Hillary Clinton is no friend of Poland either. She has been directly involved in so-called property restitution claims against Poland. For the link, click on my name in this posting.
Never let your sound judgement get in the way of your anti-leftist prejudice, Mr Jan Peczkis, scholar and thinker. A possible President Trump may not be in such a hurry to come to the aid of Poland via NATO if Polish-Russian relations turn even more sour than they already are.
Also, Jan, you might have sent in a correction to the article you linked to. Kaczynski is not actually the Polish prime minister.
A very thoughtful comment on your part, Mr. Karski. And it deftly avoids what a President Hillary Clinton would do to Poland.
There is nothing to elaborate. Just read more carefully what I wrote.
I read what you wrote quite carefully. Your reason for being against Hillary Clinton is because she supports some people's restitution claims. You're letting your usual bias cloud your judgement.However I notice you comment in the newer post that you doubt anyone's commitment to defending Poland. You may have a point. The current Polish government has not made itself very lovable worldwide so probably would not attract huge international support if it found itself in some sort of dispute with its powerful eastern neighbour. A Trump administration would almost certainly leave it to fend for itself in that kind of scenario, whereas a Clinton government would be headed by someone with experience on the world stage and could be relied on to at least attempt some diplomacy. Let's hope, of course, that it never comes to anything more than undiplomatic language between Poland and Russia and everyone ought to show a bit more respect for everyone else in that part of the world.
And I just noticed the date on the link you posted. Jaroslaw Kaczynski was indeed prime minister at the time. My mistake. So you're featuring an article from 2007 to illustrate Hillary Clinton's attitude to Poland?
Yep. Do you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton has changed her mind about this?And even if she did, who can believe anything she says? Both of the Clintons are inveterate liars.
If that's the case - and I'm only going on your opinion here - then the question must be, which of the candidates are better from the point of view of Poland and Polonia? Someone whose husband felt it was his place to churlishly and undiplomatically accuse the present Polish government of anti-democratic tendencies (but was he completely wrong in his assessment, however misplaced his comments might have been?) or someone who has more or less said he will not lift a finger to help Poland? Happy voting.
In case anyone is in any doubt, my own opinion is that Donald Trump may be a charming individual but he is not a serious politician. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, whatever her faults, is a credible contender. Jan Peczkis should put aside his personal anti-leftist prejudices and consider what is best for Poland. And, unfortunately, it is not likely to be Donald Trump.
grammar correction. Above should read "which of the candidates IS better", etcLatest news about D. Trump literally encouraging Russia to hack Clinton's emails puts him in a very poor light.
Maybe not such a charming individual after all.
There is not much time left before the November election. This blog is doing a great service to Polish-American voters by highlighting the issues. The choice is not an attractive one, but the candidates and their merits need a full discussion. As a Brit, I can only observe, but I think the Polish-American vote can be very influential so the more information everyone has, the better. Arguments about the apparent naïveté of Pope Francis or whether the term "cool" is disrespectful or not (surely not) pale into insignificance compared with what could be one of the most important elections in US history. More info please.
I don't mean to minimize your own concerns about the Pope's pronouncements, Danusha, since you clearly feel strongly about his influence, but the fact is, people will ignore him - particularly in Poland - if they disagree with his all-embracing attitude. The bottom line is, he is not an elected leader. The US election is a different matter entirely. People may well have Clinton fatigue, but a potential Trump presidency doesn't look all that great for Poland.
Given everything I've read about him recently, I don't know how I could ever have thought of Donald Trump as "charming". Perhaps, when things were seemingly going well for him, he appeared on top of things and managed to marshal some apparently cogent arguments, but he has totally caved under a little bit of pressure and negative publicity. Not a reassuring prospect for someone who wants to be a world leader.
Except he did not say that... This is no different than what Gates said sometime back. These countries - including the Baltics - spend very little on defense. Poland spends a bit more but still barely over 2% of GDP. He is absolutely right that they do not act as if they were threatened at all except for demanding US help. NATO expanded in 1999 and in 2016 there are still almost no Western soldiers in Poland, etc. So what does that tell you about NATO? It seems that the lesson Poland has drawn from WWII is do not rely on the French and English - rely on the Americans. After WWIII, the Poles will no doubt look to the Chinese or Nigerians.
Bieganski the Blog exists to further explore the themes of the book Bieganski the Brute Polak Stereotype, Its Role in Polish-Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture. These themes include the false and damaging stereotype of Poles as brutes who are uniquely hateful and responsible for atrocity, and this stereotype's use in distorting WW II history and all accounts of atrocity. This blog welcomes comments from readers that address those themes. Off-topic and anti-Semitic posts are likely to be deleted. Your comment is more likely to be posted if: Your comment includes a real first and last name.Your comment uses Standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Your comment uses I-statements rather than You-statements. Your comment states a position based on facts, rather than on ad hominem material. Your comment includes readily verifiable factual material, rather than speculation that veers wildly away from established facts. T'he full meaning of your comment is clear to the comment moderator the first time he or she glances over it. You comment is less likely to be posted if:You do not include a first and last name.Your comment is not in Standard English, with enough errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar to make the comment's meaning difficult to discern.Your comment includes ad hominem statements, or You-statements. You have previously posted, or attempted to post, in an inappropriate manner. You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.