Middle East backs Hilary Clinton

[Deleted]

The U.S. presidential race is capturing the interest of every nation as onlookers look to see who becomes the next "leader of the free world."

According to Bob McNally, president of consultancy firm Rapidan Group, countries in the oil-producing Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, are hoping for Hilary Clinton to become president.

"It is no secret that the Saudis and other Gulf Sunni powers are rooting for Mrs. Clinton," McNally told CNBC from Vienna ahead of Thursday's widely eyed OPEC meeting.

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/heres...l-analyst.html

[Theodarzna]

Welp, that's a third reason not to vote Clinton.

[lockedout]

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/heres...l-analyst.html

They know shes a greedy heathen.

[Azadina]

I wouldn't find it surprising. When someone says "ban all muslims" I'd find it more surprising if the muslims would support that person instead.

[Skroe]

Here's 1.2 billion reasons not to vote for Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mepage%2Fstory

Hong Kong television commentator Wu Jun observed recently that despite Donald Trump’s anti-Beijing rhetoric, he “could in fact be the best president for China.” The Chinese analyst is right: A Trump presidency could open the way for China’s strategic dominance in Asia and elsewhere.

Wu’s comment was focused on Trump’s mercantilist style, evoking a world in which Trump and President Xi Jinping, two “big guys,” might sit around a table at Mar-a-Lago and cut deals without worrying about human rights. “The Republican Party is more practical and Trump is a businessman who puts his commercial interests above everything else,” Wu said .

But there’s a deeper, more dangerous way in which Trump might be an enabler for Chinese ascendancy. His policies would play into China’s narrative about the world — and undermine the foundations of U.S. power in Asia, even as they are bolstering a rising China.

Let’s start with the impact of a Trump presidency on the Muslim world. A South Asian chief executive of a global company put it bluntly: “There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and they won’t forget what Trump said” about banning Muslim immigrants to the United States. He predicted that Muslims would turn away from a Trump-led United States *— not just Iraqis and Syrians, but Malaysians and Indonesians, too. The beneficiary of this global rebalancing would be China, he warned.

Hong Kong television commentator Wu Jun observed recently that despite Donald Trump’s anti-Beijing rhetoric, he “could in fact be the best president for China.” The Chinese analyst is right: A Trump presidency could open the way for China’s strategic dominance in Asia and elsewhere.

Wu’s comment was focused on Trump’s mercantilist style, evoking a world in which Trump and President Xi Jinping, two “big guys,” might sit around a table at Mar-a-Lago and cut deals without worrying about human rights. “The Republican Party is more practical and Trump is a businessman who puts his commercial interests above everything else,” Wu said .

But there’s a deeper, more dangerous way in which Trump might be an enabler for Chinese ascendancy. His policies would play into China’s narrative about the world — and undermine the foundations of U.S. power in Asia, even as they are bolstering a rising China.

Let’s start with the impact of a Trump presidency on the Muslim world. A South Asian chief executive of a global company put it bluntly: “There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and they won’t forget what Trump said” about banning Muslim immigrants to the United States. He predicted that Muslims would turn away from a Trump-led United States *— not just Iraqis and Syrians, but Malaysians and Indonesians, too. The beneficiary of this global rebalancing would be China, he warned.

Trump’s “America First” policies would reinforce the drift away from U.S. global leadership — in ways that would benefit China. The most obvious example is Trump’s disparagement of the trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (though he’s hardly the only miscreant here). As the Wall Street Journal noted, citing the views of Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, “An American failure to ratify TPP would bring about the very thing critics of the trade deal complain about: a more empowered China and bad terms for U.S. goods and services.”

New Zealand’s prime minister, John Key, described the risk for the United States of the TPP’s collapse, in a comment cited by the U.S. trade representative’s office: “If [the United States] abdicates leadership in the region, that role will get filled. It has to. In the end, these economies aren’t going to stand still.”

China has already started creating its own network for economic and political influence, anticipating the retreat of U.S. power. In some eerie ways, these Chinese plans are reminiscent of the institutions through which the United States established its dominance in the post-1945 world. As an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Beijing proposes the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. According to a Brookings Institution study, within five years, it could be lending $20 billion annually for regional development, roughly equivalent to what the U.S.-led World Bank lends.

China has its own version of the Marshall Plan, too, to supplant a waning American vision of internationalism. Beijing’s blueprint for land and maritime dominance has the unlikely moniker “One Belt, One Road.” It envisions transportation and infrastructure networks stretching from China by land to Moscow and Rotterdam, and by sea across Southeast Asia and along the African coasts, notes the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

China’s global ambition has its hubristic side; The Post’s Simon Denyer recently chronicled the empty cities in western China that have been built in overeager anticipation of a new Silk Road. But China is big and rich enough to make mistakes. Says Stanford professor Francis Fukuyama, “If ‘One Belt, One Road’ meets Chinese planners’ expectations, the whole of Eurasia, from Indonesia to Poland, will be transformed in the coming generation.”

