significantly under-reported the size of Paul’s donation, meaning that thousands of dollars of illegal cash likely ended up in her campaign funds. Even though such an act can bring several years in prison, nothing ever happened to Hillary.

        4) Sandy Berger Scandal
        When Hillary Clinton was still running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, she made the puzzling move of hiring Sandy Berger as a personal adviser. Who is Sandy Berger, you ask? Well, he is a previously convicted criminal was charged and found guilty of smuggling sensitive files out of the National Archives and thereafter destroying them. The files were related to the 9/11 Commission’s report, and specifically the files Berger destroyed pertained to Bill Clinton’s failure to contain terrorists during his presidency. This was an extremely questionable and unflattering political move on Hillary’s part.

        5) Benghazi Scandal
        no details needed on that one

        6) Haiti Mining Scandal
        The Haitian government awarded a gold-mining permit for its Morne Bassa mine to a North Carolina company called VCS Mining. What’s notable about this permit is the fact that the government has not issued a similar permit in over 50 years, and what’s also strange is that VCS Mining will only pay 2.5% royalties to the Haitian government for this permit, which mining experts say is drastically lower than the average mining royalty rate. So what gives?

        Well suprise, surprise. Hillary Clinton’s brother, Anthony Rodham, was a member of VCS Mining’s board of directors at the time that the company was awarded the Morne Bassa permit. And the permit came in the wake of Bill Clinton raising millions of dollars for the nation of Haiti’s rebuilding efforts after the country was devastated by an earthquake in 2010. And guess who was another member of VCS Mining’s board? Jean-Max Bellerive, who was the former Prime Minister for Haiti and the Bill Clinton’s c0-chair at the Interim Haiti Recovery Commision. Furthermore, to date USAID has contributed over 3 billion dollars to Haiti since 2010. So what’s this all mean?

        It would appear that through their vigorous financial relief and fundraising efforts, Hillary and Bill Clinton “bought” the Morne Bassa gold-mining permit from the Haitian government for Anthony Rodham’s company, VCS Mining. If true, this is an incendiary event that should be fully investigated and prosecuted. American politicians should be above using their positions to do lucrative favors for their family, so this could be a devastating scandal for both Clintons, but particularly for Hillary as she gears up for a presidential run.

        7) Private Email Scandal
        no details needed on that one

        • Joe America says:

          Okay, Victor, you are trolling the blog now on a demolition run. That is not the purpose of the article and has nothing to do with the Philippines. Someone else could do the same for Trump, and we’ll see a lot of that in a couple of months, I am sure.

          Thanks for visiting. Take it to an American blog site with American voters. This one is for Filipinos who can’t vote in the US. You have not addressed their interests in any kind of thoughtful way.

          • andrewlim8 says:


            The guy’s a plagiarist. Whole sections of his post were lifted from this:


            as well as other posts. A cut and paste nut job.

            • Joe America says:

              Ah, good sleuthing, andrew. He’s blocked.

              • Bill in Oz says:

                I wouldove to contribute to these post guys. But I j/have a buggy lap top.I need to get it fixed !! See you after that.

              • Vicara says:

                Similar to the demolition jobs on Mar Roxas–it’s interesting how eveyone in the media picks up on his swearing over the course of a lifetime–but no one has yet done a similar tabulation of the gross language of Duterte. Possibly because swear words and noontime TV jokes and threats make up 95 percent of his public utterances.

              • Joe America says:

                Yes, the whole dynamic is weird and perverse. Because Roxas is “good”, any flaw is magnified as a flaw in character. Because Duterte is “macho”, any flaw is confirmation of his strength. I avoided the term “nuts” in favor of “weird and perverse”, in view of the Mission Impossible, to remain positive amidst the flood of irrational we see happening.

          • Bill in Oz says:

            While it is true that your remarks are not directed to ho either of these candidates will impact on the Philippines if elected as US president.I want to say thanks for putting this info about Hilary Clinton before my eyes….I was completely unaware of most of it..So as an Australian I would not want the USA to be governed by such a person..Corruption is as corruption does..Mind you I am not impressed by Trump either …complete ignorance with arrogance is not a great look !

    • karlgarcia says:

      That demolition job made Duterte look like a saint, in terms of what comes out of his mouth.

  23. NHerrera says:

    Off topic

    I have an observation.

    Why is it that a one who is obviously outrageous and subsequently moderate such behavior — but still outrageous — is accorded more praises than one who, by honest measures or standards, is not even on a level of such “improved” outrageous behavior.

    The praises accorded to Duterte, on the one hand; and the criticisms lodged on Roxas, on the other hand — in the wake of the Second Debate — brings this idea home to me.

    Behave very badly and then lessen such behavior — this will earn you more praises than one who is not, to begin with, admitting of course that all of us have made mistakes.

    I wonder if there is a psychological explanation to this.

    • madlanglupa says:

      He made himself an alpha male for decades, ruled as a patriarch; he has very simple goals that attracts simple people… people who, after what they perceive as nothing but failure and suffering, they await for a strongman whom they believe to be on their level, a Messiah among them, and so they forgive his transgressions of any sorts, because they also expect him to bring out the hammer, and crush the enemy, and hang them high.

      (Do note that some posters and artwork made by his supporters are starkly reminiscent of Hitler’s election posters.)

  24. bauwow says:

    Hey Manong Joe aka Minister of Inspiration, as I am not familiar with US election rules, what would happen to Trump if he will not get the Republican nomination for the coming elections? At present he is leading the Republican candidates but still needs the “approval” of the Republican Party.
    Hillary for her part is almost sure to earn the Democratic nomination.
    Things move pretty fast here Manong Joe, still have a lot of articles to cover before I can catch up! But hey, I’m not complaining😅

  25. http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy&title=first-filipino-made-microsatellite-launched-into-space&id=124971 – OT but news for all:

    THE National Aeronautics and Space Administration has launched into space a cargo mission that included the Philippines’ first microsatellite on Wednesday.

    The 50-kilogram imaging satellite called DIWATA-1 is part of the 3,400-kg cargo of key science supplies onboard the Commercial Resupply Services Flight 6 that lifted off from Florida in the United States past 11 a.m. on Wednesday (Philippine time).

    NASA live-streamed the launch of the mission, which used the Cygnus spacecraft of private aerospace manufacturer Orbital ATK, Inc.

    Cygnus will deliver to the International Space Station (ISS) science and research, crew supplies and vehicle hardware, including DIWATA-1, according to information NASA posted online. The spacecraft is scheduled to reach and dock to the orbiting space laboratory on Sunday (Philippine time).

    DIWATA-1 will be housed in the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) called “Kibo” before its release into space towards the end of April, according to the Department of Science and Technology (DoST).

    • http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/earth-space/126880-excitement-diwata-microsatellite-launch

      MANILA, Philippines – The audience at the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman’s Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute who were watching the launch of the Philippines’ first homegrown microsatellite could not contain their excitement on Wednesday morning, March 23.

      There were laughter, oohs and aahs, and cheers during the countdown to lift-off of the Atlas V rocket, which was carrying the Cygnus unmanned spacecraft. Cygnus’ payload includes the Philippines’ Diwata-1 microsatellite, along with several other nanosatellites and science experiments which will be brought to the International Space Station (ISS). (READ: PH microsatellite Diwata-1 heads to Int’l Space Station)

      Kaye Kristine Vergel, one of the UP students sent to Hokkaido University in Japan to work on the payload of Diwata-1, said through a video conference that their team was very excited for the launch.

      On the other side of Japan, in Tohoku University, team member Ariston Gonzales said: “Everyone is happy and excited for the launch is successful. We’re hoping for the best for the ISS release.”

      Japanese consultant Professor Yukihiro Takahashi also said that he was very pleased and relieved after the successful launch.

      Everyone at the launch viewing party in UP – from the top university and government officials to the team members hooked up via video conference – was hopeful for the continuous success of the country’s “space fairy,” Diwata-1.

      UP Diliman Chancellor Michael Tan said that after the successful launch, Diwata-1 will be able to help produce more valuable data toward the development of better science-oriented programs and policies for the country.

      UP and a short surname… not crookery this time but excellence 🙂

      • And so that everybody sees that it is NOT an orbital jeepney or tricycle…

        • What exactly is it suppose to do?

          • madlanglupa says:

            According to the same Rappler article:

            “Diwata-1 will “look over the country as a whole,” monitoring environmental changes, keeping track of natural hazards, and looking into marine and agricultural data.”

            Data that would be of use to farmers and fishermen, to geologists and meteorologists, and to those who need data for formulating contingency plans to deal with preventing natural disasters.

            • http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/philippines/philippines-launches-first-non-commercial-satellite-1.1696269

              Manila: The Philippines launched its first non-commercial microsatellite, Diwata 1, on March 23. The spacecraft is expected to soon beam information crucial to saving lives and property.

              At around 11am Manila time, the United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket took off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, US, carrying the parcel box-sized Diwata 1 together with other payload, totalling 3,395 kilograms.

              “The launch of Diwata 1 marks a new and exciting chapter in the use of space technology in the Philippines,” Dr Mahar Lagmay, who heads the Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (Project NOAH) team, said.

              The remote sensing information that the 50kg Diwata 1 will beam to earth will be crucial. The data that it will gather can warn of natural disasters and improve weather detection; assist in determining agricultural growth patterns and monitoring forest cover and mining; aid in the protection of cultural and historical sites; and help in the guarding of territorial borders of the Philippines.

              The microsatellite was developed over three years at a cost of P800 million (Dh63 million).

              Although the Philippines had a privately owned commercial communications satellite in orbit, the Agila 1 — which was launched in 1999 — the Diwata 1 is the first spacecraft assembled and developed by Filipinos.


              The Philippines, being a locus of typhoons, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, is a hotbed of disasters. Natural hazards inflict loss of lives and costly damage to property in the country. The effect of these hazards were witnessed in 2011’s Typhoon Pedring, 2012’s Typhoon Pablo, and the most disastrous storm of the century, 2013’s Typhoon Yolanda. These resulted in a high number of fatalities with economic losses amounting to billions of pesos. Extreme weather is the common factor in these catastrophes. Situated in the humid tropics, the Philippines will inevitably suffer from climate-related calamities similar to those experienced in recent years. With continued development in the lowlands, and growing populations, it is expected that damage to infrastructure and human losses would persist and even rise unless appropriate measures are immediately implemented by government.

              In response to President Aquino’s instructions to put in place a responsive program for disaster prevention and mitigation, specifically, for the Philippines’ warning agencies to be able to provide a 6 hour lead-time warning to vulnerable communities against impending floods and to use advanced technology to enhance current geo-hazard vulnerability maps, the Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (NOAH) was launched by the Department of Science and Technology.

              NOAH’s mission is to undertake disaster science research and development, advance the use of cutting edge technologies and recommend innovative information services in government’s disaster prevention and mitigation efforts. Though the use of science and technology and in partnership with the academe and other stakeholders, the DOST through Program NOAH is taking a multi-disciplinary approach in developing systems, tools, and other technologies that could be operationalized by government to help prevent and mitigate disasters.

              NOAH’s immediate task is to integrate current disaster science research and development projects and initiate new efforts within the DOST to achieve this objective. Presently there are nine(9) component projects under the NOAH program, namely:

              Hydromet Sensors Development
              DREAM-LIDAR 3D Mapping
              Flood NET – Flood Information Network
              Strategic Communication
              Disaster Management using WebGIS
              Enhancing Geohazard Mapping through LIDAR and High-resolution Imagery
              Doppler System Development
              Landslide Sensors Development
              Storm Surge Inundation Mapping
              Weather Information Integration for System Enhancement (WISE)

              The current NOAH Program team is composed of the scientist-leaders of these projects. The country’s warning agencies: PAG-ASA and PHIVOLCS are also represented.

              Within two years, NOAH shall provide high-resolution flood hazard maps and install 600 automated rain gauges and 400 water level measuring stations for 18 major river basins of the Philippines…

            • chempo says:

              Question — if it is for monitoring environmental changes, why does it have such a shelf life? — 15 or 18 months I think?

              • I was thinking the same thing when I saw the picture, it looks like a Rubic’s cube in space. Don’t most satellites have those solar wings,

              • madlanglupa says:

                This being a small satellite, it would be akin to Sputnik, and besides, I believe they’ll use this first satellite as a stepping stone for further projects, to scale up the technology for longer orbital periods.

  26. Joe America says:

    Off topic, but I must promote Irineo’s latest read. Never has linguistics and history been put together so well to explain today:


    • R.Hiro says:

      Good base to look at globalization in early times. But this is not really off topic.

      For the reluctant empire that the U.S. is, the sad truth is that for the so called “LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD” the U.S. knows very little about the world.

      The U.S. joined the colonization game late and saw the Philippines as their springboard and base for their entry into China and the eastern portion of the largest land mass of the world Eurasia. Recently the first commercial and passenger train from China entered Iran.

      That means in the future the links to Turkey, onto the Balkans and ultimately to Germany and the rest of Europe by rail.

      Turkey, the Balkans, the Middle East and off course Persia onto Central Asia and China. Look through the history books and you will find armed conflicts in these areas going back centuries for control and power papered over by religion. Western Europe sent explorers by sea to get to India and China since the Turks monopolized the territories they had to pass through.

      Naturally the Philippines and Indonesia being the largest archipelagic countries in the world, navigating the seas became primordial. This is where geography and natural resources determined their futures.

      The U.S. has always been an inward looking country led by the top of the food chain the Norther Europeans who made up the bulk of the first set of colonizers in the Americas. in the early days even if Columbus attempted to migrate to the U.S. and tried to become a citizen he was barred since he came from Southern Europe.

      Immigration laws changed with the times and even the so called “coolie races”, the Asians were allowed to immigrate to the U.S.

      Meanwhile the Chinese are extremely allergic to Western propagation of multilateralism in the name of free trade. Viscount Palmerston in the 19th century used “gunboat diplomacy to force China to open to free trade then mostly centered on the opium trade. China will never forget. The same with Western interference in their affairs throughout the entire 20th century.

      That puts the Philippines who is nothing but free real estate for the tip of the spear for U.S. interests for and against China.

      That has been and continues to be the Philippines role in their relationship with the U.S.

      Whoever is ultimately elected President in the U.S. and whether the degree of engagement or containment of China will rise or fall will depend on global economic conditions.

      The Philippines government will follow in lock step whoever is elected. All the presidentiables here have already expressed a willingness to remove all restrictions in the constitution. Beggars cannot be choosers as they say.

      • R.Hiro says:

        Simply look at Trumps future foreign policy advisors —-OIL, OIL, OIL and anti-Shia crescent meaning Iran, Syria…. China he can make deals with….

        /23/donald_trumps_fanatical_braintrust_why_his_foreign_policy_advisors_are_even_worse_than_you_think/rumps foreign policy brain trust and you will see where he is headed.

        • R.Hiro,

          re that Salon article, I wonder who the writer thinks would’ve been better picks for advisors. I, myself, have only heard of Walid Phares in that line-up (‘cept Sessions)— I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but the guy knows Lebanon (no one came out clean in that one).

          The beauty with American Middle-East policy is that we’ve seen both strategies play-out w/in the span of two presidencies— basically the Neo-con approach and the Liberal bleeding-heart approach (Hillary/Samantha Power/CNAS folks) all converge in the same place.

          The only consolation with Trump is that he seems to be echoing Obama’s view of the Middle-East (which is basically Ron Paul’s), cut our losses and go.

          As far as keeping Iraqi oil, it is very likely that Northern Iraq, will become Southern Kurdistan after ISIS, oil concessions have been American and UK, and now continuing, http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Finally-Good-News-For-Oil-Companies-In-Kurdish-Iraq.html So Trump’s not saying anything new re Iraqi oil.

          Trump’s stance on NATO is spot on, UK, France & Germany are not carrying their weight. S. Korea’s security apparatus is there for N. Korea, but their 2nd target ironically is the US— so have them carry their weight. Japan is now poised to carry its weight– good for them. Trump has said, he’ll have Saudi Arabia start carrying its own weight here on out.

          Bluster aside, I do think Trump’s more in line with Obama, than say Cruz or Clinton (she wants to reengage the ME again, which would mean more bleeding-heart policies).

          Trump’s named advisors notwithstanding, he’s basically on track in the Middle East. I’m down with any policy or strategy that mirrors Ron Paul’s. As far as American corporations brought in the fold when it comes to American foreign policy, take a look at Obama’s entourage to Cuba— so Trump’s not so different.

          The only difference, is under Trump the Koch bros. will be shut out. Trump’s bringing in his buddies— whether that’s good or not, who knows. But the point here is that Trump is more Ron Paul than anyone. And that’s good.

          I gotta feeling that if the writer for that Salon article got to chose his dream team advisors, many of them will come from http://www.cnas.org/ (though I like their environmental security work) , who were in charge of Obama’s ME strategy, they’ve been largely discredited.

          • To connect it to the Philippines, basically Trump’s playing the “What can you do for me [us]?” game. Not so isolationist as Ron Paul, but pragmatic.

            • RHiro says:

              I am much confused by your characterization of the neo-con approach or the bleeding heart approach. You obviously have very little knowledge and understand of the situation in the M.E. Allow me to connect the dots as to why the M.E. matters to the Philippines.

              FDR Jr. committed to Saudi Arabia the full force and might of the U.S. military in exchange for exclusive access to Saudi oil. This was in 1944. He told the British then in that historic meeting, yours is the oil of Persian, we shall share the oil of iraq and Kuwat, but the oil of Saudi Arabia is ours. With that promise the House of Saud went on to consolidate its power among the tribes. Bretton Woods signed in 1944

              U.S. and U.K. through the CIA and MI-6 depose the duly elected President in Persia. Reza Shah Pavlavi become absolute ruler. He changes the name of Persia to Iran.

              1971 – death of Bretton Woods. Value of dollar collapsed against major currencies. Price of oil was pegged in dollars. OPEC then raised prices using the pretext the Yom Kippur war. OPEC was importing U.S. inflation due to weak dollar.

              Economic weakness in the Philippines combined with tripling of oil prices was all the pretext Marcos needed for his martial law. The huge transfer of wealth to M.E. gave the Philippines the impetus to start the export of workers to the M.E.

              Her Highness Imelda then hobnobbed with the Shah who was spending Iran’s oil wealth like there was no tomorrow. In 1979 he was toppled by a popular revolt. Another oil price hike and this time inflation was ravaging the world. Volker steps in in 1979 and raises the overnite rate to double digits and precipitates the Latin American and Philippine debt crisis
              followed by Aquino’s assassination. Do you know what happened next?

              Soviet Union invades Afghanistan and Carter and Reagan with Saudi funds decide to train and supply the insurgency against the Soviets in Afghanistan. One of the more committed insurgent groups were led by a Sheik named Usama. Muslims from Indonesia, Philippines and from other countries whose religion was Islam flocked to the base called Al Qaeda.

              Al Qaeda was unique since it was predominantly Sunni. They brought with them the perverted Wahhabism version of Islam and funded the madrassahs.

              By 1986 high interest rates and high prices killed the demand for oil. Soviet Union found it hard to pay for its bills. Similarly Iraq that went to war vs iran was broke and with oil prices low decided to invade Kuwait…

              Here in the Philippines we had to declare a debt moratorium in 1983. Reagan’s boys put together a bail out package but insisted that the Philippines had to honor all its foreign debt. Cory did just that and announced it to the U.S. congress. So we got U.S. and printed more pesos and the dollars were to used to pay our foreign obligations to foreign companies.

              So when an ignoramus like trump treats foreign policy like the World Wrestling Federation and warns the Muslim world that even nukes are on the table, do you think the core leaders of Daesh would welcome his entry into the fray? They would love it…

              Their aim is to force the U.S. and Western Europe into an overreaction which could turn the M.E. into hell on earth with our Filipinos and our remittances going up in smoke.

              Essentially America is siding with the same group who precipitated 9/11. All the major terrorist incidents involving Al Qaeda, Daesh and directed vs the U.S. are Sunni Arabs insurgents. Except for the bombing of the U.S. barracks in Lebanon which was precipitated by Shias. This after the massacre of Palestinians in two refugee camps under Sharons IDF. Reagan withdrew immediately after that incident.

              So you see our future is tied to the M.E., imported oil and the dollar.

              The Iran nuclear deal was a major breakthrough…

              • “So when an ignoramus like trump treats foreign policy like the World Wrestling Federation and warns the Muslim world that even nukes are on the table, do you think the core leaders of Daesh would welcome his entry into the fray? They would love it…”

                Trump had no problem with Putin bombing in Syria, “moderate” rebels or ISIS. He wants Saudi Arabia to foot the bill this time. He lambasted GW’s wars via Jeb. Bluster aside, Trump isn’t entering into the fray, RHiro, that’s my point. He’s the opposite.

                Now, Trump’s critical of the Iran deal. IMHO, it was a bad deal… why are we paying Iran millions w/out any say where they can spend it? http://thehill.com/policy/defense/266619-kerry-some-iran-sanctions-relief-will-go-to-terrorists (I’ve never given money to the homeless, when I do feel magnanimous I’ll ask what they want on the dollar menu, and get it for them, because I know 9 times out of 10 the money I give them will go to booz or drugs).

                “Their aim is to force the U.S. and Western Europe into an overreaction which could turn the M.E. into hell on earth with our Filipinos and our remittances going up in smoke.”

                With or without ISIS, it’s time to go. Again, that’s the point here. GW Bush was an overreaction, Obama’s was an underreaction. The only next option is no reaction (realistically minimal reaction, though Ron Paul’s stance was cut and go, but I understand we’ll still have interests there aside from oil, like non-proliferation, etc.).

                As far as Filipino OFWs in the Middle East, I doubt the Gulf States will suffer much with or without American presence or a smaller American presence, they’re diversifying— even they know that the US is peeling out soon and the oil orgy is coming to a close.

                So again it’s time to cut our losses and Trump is echoing those sentiments. Hence his popularity here.

                “So you see our future is tied to the M.E., imported oil and the dollar.”

                If we were able to become oil independent (at least from the ME) in one presidency, the Philippines can do too (That’s mostly why Hillary’s Dept of State, promoted fracking abroad, but that’s a different topic). So the Philippines doesn’t have to be tied to the ME is my point here, RHiro.

                Though I agree with you that we are siding too much with the Sunnis, the Sunnis do make the majority of Muslims. The devil we know vs. the devil we don’t know— though Iran as a Shi’a nation, plus its non-Shi’as (for example a very vibrant Jewish community remains in Iran, so too eastern Christians, thanks to their connections to Beverly Hills) they are the closest to us culturally, the Sunnis still make up the majority.

                Remember I agree with you that Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis are the biggest threat, and ISIS is simply just the extension of said threat, your comment here, https://joeam.com/2015/11/22/the-islamic-renaissance-in-the-philippines/#comment-148716

                But where you suggested this,

                R.Hiro: “Why not simply wipe out Saudi Arabia before they buy the nuclear bomb from Pakistan???? They are the greatest threat to world peace…”

                I would posit that Trump’s leaving the ME will do something similar, but a total about face would lead to Saudi Arabia panicking, so although we don’t need ME oil any longer, we’ll have to drop Saudi Arabia gently, wean them off, at the same time pursue non-Proliferation.

                That’s a policy nuance that’s not as important to me right now, I just want the candidates to describe their approaches, so far we have the Republicans touting the Neo-con approach and Hillary still waving her bleeding-heart approach banner.

                Trump’s the only one expressing the little to no-reaction approach.

                But again the point is we stop meddling, Trump’s the only one talking that talk right now.


                “I am much confused by your characterization of the neo-con approach or the bleeding heart approach.”

                Do you think Hillary, Samantha Power, and CNAS were on the right side with their Arab Spring approach? My point is that the GW approach and Obama (under Hillary) approach both ended up in the same place, instability.

                Trump would pursue a little to no-reaction doctrine— which would essentially be Obama’s original approach (w/out Hillary’s interference). Again, Trump’s operating from a “What’s in it for me [us]?” approach.

                Your retort, RHiro, should focus on Trump and his policies in the M.E., if you think I’m wrong that he would actually go back into the ME, then I’d be open to that— but part of his appeal over here, is precisely because he’s taken an opposite route laid out by Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Hillary… he’s more in line with Bernie and Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son (but those two are true isolationists) when it comes to the ME.

              • RHiro says:


                Your candidates policy on the M.E. Destroy ISIS and grab and protect the oil for us. He is channeling 19th century ideas.

                Once again your problem is that you take Trumps verbosity as fact. The U.S. is not giving IRAN monetary aid. Due to the lifting of sanctions they get their money back which had been frozen.

                My comment on wiping out Saudi Arabia was meant to show the bias of the U.S. establishment including Trump in isolating Iran as the principal enemy of the U.S. in the M.E. The entire propaganda machinery of the U.S. including both parties do not dwell on the fact that the 9/11 insurgents were primarily from Saudi Arabia.

                Why the apoplectic fear of the U.S. about Iran. During the campaign did you hear anyone point to Saudi Arabia as the main proponent of spreading the Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia funds madrassahs all over the world with this perverted version. Imagine the Ku Klux Klan funding schools with their Northern European white supremacist ideology. Watch the mainstream media in the U.S. with all the candidates.