China speaks the language that, in the U.S. age of expansion, was known as “manifest destiny.” This outward-looking vision of development and trade creates its own momentum. It becomes a focal point for private lenders and equity markets.

Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” is incoherent because it is accompanied by inward-looking, reactive policies. Like Trump’s own businesses, it’s more a franchising operation than a plan for real investment and growth. Trump may indeed have a formula for greatness — but the “winner” in this story would likely be Beijing.

Of course, this is too large and significant scale for the Donald Trump Legion of Losers to consider while voting.

Small ideas for small people.

[Gamdwelf]

Only low information people like Hillary.

[Zogarth]

I guess she is easier to buy. A bit weird they are okay with having a woman in power, but I guess even they would prefer her over Trump. I know in Denmark the media also generally seem to support Hillary, but that has more to do with how hilarious we find Trump and his endless stupidity that clown keeps showing.

[Skroe]

Only low information people like Hillary.

On the contrary, the educated support Hillary.

Angry lower-middle class male white losers support Trump.

[Polyxo]

I would say almost every world leader is backing Clinton. Clinton is a diplomat they've had experience working with, and she's a rational candidate who will somewhat support a status quo. Stability is good for international relations.

[Gamdwelf]

On the contrary, the educated support Hillary.

Angry lower-middle class male white losers support Trump.

Angry lower middle class female losers like Hillary. Anybody with a brain wouldn't pick either of them.

[Justpassing]

Well we can't have that! Walls away!

[Gib Lover]

On the contrary, the educated support Hillary.

Angry lower-middle class male white losers support Trump.

You don't need to be so derogatory and inflammatory about it.

[HardlyWaken]

On the contrary, the educated support Hillary.

Angry lower-middle class male white losers support Trump.

Do you consider education in Liberal Arts an education? :P

Anyone with half a brain can see she's corrupt as hell. Donald's biggest issues is his ego/mouth which gets a lot of people all wound up.

Of course the reality is, I don't think we have a great choice, and it certainly isn't Bernie. I consider Trump the lesser of the evils and at least has some good ideals, while others and less favorable. It's better than voting for people who own the most toxic media in the US and empowers some of the most toxic groups/people in the US. Policies get regarded and revised all the time, empowering the wrong people can damage society at large.

[Kalis]

Those that depend on global trade back presidential candidate in favour of global trade shocker!

[Skroe]

Angry lower middle class female losers like Hillary. Anybody with a brain wouldn't pick either of them.

Yeah okay buddy.





You're excused.

[Macaquerie]

I guess she is easier to buy. A bit weird they are okay with having a woman in power, but I guess even they would prefer her over Trump. I know in Denmark the media also generally seem to support Hillary, but that has more to do with how hilarious we find Trump and his endless stupidity that clown keeps showing.

Well, the Saudi royals certainly don't practice all the fundamentalist nonsense they preach, it's just a tool for them to keep the masses docile. And at the end of the day they are pragmatists, and Hillary certainly wouldn't be the type to turn her back on a useful strategic partner on the basis of any kind of principle.

And in other news, the North Koreans endorsed Trump...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/wo...rump.html?_r=0

[Polyxo]

Yeah okay buddy.





You're excused.

He's not wrong. Gallup is showing a similar educational function.

[hydrium]

On the contrary, the educated support Hillary.

Angry lower-middle class male white losers support Trump.

Aren't liberals supposed to be supporters and champions of the uneducated and downtrodden who are only victims of a system that fights to keep them there? To berate the very group your ideology is supposed to uplift seems very....perplexing. It's almost like you don't actually believe in the things you espouse but rather subscribe only to the identity.

[grandpab]

She's already received money from middle eastern leaders, so that's not surprising.

[Daelak]

Do you consider education in Liberal Arts an education? :P

Anyone with half a brain can see she's corrupt as hell. Donald's biggest issues is his ego/mouth which gets a lot of people all wound up.

Of course the reality is, I don't think we have a great choice, and it certainly isn't Bernie. I consider Trump the lesser of the evils and at least has some good ideals, while others and less favorable. It's better than voting for people who own the most toxic media in the US and empowers some of the most toxic groups/people in the US. Policies get regarded and revised all the time, empowering the wrong people can damage society at large.

Yes, a degree in a liberal arts major is a college education, but I guess you do need to actually be admitted into a 4 year college to actually know that, so no worries, maybe your children will be indoctrinated by the liberal professors in time.