                The seed of discontent in the M.E. continues to be the Israel-Palestinian problem. Just because the Sunnis are the majority in the Muslim world is of no consequence. Saudi Arabia has been using their oil wealth to spread a vicious virus.

                Just like in 1986 Saudi Arabia is pumping their cheap oil to gain market share in a bear market. Why do you think Putin started his overt policy in the M.E. He supports Assad in Syria precisely because he knows Saudi Arabia is against Assad and starts talking with the Saudis about cutting production of oil. Putin’s Russia has a surplus of weaponry but a lack of revenues due to the falling price of oil. At the same time Russia courts Iran. Eurasia is China, Russia, India and Western Europe. There is no room for the U.S.

                Power relations in the 21st century has already altered the structure of global geo-politics.

                The United States is very slow in coming to grips with the realities of the major shifts. The U.S. continues to revel in their triumphalism. Russia was left economically infirm with the shift from command to market economy. Thirty years after she has recovered somewhat due to the bull market in oil and gas propelled almost entirely by China and India.

                The U.S. economy has been hurt badly as the political establishment has completely allowed the hollowing out of the middle class.

                Trump is simply channeling the frustrations of the white minority in the States. He is after all part of the establishment that can say what comes to his snake mind, simply because he can afford it.

                You notice there are no advisors that have experiences in Asia.

                “Make White America Strong Again” is actually Trumps slogan that defines his policy for everything…

                Clinton is plain vanilla. Naturally she would bring more stability to the neo colonial relations with the Philippines

              • Joe America says:

                Thanks, RHiro. I appreciate the briefing. Enlightening.

              • Joe America says:

                Thanks, RHiro. I appreciate the briefing. Enlightening.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Many thanks for sharing your vast knowledge in history, political economy,geopolitics,etc.
                As Joe said ,it is very enlightening.

              • http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/ (read)

                “Your candidates policy on the M.E. Destroy ISIS and grab and protect the oil for us. He is channeling 19th century ideas.

                Once again your problem is that you take Trumps verbosity as fact. The U.S. is not giving IRAN monetary aid. Due to the lifting of sanctions they get their money back which had been frozen.”


                Again, Kurdish oil is nominally already the West’s (with their consent), so what Trump is saying is already pretty much done. As for destroy ISIS, he’s the only one that hasn’t said he’d commit more troops (hence the Obama and Ron Paul likeness in policy).

                As for Iran, much of this deal is in the dark, what’s in public is unfrozen assets, but its the actuarial stuff (interests, alleviation of lost in profits, etc.), like that Iranian trust fund issue in that link above that makes this whole Iran nuke deal questionable (the US could’ve kept that in legal limbo, so the sense is that Obama bent over backwards, when that should’ve been a punitive negotiation, it should have never turned into a winning the Lottery scenario)— so Iran got the better end of the deal.


                “My comment on wiping out Saudi Arabia was meant to show the bias of the U.S. establishment including Trump in isolating Iran as the principal enemy of the U.S. in the M.E. The entire propaganda machinery of the U.S. including both parties do not dwell on the fact that the 9/11 insurgents were primarily from Saudi Arabia.”

                Though I agree with you that Saudi Arabia should be on our sights, not just Iran. This is my point about Trump, he’s both cynical about Iran and Saudi Arabia— and that’s why he’s popular. Hillary (and Bill’s) foundation takes money from Saudi’s, same with the Bush family, and if Ted Cruz is now canoodling with the Koch bros. no doubt he’ll soon be pro-Saudi too.

                Again, only Trump differs from the pack. He said he’ll make Saudi Arabia start pulling their weight (no one can say that, because of their ties). People haven’t forgotten who the 9/11 hi-jackers were, and where the bulk of the foreign fighters in Iraq killing American soldiers came from, they know how to add those two together, RHiro

                and I’d venture that’s again why Trump is popular.

                Again, per our discussion in the Islamic Renaissance thread, I too lean more towards Iran, I’ve shared this book below here a couple of times, a great policy read (but I’m still sold on the Ron Paul, pulling out wholesale option, so any approach that resembles that is good to me)


                “Why the apoplectic fear of the U.S. about Iran. During the campaign did you hear anyone point to Saudi Arabia as the main proponent of spreading the Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia funds madrassahs all over the world with this perverted version. “

                I think this fact, though it’s no mystery to the average American that Salafi islam comes from Saudi Arabia, the lack of attack in the debates has more to do with Saudi Arabia’s friend status— again only Trump has parted ways when he stated that they should pull their weight, but honestly if Wahhabism came up, of all the candidates, Trump would be the first to jump on that… it’s just that the Iran deal is a much easier attack.

                So stay tuned, I’m sure if any candidates will bring this issue up, it’d be Trump. That’s basically Walid Phares’ expertise.


                “Just because the Sunnis are the majority in the Muslim world is of no consequence. “

                You have to differentiate between Wahhabi/Salafi and the rest of Sunnis. Filipino Muslims are Sunnis. If you attack Saudi Arabia directly, you’ll be attacking the Saudi family, the Saudi family are the Guardians of the Two Holy Places. So keep ’em close, but start pulling out (Hillary and Cruz won’t do that)


                “Make White America Strong Again” is actually Trumps slogan that defines his policy for everything…”

                Trump calls it the silent majority, though I agree many White men make up the silent majority. I think, as we move forward, Trump will claim the center and win over more non-White men, blue collars (we’ll see this play out in NY and Pennsylvania). I have a strong feeling that he’ll pick a woman VP (and she’ll be hotter and more articulate than Hillary and Palin combined), that should mitigate the women vote.

                Many blacks are already promoting Trump (Ben Carson, Herman Cain, etc.). He’ll start parading his Hispanic supporters soon, then eventually it’ll be Make America Great Again— w/out the White, White is just to get the Republican nomination, you gotta out Republican everyone else. 😉


                “You notice there are no advisors that have experiences in Asia.”

                Those 5 he’s announced are just the beginning, I gotta feeling his Asia experts will not be oil or CT experts, but trade experts. We’ll see.

                But the over arching point here is that Trump, when it comes to the Middle East, is very different from Hillary and Ted Cruz, you’ve not made a case yet that Trump is the same as Hillary and Cruz (and Kasich), RHiro. 😉

              • If Trump wins over the blue collar workers, all that red and push further north, thus winning the presidency. So Trump’s only next move is to win over non-White blue collars.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Related to RHiro and Lance’s discussion.


                Saudi Arabia Is More Dangerous as a Frenemy than Iran is as an Adversary

                Saudi Arabia and Iran continue to turn their national struggle into a religious conflict. The first is dangerous. The second could be catastrophic. Yet Riyadh, America’s nominal ally, has demonstrated that it is the more reckless of the two states, by executing an important Shia cleric and severing diplomatic relations with Iran.

              • karl,

                Good article. But unless the US can do a magic trick, in which we switch Friend (Iran) to Foe (Saudi Arabia), probably better to stay with the Devil you Know, than the Devil you Don’t.

                During the Iraq/Iran war the US tried to play both sides, finally cutting off Saddam.

                The best play over there, is to leave it all together— not side with Iran.

                As to non-proliferation, EU, Russia and surrounding states will have to carry their weight.

                Only Trump as expressed those sentiments, neither Hillary or Cruz.

      • Joe America says:

        Very interesting reading, and I know of nothing that contradicts your characterization of the US. It seems very “spot on”. You are even kind enough to call it “inward looking” rather than self obsessed. As for the Philippines, I don’t see how the nation avoids being some part of the line that divides east and west, and maybe it is better to be the tip of the spear for the US than the butt end for China . . . and to make any ideas about acquisition of any PH real estate frighteningly expensive.

        • R.Hiro says:

          Fear and self interest is the driver of warfare and I am sure that China’s expansion into the SCS is simply following the example of the U.S.in having forward fire bases away from their mainland. They will be packed with radar and communications gear that may be part of China’s total theater dominance of the seas closest to their mainland. They are good learners to their main teachers the American military.

          They need lessons in PR on how to follow a course of benign colonization as the U.S.does. Coca Cola, Spam and the Big Mac.

          The should follow the tack of our local Chinese here. Chinese food outsells hamburgers by huge gap. .

          • Joe America says:

            China proceeds forthwith to isolate herself, having just pissed Indonesia off with a nice bit of ocean thuggery, and they are rubbing against Filipino fishermen near Panatag, military development of which which puts their missiles in range of Manila, I suppose. China could conquer the world by joining it, and will only get demolished by trying to dominate it. Seems to me, anyway.

            I think I’ll do a “scare blog” about Panagag, because that is simple too damn close for a military enterprise from an enemy. Reference Russian missiles in Cuba.

            • sonny says:

              Speaking of the Philippine tip to the American spear, Teddy Roosevelt was willing to be Gov-Gen of the Philippines albeit tad short of the American presidency.

      • RHiro, the Turks (another conquering people on horseback) blocking the Spice trade and forcing the Portuguese and then the Spanish to look for new routes is significant.

        But the human not animal spirits of cultures that go by their habits acquired through centuries are significant. From the Hittites shocking the Egyptians to Cortez shocking the Aztecs on horseback there is a long historical arc formed by habits of conquest.

        From the Austronesians settling the Pacific to Filipino migration there is an arc as well.

        • josephivo says:

          Cortez “shocking” and decimating with new diseases.

        • RHiro says:

          Reminder: Close to 99% of human DNA is similar to the chimpanzee. Hence we are ruled by our many levels of consciousness. Temujin and his fellow Mongols were migratory herdsmen. He was the first major globalist. They had to keep moving to find land. Naturally the other territories were not very welcoming. The Chinese had to build a wall to try to keep them out.

          They were not tourists. The same with the Romans. The Portuguese and Spanish conquistadors were not out for a world tour. It was with the gold and silver from the Americas that Spain paid for its empire. But the English skill and their animal spirits stole a lot of that silver and gold. Both India and Canada were ruled by corporations whose only purpose was profit….The opium for tea trade was simply to supply a beverage for afternoon snacks for the English people. Forget the profit picture.

          It was said that the cheap lumber from North America allowed England then to build the strongest navy in the world. “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves” England being an island country had to depend on ships for trade.

          Suggestion: look for a torrent from which you can download “Why Nations Fail” Good read about the animal spirits that drive development through “animal spirits”

  27. Madlanglupa says:

    Just in: Pope does not endorse presidential candidates.


  28. OT From the Fil-Am front: this might especially interest LCPL_X:


    In limited release and streamed on demand on March 25th, “They’re Watching” has on the surface all the markers of a mainstream movie: An all-white cast of millennials and their poor role models from generation X all spewing F-bombs as if Webster’s contained no other obscene ejaculations. …

    If “They’re Watching” becomes the sleeper hit of 2016, the Hollywood establishment will be forced to grapple with the hidden demons of Best Served Cold Productions led by Rico Jeffrey Garcia, executive producer and member of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and Mark Lagrimas, Filipino American producer….

    this is OUR artistic revenge… a native Filipino i.e. Igorot film producer and a Native American investor with money from reservation casinos… making a crazy ghost movie

    • I saw the trailer, Ireneo. But IMHO, I’m no film critic, but this whole Blair Witch (first person, video cam) and Human Centipede (basically, our “scary” view of Eastern Europe) is played out. This film seems an amalgamation of those two genres, plus a couple more I can’t lay my finger on (reality TV, I guess is one).

      As far as the production, http://bestservedcoldproductions.com/Best_Served_Cold/Who_we_are.html , more power to them. I’m familiar with San Manuel casino, and glad to see them diversify. But with the popularity of Heneral Luna, why not do films only they can make, ie. Filipino & San Manuel?

  29. Bill in Oz says:

    This blog asks which candidate is best for the Philippines..But really the USA is about deciding which candidate is best for the USA..Meanwhile here is a report from the Guardian which analyzes what’s going on in working class areas of the USA…

    One thing it did not say : Living in a trailer for want of a real home, is no fun in a USA Winter.

    • Perfect timing, I was just commenting on this re blue collars—- who’ve been Democrats. Trump can win those guys over easy.

      • Joe America says:

        I have booted two American trolls from this dialogue because they were just here to promote their candidates, and it is not what I had in mind for this particular article. The discussion should be framed in terms of what this means to the Philippines, if that is at all possible. I found R Hiro’s parsing of Middle Eastern motives and allegiances pertinent because the Philippines has material interests in the Middle East, in terms of OFW placements. Will Trump’s hardline views promote the rise of terrorists in the Philippines? Now THAT is relevant here. Poverty in America is not, as far as I can tell.

        • “Will Trump’s hardline views promote the rise of terrorists in the Philippines?”

          Hillary promises to do more Libyan-type interventions. Cruz wants to do a third Iraq invasion.

          Trump’s bluster pales in comparison, what he’s said so far is that he’d rather let Putin (before cessation of military ops) bomb in Syria, than us going in there.

          Anything Hillary, Cruz and Trump does will promote some sorta rise, per my article on this, the takfiri side of the Salafi movement is winding down.

          If there are Filipino Muslims now participating in ISIS on the ground or virtually, sure. But the guy who choses to NOT get into the fray, I think is the safest bet, Joe (bluster aside).

          • Joe America says:

            I’d personally feel more secure if American tools were behind the AFP anti-terrorism effort, and her bigger tools were keeping China from doing anything extreme. My problem is that I can’t KNOW Trump, or have confidence in him, because his pronouncements are so wild. It’s good that you are assured he is mostly bark, and his bite would be calculated, but I’m not there yet.

            • Agreed. If I were Filipino, I’d chose Hillary, better for the Philippines. But America right now just needs a shake up, I don’t think Bernie can deliver, so it’s Trump for me.

              The lesson here, I think is that the Philippines should prepare for a Trump presidency.

              Instead of just being passive, expecting America there, Filipino leadership need to perform, be active, and make their case that the Philippines is in a very useful position for the US vis-a-vis China.

              What can you do for me [us]? Will be Trump’s approach.

              I gotta feeling Trump’s Dept of State will have someone like John Bolton as head, he’s no bleeding heart (there’s a couple more similar),

              • Jake says:

                The Philippines has more leverage negotiating if Trump is the president than Sanders.

                Here’s the scenario:

                Sanders: will do his best to “bring back” the US jobs Filipinos ‘stole”

                Trump: If he gets certain business privileges, he might invest more (I believe Manila has Trump building) therefore, more jobs for Filipinos.

              • Agreed. Sanders is more of an isolationist and nationalist than Trump.

              • Jake says:

                The problem with Sanders “jobs to be taken back” is these are the jobs that Americans do not really want. Liberal Americans, esp Millennials do not want to work, but want to collect their check.

                Even at the height of the economic recession, there was labor shortage in the farming industry. Laid off and jobless Americans were not lining up for the jobs as vegetable picker. The US had to import laborers South of the Border. I bet that if the assembly manufacturing would be brought back, Americans won’t be submitting their application. Hence, necessitating importation of unskilled laborers.

                In a few decades, America will be a country of unskilled laborers

        • Bill in Oz says:

          Joe I think you are wrong here…Globalisation has lead to the transfer of jobs off shore from the USA..And many of those jobs are now here in the Philippines..BPO jobs especially…
          That process has hollowed out the USA middle class and the working class. And there is massive disenchantment in the USA because of that..Trump has emerged as a presidential candidate in at big picture….I think Trump as president would have much more isolationist trade and industry policies..Leading to adverse impacts in the Philippines..It’s all connected big picture stuff, Joe….

          • Bill in Oz says:

            For 12 years I managed an organic farm in Australia Jake, paying regular casual wages at rates mandated by the state with taxes deducted, superannuation paid and work cover as well..I had no trouble getting locals or backpackers to work for me…

            In the USA low hourly rates with no superannuation or work cover all mean no local wants to do the work..So dirt poor Latinos from El Salvador Or Guatamala or Nicuaragua or Mexicans will…All in the interests of providing cheap produce ?

            • karlgarcia says:

              On a not so related note….
              For Filipinos,aside from cheap oil prices in Saudi,their version of the jobs taken back would be a problem for the tens of thousands of Filipinos in Saudi Arabia.


              • karlgarcia says:

                Good thing you can hire locals right away.
                In the US as Jake said, the jobs taken back are the the unwanted jobs by Americans.
                In saudi according to the one I quote, it is the same thing.

                “One Saudi employer complained to a Western journalist (Max Rodenbeck) “I want to hire Saudis, but why would I hire someone who I know won’t show up, won’t care, and can’t be fired.””

          • Joe America says:

            Well, actually, the BPO industry is an example of my point that technology has removed career paths from the US. We need to explore that “massive disenchantment” a little better to see if it is really massive and if it is attached to jobs, or politics and the increasing inability of middle-class Americans to afford things. Like college for their kids.

            There are two sides to every coin, and I think Americans also recognize that the climb back from the 2008 economic collapse has been steady and profound, and quite amazing when one considers jobs replaced by technology and the “illegals”. Retirement funds are back from their hefty losses, people have jobs.

            Terrorism is a frustration, and America’s endless engagements in deadly battles. People are tired of it. Climate change is having profound impact with droughts and storms. Changing social mores, LGBT, marijuana, family planning . . . The drive for clean energy . . . Immigration . . .

            There is a lot going on. I’d say “massive disenchantment” mis-characterizes the mood of most Americans toward the nation, but is correct if the topic is Washington DC politicians who are supposed to be charting a bipartisan path through these issues, but are instead putting the nation’s well-being on the brink for partisan advantage. THAT is the frustration that both Trump and Sanders are tapping. Politics.

      • R.Hiro says:


        LCpl_X you had me when you said that the average American is knowledgeable about the Sunnis and Shias. The same with the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi’s.

        The same with your comment you made about white blue collars and Trump combined with the tremendous following of Herman Cain and Ben Carson with the African American community.

        The same with your comment about Kurdish oil and Irans assets…You really have me with your answers.

        If the Obama coalition comes out in force to vote, no white force can take the Presidency away from the Democrats. It is entirely theirs to lose. Electoral votes matter….Not the popular vote. African Americans, Latinos, Women and Sanders youth come out to vote Democrat it will be all over.

        So far Trump has polled up to 37% of the primary votes. Some primaries were open and some were not. Open means democrats could vote. Has he hit his ceiling?

        We live in interesting times.

        • RHiro,

          Walid Phares (and those similar) is on FOX News regularly,

          so yes the narrative that Wahhabism comes from Saudi Arabia is pretty common knowledge. What the average American fails to do is differentiate between the two, ie. which threat is better, or worst. But the fact that both Iran and Saudi Arabia are no good for America is a common narrative from FOX News.

          As far as blue collar Democrats voting for Trump in the general, that’s simply my reading of the situation.

          re Kurdish oil, which oil companies are there now? re Iranian deal, was or was not the deal simply about Iranian assets? It simply wasn’t. There were elements of the deal that did not have to be entertained, but was offered anyways— bad deal for the US, good for Iran.

          “African Americans, Latinos, Women and Sanders youth come out to vote Democrat it will be all over.” You’re free to play prediction too, RHiro, but IMHO you’re missing the rage that exists in both parties (Bernie’s movement looks a lot like Trump’s), 2008 came and went a long time ago.

          For the sake of the Philippines, maybe you’re right that Hillary will win. But Trump’s changing a lot of rules this year.

          • R.Hiro says:

            Oh now you had me by showing Phares on Fox news. I would hazard a guess that your average Americans are all educated by Fox news.

            Your liberal words like the leftist Sanders and all that. Don’t you think Megyn Kelley has a face that could launch a thousand ships?

            • R.Hiro says:

              Now that I know you also are a Fox news fan this is a link on who buys Kurdish oil from the Liberal Leftist Marxist Socialist Muslim press. Am sure you will appreciate it. Sometimes I wish our scoundrel politicians would use their talents to buy oil from secondary sources like the Kurds who apparently sell their oil in the grey market. Similar to the privateers /pirates/smugglers who helped England gain power and the U.S. colonialists who used their smggling skills in fighting the British…


              • re Kurdish oil that’s just part of their bid for independence (going around Baghdad), a post ISIS Iraq will be without Northern Iraq, hence the Kurdish fighters (with Army Special Forces and Marine Raiders) are the ones fighting up north not the Iraqi military.

                The companies drilling and pumping the oil are still Western and the oil (whether the official or “black market” stuff) is still going West. Because Kurdistan had always been pro-US, pro-West in spite of Turkey.

                Now theres a good chance a post Iraq 3 nation state will begin finding there own buyers, non-West, but for now it is still going West, official or not (per that reuters link).

                Trump won’t be able to have it both ways to “take” the oil and pivot out of the ME, but his statements about pivoting out (continuing Obama’s policies there) look more like policy statements, while taking their oil rhetoric more a critique on GW Bush’s Iraq war.

                With the US now exporting oil, I’m sure Trump will focus on non-ME oil, consistent with his pivot out of the ME rhetoric.

                re FOX News and the average American knowing Wahhabis come form Saudi Arabia, my point wasn’t that all Americans watch FOX— Republicans watch FOX News, while Bernie supporters are big fans of Hollywood, Michael More films, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, etc. etc. who are more critical of Saudi Arabia, ramped up during the Bush administration.

                So this Wahhabi, Saudi narrative exists on both sides, whether you’re conservative or liberal, RHiro Though the American gov’t might have a hard time figuring out if Saudi Arabia is friend or foe, the average American knows Saudi Arabia and Iran are no good for them— that’s both conservative and liberal.

              • “Don’t you think Megyn Kelley has a face that could launch a thousand ships?”

                I’m more a Dan Perino fan, RHiro 😉

              • oooops… That should read Dana Perino.

              • karlgarcia says:

                what a relief! I googled Dan perino and he soread Flyers of “Looking For A Girlfriend”

              • Joe America says:

                🙂 🙂 🙂 I thought he might have meant Dan Marino, former Miami quarterback.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Yes, Lance Corporal X must also love foot ball.😄

              • LOL!

                karl, Not a fan of organized/professional sports, watching millionaires play the sports I loved as a kid is not my cup of tea.

                But I am a fan of rock climbing and parkour, so this is what keeps me interested when I watch TV these days (plus all the Survival shows). Is this popular in the Philippines as well—Ninja Warrior franchise?

              • Joe America says:

                American Ninja Warrior is shown here. I don’t know how popular it is. We need a Filipino contestant. Then it would get popular fast.

              • karlgarcia says:

                A Filipino-American Won in the Seventh Season.


                There are many mountain trekkers and climbers here.Maybe soon there will be a franchise.

              • Joe America says:

                Ah, very good. I didn’t know that!

              • Joe America says:

                Ah, very good. I didn’t know that!

              • karlgarcia says:

                I only just found out myself.

    • Joe America says:

      You raise two issues: (1) why even consider Trump vs Clinton when Filipinos can’t vote, and (2) that life is hard for the working poor of America.

      (1a) To understand whether America has a Nimitz or a MacArthur running, and to raise a voice if it is a MacArthur.

      (1b) To end the ignorance among “Foreigners” (Filipinos, Australians, whatever) so they may better understand the context of American politics and decisions and feel a part of those deliberations.

      (1c) To possibly raise and explore the parallel between Trump and Duterte.

      (1d) To help American voters of Filipino heritage or family connections become aware of views of others who are concerned about Filipinos.

      (2a) That’s true.

      • Madlanglupa says:

        > (1c) To possibly raise and explore the parallel between Trump and Duterte.

        Now this is relevant: how Fil-Ams see Trump — the answer is with fear and trepidation, especially as he is indirectly promoting racial discrimination and profiling, and thus fearing possible loss of further liberties and increased hostility towards the United States.


        • Joe America says:

          Yes, Trump seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth, on one hand, saying Mexicans coming to the US are rapists, and the other that Mexicans love him. He is not the master of diplomatic nuance, for sure, and if America wants a wild bull in the diplomatic china shop, they should definitely go for Trump.

          I can’t figure the guy out, but if I were a minority and heard him talking his sharp talk against Muslims and minorities, I’d think that maybe I’m next on his hit list.

        • maru0907 says:

          Precisely the sentiments of Fil-Am friends in the US. Hence they are all out Clinton.
          Apparently, most americans won’t take lower jobs and would rather take unemployment checks.

          Enlightening discussion. Either of them will be good for the Philippines, but I prefer Clinton. Won’t be so hard convincing her of the country’s importance to American interests in Asia compared to Trump. Anybody have any idea if the US is going to deploy more permanent surveillance and defensive capabilities on the EDCA bases? Our Military can operate them no need for them to deploy so much troops. Just want their hardware. (“,)

          • “Our Military can operate them no need for them to deploy so much troops. Just want their hardware.”

            After Mamasapano, the counter-terrorism approach in the Philippines took a back seat. So I think the only surveillance/defensive capabilities are ones for China, which means bigger, more technical stuff, the ones the US military doesn’t tend to give away.

            As for the number of troops, since Camp Butler (a series of Marine bases in Okinawa) is drawing down, those units will end up in the Philippines, and Hawaii, Guam and Darwin.

            I’m sure there are drones and other old stuff that the US military will give the Philippines, but the priority should be for leadership, strengthen AFP (and PNP’s) NCO and lower ranks. Professionalize it. Better pay. Otherwise every American hardware will simply just vanish and sold—-

            that’s also another reason why fancier hardware will not be shared, it’ll just end up in China.

            • Madlanglupa says:

              > that’s also another reason why fancier hardware will not be shared, it’ll just end up in China.

              It makes enough sense from a security standpoint, which is why some export weapons platforms have different installed hardware.

      • (1c) To possibly raise and explore the parallel between Trump and Duterte.


        I think the main difference here is that if Duterte is elected, and he fails to “grow” into office, you’ll have another dictator.

        If Trump fails to grow into office, we’ll have a lame duck president, sandwiched and looked after by both sides. It’s less of a threat to us.

        But if Trump does “grow” into office. The gravy train slows to a stop, or if it continues will now be based on merit and/or reciprocity— NO more hand-outs, ala Pakistan.

  30. Jake says:

    Hey Joe,

    I am quite disappointed that you did not include Sanders. Not that I am a fan of the guy because he advocates isolationism and trade barriers and aims to discourage US companies from investing abroad.

    I bring him up here because he actually is gaining ground in the US. Ultra liberals love him as well as the 80 million strong American millennials.

    Sanders is bad for the Philippines. My bet is with Clinton. She has the experience and the familiarity of the very complex situation in this part of the world while Sanders’ view is too simplistic, and naively dangerous.

    This old dude might actually win the Democratic Party while Trump may win the Republican Party

    • Joe America says:

      I probably should have included both Sanders and Cruz and, on reflection, am sorry I didn’t. They are also people of well-defined character and policy.

      Thanks for bringing Sanders up. There is still an outside chance he could win. I agree that his foreign policy views seem naive and simplistic, and his “anti-corporate” stance may cause him to wonder, “why worry about Filipino oil anyhow? None of our business.”

      Yeah. I’m glad you made the point.

    • “This old dude might actually win the Democratic Party while Trump may win the Republican Party”

      If it is Bernie vs. Trump, I’m voting for Bernie Sanders.

      Bernie Sanders will be good for the Philippines because then your Leftists will be redeemed and finally get to work building a country instead of simply undermining one. His value will be more on inspiration, like a Pepe Mujica on steroids, 😉

      • Jake says:

        I think it is an insult to Pepe to compare him to Sanders. Uruguay is generally doing well. Sanders will totally bring the US to post WWI depression

        • Jake,

          Both are essentially fighting for similar policies.

          Both Sanders and Pepe are socialists (democratic or otherwise)— where equality is the ideal, though there’s room for debate in implementation.

          Notice Sanders basically only has 2 pairs of suits— I like his take on austerity personally, though I can see how many would not find it appealing (people want more, not less).

  31. Madlanglupa says:

    Offtopic but might be relevant: Since today is Good Friday, it is only appropriate that I am mindful of the false prophets that are loudly proclaiming themselves to be blessed by God, worshiped by legions of zealots who claim their prophet is always right, and who have powers to create miracles and magic.

    So quoting Matt 7:15-23:

    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

    It is unfortunate that a combination of factors, including lack of proper education for one, makes the average voter susceptible to these false prophets.

  32. Jake says:

    Filipinos concerned about the mainland expansion might actually like Trump.

    He is at least suggesting stronger military presence in East and Southeast Asia. Not passing some US law that hardly binds China to committment.

    • Jake says:

      My take on this: Trump might be potty mouthed but he seems to have good economic foreign and foreign policy makers surrounding him. Sanders on the other hand, I think he means well, but he’s surrounded by people clueless about basic economics and foreign policies.

      • R.Hiro says:

        Now let’s see… The highest progressive marginal income tax rate used to be 90% in, wait a minute, not Russia but the U.S.A. JFK stared the process of lowering it. Followed by Reagan who lowered it further then presided over two tax increases during his term…Hmmmm the U.S. was on top of the world then when the income tax rate topped off at 90%

        Trump like all the establishment Republican before him is proposing further tax cuts for the rich to include property income.

        Why is Northern Europe more successful with their socialist systems?

        • Jake says:

          Nordic countries are overrated…where income tax can even go beyond 100%.

          Maybe, let’s look at one of the countries that has the highest standard of living: Singapore. Highest tax rate is 22%.

          The secret is free trade and open economy. Not making a boogeyman out of the third world countries workers and promoting tariff system…which Sanders is promoting. If you read Trumps website, the policy is bringing the China issue to the WTO, not abolition of free trade. Sanders is, abolish all free trade and put tariff on everything. Imagine how the prices of coffee, cocoa beans, bananas, mangoes, and pineapples will skyrocket.

          Apparently, Sanders is silent about the low wage pickers in Africa and South America. He’s just railing about the low wage assembly line job that Americans do not want. He aint slamming Starbucks, Philz, Peetz…well, Americans aren’t complaining about losing their jobs to coffee planters


          • “Nordic countries are overrated…where income tax can even go beyond 100%.”

            Agreed totally, Jake.

            “The recent rise of socialists that continue to hand out huge public expenditures combined with the broadly supported tax reform is going nowhere in terms of really moving the dial between public and private sectors. Even more, it highlights the fundamental challenges of a social welfare society, and the extreme vulnerability of business and capitalism operating within it.

            So is there really any hope for reforms, rationality, courage and capitalism in a welfare society? The answer is no, not under the current leadership. Some neighboring countries have pursued more responsible policies in recent years, notably Sweden and Finland. In a benchmarking of best practices, both countries have a more efficient use of money in the public sector, better value for money in education and health care, fewer persons permanently placed on social welfare and a more friendly rhetoric towards business, growth and job creation. Both of these countries must be considered traditional social welfare states, but at least show some degree of moderation in their socialist practices.

            So if there is no hope for reforms of the welfare society, the next question must be whether capitalism can exist or co-exist in the long-term in a social welfare state. Essentially, the answer has to be NO.”


            • R.Hiro says:

              Oh yes the Nordic examples are failures according to Forbes.



              You cannot frame your ideas with a black and white world. Grey is the proper color…I strongly suggest you go see the movie Trumbo.

              Anti-red propaganda is deeply ingrained in the American pysche. So is racism. Republicans used this to gain a foothold in Jefferson’s South and near slave states. Roger Aisles job was to deepen this strategy through Fox news. The small government supply side theories, gold bug have long been debunked by history and practice. Steve Forbes and the rest of his ilk are products a of a lost generation.

            • Joe America says:

              I’m enjoying the discussion but I can’t help but note the “modern” method of argument, which is make a statement (black and white, as RHiro say), and defend it with articles that correspond with one’s position. As if anyone writing an article is obviously correct. Well, I’ve written lots of articles, and I can assure readers that is a very bad presumption. This same form of argument is being used relentlessly here during the campaign. People are whipping out all kinds of articles supporting their side of the argument, as if there were no other side. You tend to be more forthright than most, with a grasp of both sides of arguments. But I smile when I see the technique. I tend to agree with RHiro that most solutions are found within the gray, and there are far too few people with the strength of self esteem to let go of a hard position to find a way that works, and is inclusive and respectful.

              This is just an observation.

              Do carry on. I’m enjoying the exchange.

              • “Both of these countries must be considered traditional social welfare states, but at least show some degree of moderation in their socialist practices.”

                Joe, I was just agreeing with Jake that these Nordic nations are overrated– and shared an article I once read. RHiro’s comment was posted concurrently re Singapore.

                Had I read RHiro’s Singapore comment I still would’ve posted the same article but stressed this quote: “Both of these countries must be considered traditional social welfare states, but at least show some degree of moderation in their socialist practices.”

                “moderation” being the operant word there, synonymous to “gray”. So Singapore represents the “gray”, if Singapore represents the “gray” in the pantheon of socialist experiments, the Nordic nations are indeed overrated. 😉 Back to you, Jake.

                I’m not gonna get into an economic debate with RHiro. Joe: “But I smile when I see the technique. “, even with Schopenhauer’s stratagem I’ll be out matched. 😉 So I’ll leave this one to Jake and RHiro.

              • Joe America says:

                Well, there are two topics, socialism and method of argument. I am only raising method of argument so that readers think about it, and not because I disagree with your position on governance. Links often provide more depth to the discussion, too, so are valuable. I suppose I am burned out from the campaign rhetoric here, which is the greatest display of rationalization I’ve seen during my several decades on the planet, where rationalization is for sure a long way from reason. Indeed, in many instances, it is the opposite.

              • But I do want to pose a question(s), where does innovation (from art to tech) tend to take place and thrive? Which side of the “gray” area? And why?

              • Joe America says:

                The capitalistic side. The greed side. The warmongering, defense side.

              • What happened to my avatar? Is this some sort of socialist stunt? Hainan Island?

              • “I suppose I am burned out from the campaign rhetoric here,”

                I guess it’s all in how you view all this, whether there or over here. If these things are framed as either/or’s, ie. we’re all gonna die if the Donald’s elected, Sanders will destroy us, Duterte will kill everyone who farts loud, Poe isn’t even Filipinos, etc. etc.

                You got people here promising to go to Canada if so and so gets elected. I’ve been hearing similar stuff since 2000 election, and we’re still all here (better or worst, you’ll get different opinions of course), but the point is life goes on.

                I got a neighbor with a Bernie sign, and another with a Cruz sign, we’re not talking to each other right now, but after Nov. 8… I’m sure we’ll all come together again to make fun of Hillary. Such is politics, Joe.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Re: avatar
                Lance that happens when you misspelled your email address.I think.
                I mistyped mine and I got another avatar

              • Between mad rationalizations (conjectures) and apathy, I pick vibrancy anytime.

            • josephivo says:

              Americans tend to translate everything in economic capital and forget social capital.

              What about average working hours (70 hrs/week as completely normal in many industries in the US, compared to 35 in Germany)? Incarceration rates (700 per 100,000 in the US and 60 to 100 per 100,000 in Western European countries except UK)? Violence related fatalities (in South Chicago this year every 4 weeks more than in 3 month of Trumps’ “hellhole Brussels” including the 31 of last week’s murderous morning!)? Education (US not in the top 20), healthcare, social mobility, inequality, happiness index…. but the US scores high in nationalistic feelings and integration.

              So Trump might need some advisors that can collect real data (= verifiable or scientific, challenged by peers) about more the fence length and height (building a 12 feet ladder will always be cheaper than building a 10 feet fence), foreign debt… before he develops policies or makes hollow statements about making America great again.

              • josephivo says:

                Forgot to talk about the importance of “civility” and the use of language, verbal and non-verbal…

              • Vicara says:

                Good point josephivo, regarding social capital.There is another kind of capital at work here–and that is the social/political capital the U.S. has accumulated over time–with Japan, South Korea, even Vietnam–all countries with which it has been at war, but with which it has since built up engagement at different levels. Nothing’s ever perfect, of course, but there’s some appreciation for what look like nuanced and careful diplomatic/security moves by U.S. in the region.

                The comments on this particular post have focused on the two U.S. candidates, security and trade, and what approaches the U.S. would or would not take with regard to China. But clearly the ME (aided by the news from Brussels) has exerted an inordinate gravitational pull on this discussion. So would just like to remind that the two regional situations are apples and oranges, the ME a self-perpetuating mess, with no end in sight, while Asia-Pacific is more in the nature of an ongoing collaboration project among adults. Also it helps that the major sources of trouble (China, North Korea) are more clearly defined, with none of the sectarian chaos of the ME.

                There was an exchange earlier about the “gravy train,” which is a key issue for U.S. taxpayers, understandably. And it’s one of the things Trump mentions a lot of in his campaign. Well, gravy might the key issue for so-called “free riders” in the ME as referred to by President Obama; but gravy is not the primary issue among Asia-Pacific countries which cautiously are working at different levels with the U.S. with regard to China. (I only brought up the relatively tiny amount of U.S. military aid to the Philippines–given its current strategic importance–because I had thought unfair a reference LCpl_X had made; and further down the thread he said in fact that he thought more military assistance was needed.)

                Asia wants a deterrent against China, and the U.S. is obviously the best choice, given its military heft–but that alone would not be enough. Asia needs the U.S. to help put pressure on China–but skillfully and in judicious amounts. And “help” here means working in a multilateral context, with a nuanced understanding of what each country is able or willing to bring to the table. The U.S. has been working at this, and the “Asia pivot” some feared was not going to materialize (the U.S. being too distracted by troubles in other parts of the world, etc) is actually happening. This building up of political capital is a legacy of the Obama administration. I don’t know that a Trump administration would be able to discern the value of this capital and the nature of its ROI. I don’t think he has the type of cool patience for how to work things in an Asian context. It would have to be Clinton.

                As Madlanglupa points out, Vietnam has been reassessing its relationship with the U.S. in light of how the chessboard is laid out in the South China (oops, West Phlippine) Sea, and is markedly more welcoming to its old foe. A U.S. military base of some kind in Vietnam has even been cited as a possibility. Who would have imagined Vietnamese “cheering” for an American president?

                (RHiro did make a remark earlier about our having closed the U.S. bases here. I think that was something that we simply had to do, at that particular time. And it may have worked out for the best for everyone, including the U.S. But that’s for another discussion. :))

              • Joe America says:

                A technical note. South China Sea is the larger expanse of seas between China and southeast Asian nations. The West Philippine Sea is a term used by the Philippines to describe only the area within her Exclusive Economic Zone, or 200 nautical miles from land baseline. Viet Nam does not abut the West Philippine Sea.

                Viet Nam is a fascinating place. American tourists have been welcomed for years, and many of them are vets who fought there. The conflict has been between governments, not peoples, so I think the warm-up will continue at good speed.

              • “I only brought up the relatively tiny amount of U.S. military aid to the Philippines–given its current strategic importance–because I had thought unfair a reference LCpl_X had made;”

                I totally agree with you, Vicara— apples and oranges.

                I’ve been to the Middle East and I’ve been to Asia.

                And although I know more about the M.E. than Asia, historically and culturally (having spent more time in the M.E.), there’s nothing there… it’s like the Zombie apocalypse (even in the nice parts like UAE), the only place I felt like there was a bit of Hope was in Oman (Israel even, I think that place is end, thus the Yerida, leaving Israel, phenomenon).

                Asia is promising, period. At times, I’ve even sounded like a China apologist on here. Under Hillary or Trump the US will be cultivating something that’s coming alive in Asia, while the only thing left to do in the M.E. is the prayer for the Dead.

                Personally, I have tons of books on the Japanese Samurai, books on Buddhism and Shinto. We had Korean Marines attached to us at one time, and have enjoyed (witnessed) how Klingon-like their culture is (they single handedly saved L.A. from the 1992 Riots). The Japanese and Koreans are on one level, IMHO, but I place Chinese and Filipinos on the same level— similar culture of victimhood.

                The only thing I know about the Vietnamese is Pho and bikini/lingerie cafes around Socal, especially in Orange county, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/24/local/la-me-sexy-cafes-20110524 But I do know that most military gear these days are manufactured in Vietnam, American owned, but Made in Vietnam, so the relationship is already there vis-a-vis US military.

                Thailand has always been an American hub. Indonesia and Malaysia (though Malaysia is pro-China) are allies in curbing the Salafi movement, I think both governments at heart are anti-Saudi and Arab Wahhabi traditions, though the bulk of the populace differ in thought.

                Burma just cancelled that railroad project giving China access to the Bay of Bengal by-passing SE Asia all together.

                So I’m totally with Obama’s focus towards Asia and Latin America. To tie this up with Brussels, make no mistake the US was the target, many victims who died were Americans, but I totally agree with Obama’s watching baseball with Fidel’s brother and dancing the Tango with Mora Godoy— forget the M.E., the policy should be one of containment, which Obama (and any future President) can do while enjoying the Tango with a beautiful woman 😉 (karl knows what I’m talking about) …

              • karlgarcia says:

                Post 911.US became strict against muslims.

                Then Arab Spring, then Muslims continued their Migration to Europe.

                Now Europe will be strict,where will they move?
                Philippines? South East Asia? East Asia?

                Maybe RHiro or anyone can connect the dots in a few paragraphs.

              • R.Hiro says:

                “I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.”
                George W. Bush (after 9/11)

                The Arab spring was DELUSIONAL.. During this Holy Week I happen to come upon heavy traffic on Good Friday. It was due to a procession. It hit me then that the shared history of this country of almost all communities here is Christianity. Not a secular idea of modernization.

                The countries that tried to replace their governments in a revolution have all but failed. Syria of course was the worst as the divisions in Syria combined the failure in Iraq by the Shia leaders to include the Sunnis all but guaranteed the chaos.

                Obama was right in keeping away… Who do you hand the country to when the people themselves are so divided by tribes, clans, ethnicity held together with differing versions of Islam.

                The flow of desperate refugees added another issue to a faltering EU experiment. Hence unifying economies w/o unifying political sovereignty is causing strains. National identities still count. The attack in Belgium clearly shows the lack of coordination between the countries.

                The EU is now trying to put some order in the process, while U.S.and Russia try to work out the Assad problem.

                There is no more Libya, Iraq, Syria and Egypt has had their counter revolution. Iran has now come to an agreement with the West to end their sanctions.

                The U.S.today has to be more engaged with a multi polar world. That change is slowly changing how America views the world. An ignoramus like Trump is simply the symptom.

              • Obama was right in keeping away… The U.S.today has to be more engaged with a multi polar world. That change is slowly changing how America views the world. An ignoramus like Trump is simply the symptom.”


                You can’t have it both ways. Though I know there’s a big grey area in between isolationist and engagement— ONLY Trump (and Bernie) are in agreement with Obama’s strategy in the M.E.

                The only problem is that to affect his policies in the M.E. Obama had to get dirty in the orgy with oil/gas industry. Trump isn’t an oil/gas guy, and from the looks of it does NOT really like ’em either— Koch bros. etc.

                Another problem I’m seeing in the Western states, to include Hawaii, is that commercial properties are getting bought by mysterious Chinese backed companies, no ones mentioned it, but if any candidate would know, my bet is on Trump.

                So Trump’s perfect for the M.E. (he also thinks like them) precisely because he’s keeping away. He’s perfect for China because our “war” with China isn’t true warfare but warfare waged in back rooms, not oil/gas type of deals, but real estate.

                The two best choice candidates for me are Trump and Bernie— my dream right now is for Trump to undermine Hillary by coopting Bernie’s ideas, ie. the free education can be free re-training for union-types, corporate taxation he can side with Silicon Valley, and rich folks like Soros and Buffett who’d love to put in more money, re immigration he can push for that (but focus on very skilled immigrants), etc. etc.— same ideas just twist it to sound more like his.

            • Vicara says:

              LCpl_X, it’s weird that the two countries you pointed out which labor under the identity of victimhood–China and the Philippines–are the very countries which have experienced excellent economic growth this past year. And are threatening to derail themselves and their success (and in the case of China, the region) precisely because they refuse to see themselves as anything other than victims. So China grimly keeps piling cement on coral reefs, reinforcing its image as the Asian bully, and the Philippines threatens to elect a killer and plunderers as its president. All in the name of victimhood. Joe, this merits a post, wouldn’t you say?

              • Vicara,

                I know it affects at a wider level, but I’m more interested in how this is taught at home, in towns, etc over there.

                Victimhood is taught. Ireneo’s talked about this before, but I think Joe would have the answer. Or at least can document how he is fighting this process for his son.

                I’ve requested Joe to write about upbringing (which is connected to your similar request on victimhood, Vicara), here: https://joeam.com/2016/03/17/the-two-me-classes-that-undermine-the-philippine-nation/#comment-166082

              • Joe America says:

                Chinese victimhood? Or Philippines. Philippine victimhood seems to me to be a function of need felt by the masses who have no opportunity. Provide opportunity by continuing to grow the economy, and that will diminish. Now in China, the phenomenal GDP growth should have corrected the need of the people, made them richer and happier, but that has not occurred, mainly because the state needs to project need (insecurity) in order to retain authority. And in the Philippines, the people are impatient to get their needs fulfilled, and apparently want the kind of government that China has. One that manufactures and projects need to stay in power.

                Hmmmmm . . . yes, this might be worth an elaboration.

              • edgar lores says:

                There is a mental component to victimhood. If poverty is alleviated, the sense of victimhood may diminish but it will not be completely erased… especially if the alleviation is through the efforts of others and not of one’s self.

                The basic insecurity will still remain. The once poor in possessions will still be poor in spirit. He may have achieved financial independence but he will continue to lean psychologically on his patron, be that the government, a politician, a friend or fortune.

                The psychology of patronage is hard to uproot. And both the giver and the receiver, both the politician and the voter are mutual patrons… patrons of each other.

                In the wish for divine intervention, we see God as the ultimate patron.

              • Joe America says:

                Makes sense. All I can say is that we are somewhere along a progression line where victimhood today is extreme and, as mass psychoanalysis is not feasible, we can only push toward some measure of awareness. The alternative is to fall into line beneath some higher authority who does our speaking and thinking for us.

              • karlgarcia says:

                To say China man’s chance means no chance in hell.
                Sure the Chinese were made fun of, who calls them victims, the discriminators or they themselves.
                If there were history of struggles,and there are ongoing struggles, is that already victimhood?
                In the Philippines, there is poverty,discrimination,class struggles.
                You mixed them up is that a formula for woe is me victimhood?

                Now China is a bully.
                If all victims are future bullies,

                I hope we won’t be a bully one day.

              • josephivo says:

                People of The Kingdom in the Middle as victims? They are just catching up to regain their “entitled” priorities. My brother has had for almost 20 years Chinese students sharing his apartment in Amsterdam, none of them had any minority complex, to the contrary. When I meet Chinese in the Philippines, their attitude is mostly of superiority, not of inferiority, opposite to Malay Filipinos.

                Here dynasties require and thus create submissive people. Tycoons can maximize profit through submissive people. Under qualified teachers can only survive with submissive students. Too much respect can create submissive behavior. To rise above the ground level being unaccepted makes staying down at that level as acceptable.

                The Philippines has to fight dynasties, organize laborers, improve education and more difficult change some cultural aspects.

              • edgar, Joe, karl, jospehivo, et al.

                Ed Luttwak called it “Great State Autism”, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/12/chinas-global-role

                I’ve never been to China so my ground sense here is based on Chinese (mainland China) I met in the US. Those Chinese students I’ve met as well, and I think Luttwak’s autism certainly fits, but I’m thinking it’s mostly due to the 1 Child policy… all the ones I’ve met had no siblings. A superiority complex is palpable, though not all.

                That’s one level. Which I’m not as concerned about (though definitely related), I’ve met folks who’ve been diagnosed to be on the Autistic spectrum.

                The next level though is what I’m talking about re victimhood. And I think this is what’s being taught either thru schooling or at home. When talk is about how great China is becoming, automatically they get defensive (not sure why). The getting defensive is fine, because it usually comes from an assumption which can be ironed out.

                But the mainland Chinese I notice remember the colonial period and WWII as victims, and their sense of history seem to stop there. So as a people I don’t sense the same as with the Japanese and Koreans, who have since gone past WWII.

                No doubt the Chinese are powerful, but I don’t think they realize this (or have yet to accept it, as a people). Hence the same as Filipinos.

              • Joe America says:

                My reaction is that both nations need a leader of vision who is able to inspire a following, but have good values instead of bad. Poe’s strength is her aura of good, but she mucks it up by consorting with shady characters. The Philippines is a nation of actors, but not orators. China is a nation of militaristic autocrats. Both Trump and Sanders are orators, but both tout a political line that is not as uplifting as their slogans. Both China and the Philippines have done well economically, but neither has a rallying leader.

              • karl,

                I don’t think victimhood and superiority are opposites, they can be related. You can be a victim, and base on that feeling of victimhood, able to victimize others— ie. the bullied becomes the bully (Israel is a great example… )

              • karlgarcia says:

                Gotcha Lance.

                I watched Revenge of the Nerds….just kidding.
                I watched Batman vs Superman- maybe Lex Luthor was bullied as a kid.

          • R.Hiro says:

            Yup Singapore relatively low tax rates but big domestic debt to GDP ratio. This pays for government sponsored health care, public housing, government sponsored and subsidized education and public ownership with private sector ownership of major Singaporean corporations.

            Singapore is a highly socialized country…

            Private sector business and all workers pay into the Provident fund. This fund is then managed by Temasek. This fund also lends to the government to pay for the investments in human and physical infra projects of the State.

            Plus the state also accumulates foreign exchange which is then managed by the Government Investment Corporation. Pointy of fact Singtel owns part of Globe here through investments by Singtel. GIC has offered with a local partner to buy the whole franchise of Shakeys here. Where do you think the profits go to. The people of Singapore off course in terms of public services.

            My goodness that is the primary definition of socialism…Who allocates and direct the resources of the country. The State or the private sector. Even the ownership of cars is highly regulated by license fees to prevent massive traffic in a small area. However the integrated massive mass transit system is in place.

            Unfortunately Fox news is the wrong place for substantive information.
            Social market place works if done correctly with the right rules in place.

            High taxes work. you have entitlement taxes and you have income and excise taxes and consumption taxes.

            Ah yes, Invincible Ignorance.

    • Madlanglupa says:

      > Filipinos concerned about the mainland expansion might actually like Trump.

      Personally, most Filipinos down on the street have *little* idea about Trump, but more concerned about the current crop of local candidates vying for Malacañang; let alone a small report about him and his antics in a third-rate tabloid half-filled with advertisements for sexual potency enhancers, reading it while passing the time before he has his turn to sit on the barber’s chair.

      • Madlanglupa says:

        It would be just as interesting if anyone ask the average Vietnamese on what they think about the American presidential candidates, but the last time there was an American president that they actually cheered for, it was Obama when he announced his intent to support Vietnam in its stance regarding the West Philippine Sea.

        • Joe America says:

          This blog is hardly aimed at a target audience of ordinary voters. It does try to understand them. It does try to articulate positions on a range of issues that affect Filipinos, whether people are broadly aware of the issues or not.

          • Madlanglupa says:

            Just an idea, but I wish we could hear the Vietnamese side so that we could try to make comparisons, especially as they recently had a change of leadership and how that would affect relationships with America.

            • Joe America says:

              President Obama will visit Viet Nam in May, so the warming continues. There might be articles in Viet Nam about the US presidential candidates, but I don’t expect to research that. My instinct says Vietnamese leaders would find Clinton more trustworthy than Trump, but I don’t know.

      • Madlanglupa says:

        Finally, something else that I should have mentioned: the relationships between China and countries along the Mekong River, and how that would affect things in the region.


  33. maru0907 says:

    If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They love anything Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific. – Donald Trump (Spot on)

    Hilary is best for the country. She is a known.

    • That’s long been debunked, maru (last year).

      Though the closest to something like that was this quote from 1999 (which is consistent to his rhetoric now):

      Trump, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 1999:

      “Let’s cut to the chase. Yes, I am considering a run for president. … Unlike candidates from the two major parties, my candidacy would not represent an exercise in career advancement. I am not a political pro trying to top off his resume. I am considering a run only because I am convinced the major parties have lost their way. The Republicans are captives of their right wing. The Democrats are captives of their left wing. I don’t hear anyone speaking for the working men and women in the center.”

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again

      Trump trademarked (or applied for trademark) this slogan after the 2012 election, which was trademarked July 2015. So he’s been planning to run for quite a long time now.

    • maru0907 says:

      I stand corrected. thank you.
      Still, I kind of liked it. hahaha

      • maru,

        I agree though that there’s still some truth to Trump’s: “The Republicans are captives of their right wing.” Fast forward to 2016, and Trump’s the one holding the Republican right wing captive… the next act I think is to drag them to the center. That will be entertaining.

        • Joe America says:

          What is your view of House Speaker Paul Ryan? He seems a little more diplomatic and mature than Trump, Cruz or Kasich to me. He is being mentioned as a fresh Republican candidate who might emerge from a contested convention. Certainly, he would not be covered in all the slime that Republican candidates have slung at each other recently, and would be better able to address Hillary Clinton on policies and issues.

          • When Paul Ryan got some airtime during the 2012 Vice Presidential debates, he was very cool and calm. Definitely more mature than Trump, josephivo’s “civility” comes to mind. I think he’d be a great sneak-in if an open convention presents itself.

            But I think the Republican big-wigs have decided that only the remaining three candidates will be considered if an open convention happens, knowing full well that their base will have a fit if they get cute, like inserting Romney or Ryan.

            Without Trump’s ability to return to the center (which he’s been promising), Paul Ryan no matter how civil or articulate just doesn’t have the winning ideology. The Republicans have gone too far right. Paul Ryan would pale in comparison to Hillary.

            • Joe America says:

              Thanks, I appreciate the perspective.

            • Micha says:


              Krugman has bluntly called Ryan’s budget proposal full of magic asterisks and publicly ridiculed him as a con man.

              • Joe America says:

                The truth is that his budget proposals have always been a ludicrous mess of magic asterisks: assertions that trillions will be saved through spending cuts to be specified later, that trillions more will be raised by closing unnamed tax loopholes. Or as the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center put it, they’re full of “mystery meat.”

                Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winning economist) of the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/opinion/the-crazies-and-the-con-man.html?_r=0

                Krugman is not without criticism:

                Paul Krugman was himself a “supposed authority” who gravely misled the American public on how to think about free-trade globalization.


              • Joe America says:

                William Greider continues:

                Krugman did not seem to grasp that globalization liberated American businesses from sustaining that relationship. If US labor costs became a burden, the multinational corporations and even smaller firms can now move the production to low-wage countries or merely threaten to do so. In my experience as a reporter, workers on the factory floor recognized this shift in power long before conventional economists figured it out.

                . . .

                The American problem is not trade theory but self-delusion—an overweening confidence that the US as world leader would prevail because it always had. US leaders assumed they would define the architecture of the new global system, much as they had done since World War II, and other nations would sooner or later be compelled to follow—that is, abandon their national strategies of managed trade and accept the American ideology of free markets and free trade. In Washington and Wall Street, American multinationals were given a free hand to design their own strategies, free of government but of course supported by government money.

                The problem was, the rest of the world declined to cooperate.

              • Micha says:

                Nobody’s perfect, but between Krugs and the sniveling flip-flopping Ryan on fiscal and monetary issues, super Krugs could disembowel the latter in three seconds.

              • Micha says:

                It’s a good thing that the issue about trade was brought front and center by both Bernie Sanders and Trump. The TPP especially is a power grab by multi national corporations and middle class America is the eventual loser. Obama promoted it and Hillary changed her mind on it. Wall Street Republicans are also in favor.

                On this issue, voters are giving Trump and Sanders the edge.

                Breaking news : landslide victories for Bernie in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington.

                Hillary cringes.

                I’m feeling the Bern.

  34. Vicara says:

    Just out in the NYTimes: Transcript of an extended interview with Trump on his foreign policy views. He favors bang-on-the-table economic bargaining as his main (or even only) way of engaging with the region. That was foreseen in this thread; but even so, it is unsettling to read the words he uses. I’m taking a valium and going back to bed.


    • Joe America says:

      I couldn’t read it, actually. He talks in circles and doesn’t answer the questions in a way that does not give him an out. “I love Japan. I know people . . .” He loves everyone and knows every one. What does that have to do with policy? It is his way of saying, “get ready, because I’m about to slam Japan”. If we went back to that list of argumentative fallacies posted here a while back, I’m sure they are all in there . . .

    • NHerrera says:

      He he. I only read two questions to, and two answers from, Trump. That thing about Japan going nuclear if US insist on scaling down its protective shield — and I personally believe Japan can develop the nuclear weaponry fast when they decide to; and they have the nuclear power plants to get the material like plutonium — has my head spinning about what Trump was exactly driving at. I am writing this daytime; so I am not going to bed just yet unlike Vicara. Yep, Trump needs good advisers/ consultants and we hope he listens and think well on the payoff: upside/ downside both short and long term.

      • Edgar Lores says:

        First we were laughing at him. Then we were looking on amazed at his rise. Now it seems he will conquer. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


        Items 1 – 6 at the end show how Trump and Duterte are gaining.

        • Joe America says:

          1. Trump knows people are basically irrational
          2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an emotional level
          3. By running on emotion, facts don’t matter
          4. If facts don’t matter, you can’t really be ‘wrong’
          5. With fewer facts in play, it’s easier to bend reality
          6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics – and identity is the strongest persuader

          • R.Hiro says:


            David Brooks writes for the NY Times

            If you look at the problems facing the Philippines, will this elections provide a catalyst for meaning full change.

            By DAVID BROOKS
            Published: 25 March 2016 10:56 AM
            Updated: 25 March 2016 10:56 AM

            This is a wonderful moment to be a conservative. For decades now the Republican Party has been groaning under the Reagan orthodoxy, which was right for the 1980s but has become increasingly obsolete. The Reagan worldview was based on the idea that a rising economic tide would lift all boats. But that’s clearly no longer true.

            We’ve gone from Rising Tide America to Coming Apart America. Technological change, globalization and social and family breakdown mean that the benefits of growth, to the extent there is growth, are not widely shared.

            Republicans sort of recognize this reality, but they are still imprisoned in the Reaganite model. They ask Reaganite questions, propose Reaganite policies and have Reaganite instincts.

            Now along comes Donald Trump, an angel of destruction, to blow it all to smithereens. He represents not only a rejection of the existing Reaganite establishment, but also a rejection of Reaganite foreign policy (he is less globalist) and Reaganite domestic policy (he is friendlier to the state).

            Trumpism will not replace Reaganism, though. Trump is prompting what Thomas Kuhn, in his theory of scientific revolutions, called a model crisis.

            According to Kuhn, intellectual progress is not steady and gradual. It’s marked by sudden paradigm shifts. There’s a period of normal science when everybody embraces a paradigm that seems to be working. Then there’s a period of model drift: As years go by, anomalies accumulate and the model begins to seem creaky and flawed.

            Then there’s a model crisis, when the whole thing collapses. Attempts to patch up the model fail. Everybody is in anguish, but nobody knows what to do.

            That’s where the Republican Party is right now. Everybody talks about being so depressed about Trump. But Republicans are passive and psychologically defeated. That’s because their conscious and unconscious mental frameworks have just stopped working. Trump has a monopoly on audacity, while everyone else is immobile.

            But Trump has no actual ideas or policies. There is no army of Trumpists out there to carry on his legacy. He will almost certainly go down to a devastating defeat, either in the general election or — God help us — as the worst president in American history.

            At that point the GOP will enter what Kuhn called the revolution phase. During these moments you get a proliferation of competing approaches, a willingness to try anything. People ask different questions, speak a different language, congregate around a new paradigm that is incommensurate with the last.

            That’s where the GOP is heading. So this is a moment of anticipation. The great question is not, Should I vote for Hillary or sit out this campaign? The great question is, How do I prepare now for the post-Trump era?

            The first step clearly is mental purging: casting aside many existing mental categories and presuppositions, to shift your identity from one with a fixed mindset to one in which you are a seeker and open to anything. The second step is probably embedding: going out and seeing America again with fresh eyes and listening to American voices with fresh ears, paying special attention to that nexus where the struggles of Trump supporters overlap with the struggles of immigrants and African-Americans.

            This is a moment for honesty. Valuably, Trump has exposed the rottenness of the consultant culture, and the squirrelly way politicians now talk to us. This is a moment for revived American nationalism. Trump’s closed, ethnic nationalism is dominant because Iraq, globalization and broken immigration policies have discredited the expansive open form of nationalism that usually dominates American culture.

            This is also a moment for redefined compassion. Trump is loveless. There is no room for reciprocity and love in his worldview. There is just winning or losing, beating or being beaten.

            It is as if he were a person who received no love and tried to compensate through competition. That is an ugly, freakish and untenable representation of the human condition. Somehow the Republican Party will have to rediscover a language of loving thy neighbor, which is a primary ideal in our culture, and a primary longing of the heart.

            This is also a moment for sociology. Reaganism was very economic, built around tax policies, enterprise zones and the conception of the human being as a rational, utility-driven individual. The Adam Smith necktie was the emblem of that movement.

            It might be time to invest in Émile Durkheim neckties, because today’s problems relate to binding a fragmenting society, reweaving family and social connections, relating across the diversity of a globalized world. Homo economicus is a myth and conservatism needs a worldview that is accurate about human nature.

            We’re going to have two parties in this country. One will be a Democratic Party that is moving left. The other will be a Republican Party. Nobody knows what it will be, but it’s exciting to be present at the re-creation.

            • “A Manhattan millionaire with a personality bigger than life bursts onto America’s political scene with a populist message that the system is unfair to the little guy, the moneyed interests are in control of Washington, and that no one but he can address the sorry state America finds itself in. He sucks all the oxygen out of his opponents’ campaigns. He confounds the establishment and seems to be an unstoppable force.

              I, of course, speak of Theodore Roosevelt. We sometimes forget that Roosevelt was the rebel of his time. He did not toe the party line. Roosevelt challenged the status quo. He was not captive to the interests that constrained traditional party leaders. Let’s be honest: Roosevelt evoked the same response from many establishment Republicans in Albany that Donald Trump stirs up today in Washington. The reason the Republicans put Roosevelt on the ticket as McKinley’s Vice President was to sideline him.”

              I gotta feeling this is coming, RHiro:

              • R.Hiro says:

                Catch up LCPL_S please catch up. There is no more seven sisters in the oil industry. The oil and gas industry on planet Earth is now predominantly controlled by state owned companies. Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asian States. The world is a different place from the time oil and gas became the fuel of choice for powering industry. Even the most powerful oil company that ruled the world in the early 20th century is under pressure.


                Oh yeah your man Trump plans to gut the very progressive system of income taxes with tax cuts for the rich. Your forgot that T. Roosevelt ran for President as a third party candidate and lost. During that time there was still no withholding tax on income taxes.

                The U.S.then under Wilson established the Federal Reserve.


                Trump is still the big business tax cutting for the rich kinda guy. He has not explained how to pay for his tax cuts yet.

                It seems he is relying mainly on the old discarded supply side voodoo economics ala Reagan. T. Roosevelt also was very much an imperialist in the best tradition of Churchill.

              • RHiro,

                Alternative fuels may be the way of the future, but right now those programs are simply tax breaks (and gov’t subsidized programs).

                Wind and solar are still years away from being viable, placed on hold by Obama’s policies. When Obama opened up fracking domestically, alt. fuel programs took a back seat, instead of pushing it forward, Obama kow-towed to the oil companies.

                Those same companies are found in Iraq and Nigeria (countless others, most have no state oil). Those same oil companies soon will open up shop in Mexico, because Pemex (state oil) can’t stop the hemorrhage caused by the drug cartels.

                “Trump is still the big business tax cutting for the rich kinda guy. He has not explained how to pay for his tax cuts yet.”

                I’m no millionaire, so I only care about my bracket, and according to Trump’s tax plan the middle percentile will get a sufficient enough tax cut. If the presumption here is that Trump will choose the millionaire percentile over tax breaks for us little to medium folks, then that’s fine, RHiro, but you gotta back that up somehow.

                I think there’s still room here to coopt Bernie’s plan.

        • NHerrera says:

          Bingo, Adams aka Dilbert. Nice to-the-point list. Thanks for the link, edgar.

          Comelec, can you kindly do that over again. I qualify — age, citizenship, residency, and I have Joe and edgar to certify that I read and write, with the keyboard, that is. Now if only I can find a mucho dinero local financier who has a philanthropic bent, quite like philanthropist Bill Gates and Melinda so I am not declared a nuisance candidate. (I sort of promised my financier I will prioritize education, energy, climate change matters — much like the priority of Bill Gates. And algebra and calculus too — that sets me apart from Duterte.)

        • Micha says:

          Donald Duck has a strong chance of grabbing the Republican nomination but there is no way in hell he is going to win in the general election.

          If the Scalia dominated Supreme Court did not hand over the dubious Florida recount to Bush Junior in 2000, Democrats would have a winning streak of the presidency for 24 years already. And that is because Republicans, being essentially the party of the plutos, could not win in a national election. They could only win local congressional seats through voter suppression and gerrymandering.

          So fear not. Pitted against either Her Royal Consort or Bernie Sanders, the Donald might bluster and provoke but he is going to lose with a whimper.

    • Bert says:

      “TRUMP: Well, it’s a position that we have to talk about, and it’s a position that at some point is something that we have to talk about, and if the United States keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway with or without me discussing it, because I don’t think they feel very secure in what’s going on with our country, David.”—Trump on nuclearisation of Japan and South Korea

      Well, what so scary about that statement by Trump? Guys, pls. take note of his statement “…if the United States keep on its path, its current path of weakness,….”.

      My take on that is Trump wants to avoid a Japan going nuclear by having a strong United States and not President’s Obama’s policy of weakness.

      It’s logical and I tend to agree with Trump.

      • R.Hiro says:

        Mr. Burt apart from using Trumps words kindly point out America’s weakness. You tend to agree with him you said.

        Now let us see.
        1.The Worlds Central Bank is in the U.S.

        2.The U.S. military is beyond compare.

        3.The U.S. is the only advanced economy that has some how escaped the last depression.

        4.The U.S. government under Obama can borrow from the financial markets of the world at the cheapest interest rates in generations.

        5. The misery the middle class is feeling is due entirely to the Reagan Republican doctrine of letting markets do their work. Free trade creates winners and losers. But losers adjustments must be made for those losers through re-distributive policies.

        6. Unfortunately owning the international medium of exchange brings with it some disadvantages. Because exporting countries worldwide receive payments in dollars, their primary choice is safe havens and stable returns so they re-invest their surpluses in the U.S. preventing the U.S.currency from devaluing and making other countries exports to the U.S. more expensive there by leading to a natural solution to the lowering and eventually reversing trade deficits and making American produced goods cheaper.

        You see that is what Trump was complaining about but that came about because the U.S. government and its people are so dumb and insist on having a strong dollar. Trade deficits eventually lead to weaker currency for the importing country.

        You see Keynes himself proposed a neutral world currency where no one nation would dominate in utilizing their currency as the international currency of choice. The U.S. in no uncertain terms turned it down.

        A former Minister of trade of France called it “AN EXHORBITANT PRIVILEGE”. All trading partners of the U.S.has called for a new international monetary system. The U.S. refuses to consider it due to no. 2 above.

        My suggestion for Trump is for him to invite the leader of North Korea and invite him to one of his golf courses. Or go on TV and announce to North Korea that he would consider using nukes on them if they do not behave. He keeps on saying he will annihilate ISIS but they are essentially an existential group. Why not take on a country millions under arms within artillery range of downtown Seoul. The U.S.forces in S.Korea have already pulled back from the DMZ. You do know that there is only a cease fire between the two sides.

        Please note that this is not a video game.

        • Bert says:

          Mr. Hero, when Mr Trump become president of America, don’t be surprised he might just take your your suggestions seriously and do them, :).

      • maru0907 says:

        I like a strong America. In my worldview America keeps the peace by and large. Look at the other big/strong countries, Russia annexing Crimea and China making islands out of Atolls and claiming a whole sea for itself (anyone remember Tibet?).

        Recently however, America, when Obama drew a red line and and he didn’t call it, it was a big problem. Russia saw it as a chance, In their book America now is all bluster and huff. Russia intervened in Syria, now they are credited of changing the tide so why only now after four years? Because America is only bluffing. Same thing with China building military bases across the South China Sea. Because they see America/Obama won’t do anything.

        I agree with Obama but he sure is doing a great dis-service to the world on how he is translating his thinking to policy. I believe he is making more of a statement under his presidency rather than what is best. People are dying in Syria & Yemen, Russia has returned to the World Stage and expansionist China has established military bases.

        The playing field has changed significantly. And significantly bad for America.

        Both Clinton and Trump will be good. Clinton preferred.

  35. HAPPY EASTER, everyone!

    And remember aside from loving the Blacks and the Mexicans, Trump also loves God,

  36. Madlanglupa says:

    I leaned close to my monitor to make sure my eyes aren’t fooling me.


    This guy’s out of his mind. Now he got the ultrarightist warhawks awake.

    • Mad,

      Just to put this article in context, Japan and the US have been trying to amicably part ways military-wise.

      The bulk of troop presence in Japan are US Marines and most of them are in Okinawa. Basically, Okinawans are tired of us (anyone whose spent time inside Marine bases or w/ US Marines for that matter, will eventually tire of all the bs).

      So the Marines will return to Hawaii, go to Guam, now the Philippines and bulk up in Australia as well, alleviating our footprint in Okinawa. Japan (this is before Trump) is now increasing its military capabilities— hampered by us post WWII.

      S. Korea is handled by the US Army (and USAF), S. Korean police and military focus on N. Koreans, but their 2nd target of worry is ironically us— so its not an ideal relationship.

      Our presence in those two nations are post-WWII dated policies, convenient during the Cold War, but needs to be re-adjusted with the US continuing a different approach.

      —–> So that’s where we stand militarily with S. Korea and Japan (even before Trump).

      As for the nukes. Although I’ve been on record calling the U.N. an expensive welfare project for us— ie. Filipino U.N. workers get to send their kids to really fancy schools in the US (or EU), 😉 beats Bernie’s FREE education for all, ‘cept US taxpayers are paying for this.

      International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) though, is probably the only component of the U.N. that not only functions but pays in dividends (most in the IAEA are 1st world citizens).

      I’m not as worried of a nuke arms race in East Asia, as I am in the Persian Gulf (those guys are crazier). N. Korea however is playing extortion. North Korea doesn’t have a death wish, its realized a long time ago that the rest of the world will bend over backwards if you have nukes.

      —–> So nuke-wise, I don’t foresee a nuke arms race (with or w/out Trump).

      Japan especially after the tsunami disaster, is still reeling over nuke power. S. Korea is in the middle of a golden age, so it won’t prioritize nukes any time soon– the US tried to offer stationing nukes as deterrent in S. Korea and they politely said nope (they’ve probably seen Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb 😉 )

      • “Filipino U.N. workers get to send their kids to really fancy schools in the US (or EU), 😉 ”

        The Philippines as a founding member of the UN (yes the Philippine Commonwealth though not independent yet joined, just like the Ukraine and Belarus) has had its networks in the UN for decades… more Filipinos in the UN than German citizens because Germany only became a UN member in the 1970s after the status of West and East Germany was resolved in a Mr. Fantastic act of diplomacy… recognizing each other but not quite…

        “International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) though, is probably the only component of the U.N. that not only functions but pays in dividends (most in the IAEA are 1st world citizens).” UNHCR (refugees) works pretty well, because you only manage to have a career there if you spend some years in the field, on the ground. Agencies like UNICEF and WHO got fat because its top staff tended to recruit itself in HQ mainly… WHO lost its drive after polio was conquered and the regional offices tend to have lives of their own including Manila.

        So Trump will move the US the way it moved some time after World War 2 but not quite as isolationist, just reducing its foreign engagement. This does have some consequences.

        The Philippines if it is smart will continue to rely on the alliance as the safer bet to maintain some degree of autonomy – if its future leaders go back to the old Filipino habit of seeking a sponsoring power the US will definitely not be they might seek China’s deadly embrace. The US alliance is advantageous to the Philippines the same way the Soviet alliance was for Vietnam and especially Cuba – the big ally is far away and the big enemy is very close. From the strategic point of view something those who want more self-reliance should like.

        • karlgarcia says:

          I saw the interview of the anti EDCA Colminares., he wants us to rely not just on US but on multi lateral bodies,but when it comes to China,he is open to bilateral talks so long as the multilateral body remains in the picture.
          I slapped my forehead,because if he has a point,I can not see it.Or he is pro China,anti-US or what?

      • karlgarcia says:

        “I’m not as worried of a nuke arms race in East Asia, as I am in the Persian Gulf (those guys are crazier). N. Korea however is playing extortion. North Korea doesn’t have a death wish, its realized a long time ago that the rest of the world will bend over backwards if you have nukes.”

        Don’t forget South Asia.

        Pakistan and India are both US allies,but I think they still have issues to resolve,and last November ISI members were caught for esponage.


        Pakistan’s ISI spy ring busted in India, BSF jawan among 2 held in Jammu, 3 agents apprehended in Kolkata
        Last Updated: Sunday, November 29, 2015 – 23:38

  37. Madlanglupa says:

    Now the folks at Rolling Stone just came out with something relevant to this entry, of what the Trump White House would look like under his reign… of terror.


    • Mad,

      After CNN’s town hall with Anderson Cooper interviewing/moderating the GOP candidates last nite,

      Trump doesn’t look like he’s gonna win Wisconsin next Tuesday.

      A lot of it I think will have to do with Trump’s “I didn’t start it” line when asked about the whole making fun of wives fiasco (which evolved into the Ted Cruz mistresses fiasco— which seems to have some merit 😉 ).

      To which Anderson Cooper said “That’s an argument of a 5 year old!”. Then Trump got red, flustered— he was doing well before that.

      But Trump is right though, he only goes on the offensive when other candidates (or reporters) lob attacks first. And Trump’s been consistent. Christie and Ben Carson were the two who didn’t attack (hit below the belt) Trump,

      Trump responded in kind.

      This simple battery case in Florida, I think is another GOP attack on Trump, ie. someone talked to the D.A. probably promised him/her some cush Federal position if they followed thru with this prosecution.

      The police dept. themselves didn’t even bother addressing this case (they usually hold press conferences), which means no support from them— there’s D.A. & Police disconnect here.

      Basically, the female reporter got too close to Trump. And Trump’s campaign manager was simply pulling body-guard/security work at that moment.

      Southern Florida is no stranger to paparazzi type incidents, they know these things don’t develop in a vacuum, ie. Trump can just as easily claim the same, and

      that his manager was simply protecting him.

      What everyone is taking away from this incident though, legal/criminal stuff aside, is that Trump is a fierce loyalist, he could’ve just as easily fired his manager for political expediency— that’s what other politicians would’ve done.

      So this incident is a big plus for Trump.

      What Anderson Cooper said last night though, about a 5 year old’s argument and eliciting that response from Trump was a bigger damage, but we’ll see next Tuesday if Wisconsin did mind— more importantly, if this Ted Cruz mistresses scandal develops over the weekend,

      Trump is either really lucky or a genius— I’ve noticed there’s a cadence (rhythm) to the media bombshells consistently exposed for public entertainment and consumption, which have helped Trump.

      Wisconsin next Tuesday, keep your eyes peeled 😉 .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: