U.S. presidential politics discussion thread

by Judith Curry

Please keep your discussions of presidential candidates  on this this thread

The other threads are getting cluttered with discussions of the U.S. presidential candidates.  This seems unavoidable given the drama of the primaries.

I will stay out of this discussion.  However I will post one link, which I spotted on twitter from Matt Briggs, that was just too funny:

Converted Trump now running for Pope

Enjoy, and PLEASE keep such discussions off the other threads.

746 responses to “U.S. presidential politics discussion thread

  1. When you are making recommendations for 300 million people, you have to be concerned about any data that suggests harm. Climate change has become a Left versus right issue and some politicians on the right said that the federal guidelines would consider comments from the public and scientific skeptics who question the advice of government scientists. Unfortunately, known mostly for their general incompetence, modern-day politicians on both sides of every issue generally are expected only to reaffirm the status quo such as the current convenient belief in global warming, despite the obvious ideological biases that exist, if it serves their own personal agenda.

    • The province of Ontario has just announced a cap and trade system for carbon which is nothing more than another tax grab.

      • I agree with David Wojick on this. I believe most politicians are very competent. They could work together better if there wasn’t so much division in America today. Unfortunately, exploiting that division seems to be the way to get elected.

      • Senators Obama, Clinton, Rubio and Cruz all impress me as being good examples of incompetence as far as serving the best interests of the American people, which is why many are turning to anti-establishment, non-politicians like Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson and Washington ‘outsiders’ like Christy and Kasich.

      • Yes, modern politicians are HIGHLY competent. They’re just not trying to do what you want them to do. I know nothing about your politics, but, whatever they are, I assume they are based on your assessment of what would be good for the general welfare of the body of American constituents, and you therefore would like politicians to implement those policies for everyone’s collective benefit. Your political antagonists disagree with you about whether those policies would in fact be beneficial, and therefore support opposing policies.

        The typical politician, in contrast, does not care about any of those policies. Their careers involve (1) playing various interest groups off against one another, in order to generate massive campaign finance contributions for themselves and lifelong incumbency; and (2) cutting deals with their supposed political antagonists to carve up the insanely massive federal budget among their cronies, in return for suitable kick-backs. This is why the seven richest counties in a America are in a horseshoe around D.C. The salary of a Congressman is, today, less than $175,000/year, and yet their median net worth is over $1M, and, obviously, the successful ones are far, far richer than that. (That figure includes everyone in the House today, including those elected just two years ago, and the median and mean are very different.)

    • Modern day politicians are extremely competent. Failing to see this is a great mistake.

      • richardswarthout


        “Modern day politicians are extremely competent. Failing to see this is a great mistake.”

        I see some very competent politicians and some very incompetent politicians.


      • What sets Donald Trump apart from other ‘politicians’ is that he proposes to get the federal government out of the education business and clear out the EPA. While many studies are often financed by interested industries, Western government funds global warming alarmism studies. Politics and science have become intertwined and a lot more tribal!

      • So David Wojick, “Modern day politicians are extremely competent”?

        Well maybe so.

        But compentent at what?

      • “Modern day politicians are extremely competent.”

        Yes, at self-promotion, self-aggrandisement, chasing brown envelopes and fiddling their expenses AKA ripping off their employers.

        Such a shame they’re not very competent at politics.

      • At getting elected maybe.

        Our current President is a prime example of incompetence at anything else. The man couldn’t lead people out of a burning building. In fact, he would most likely stand in the doorway and lecture people in the importance of remaining calm while assuring them he was doing everything possible to ensure their well being.

      • Politicians are neither competent nor efficient. They are political.

      • Some fine examples of the great mistake I referred to. The political system is the decision making system of democracy. As such it is not simple, far from it. I have studied politicians and they are first and foremost social problem solvers. I suspect that most of the commenters here would not have the slightest idea how to even begin to do what they do well. The best do it very well.

        The lack of understanding of the complexity of the political system that is displayed here is close to laughable. Politics is the art of compromise, where the number of people involved ranges from hundreds to billions, all wanting many different things. To repeat, the people who do this well are extremely competent. Failure to understand this is a great mistake.

      • Well David, it’s pretty obvious you’re quite the fan of the “Great Man” theory of history and politics.

        There are, nevertheless, other theories afloat out there:

        The Great Man theory is a 19th-century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of “great men”, or heroes; highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or political skill utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. The theory was popularized in the 1840s by Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle.

        But in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a counter-argument that has remained influential throughout the 20th century to the present: Spencer said that such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes.


        Tolstoy is another one who wouldn’t have been too enamored of your interpretation of politics and history.

        And then of course there’s Braudel and the longue durée, also quite antithetical to the Great Man theory of history.

      • Chris Schoneveld

        David, you made an very important caveat: “the people who do this well are extremely competent”. So who are the peolple who do this well?

      • They were once called Magicians. They did what the owner of the ‘Big House’ wanted. Not much seems to have changed today.

      • Yes, modern politicians are HIGHLY competent–they just don’t look that way because, for reasons that mystify me, most people have no understanding of what they’re trying to do.

        I don’t know anything about your politics, but, whatever they are, I presume you favor whatever policies you do because you believe it would benefit the collective population of the U.S., and perhaps the world, if they were implemented. Your political antagonists disagree with you, and therefore favor competing policies. Humans being humans, both you and your political antagonists are to some degree deceiving yourselves, rationalizing policies that are in your personal interests as being more generally beneficial than they really are, but both you and they are generally sincere.

        The typical politician, in contrast, cares about none of those policies. His career involves two primary tasks: (1) playing those disagreeing interest groups off against each other to channel massive campaign contributions into (ultimately) his wallet and to secure lifetime incumbency; and (2) working with his supposed political antagonists to divide up the ludicrously massive federal budget among their various client-cronies, in return for suitable kick-backs. That is why the seven richest countries in the country are in a horseshoe around D.C. The salary of a Congressman is, today, less than $175k/year, but the median wealth of Congressmen is over $1M, and, obviously, the successful politicians are far, far wealthier. (That figure includes all Congressmen, including those elected only two years ago, and the median and the mean are very different from one another.)

  2. Clever idea! Don’t take this an endorsement. As a Canadian who will not be voting, just an observer, I don’t feel I should make endorsement. That being clarified. I think Trump is going to be the next president. I think that simply because I am certain Clinton has the nomination since it has practically been a coronation and the American people as a whole are thoroughly fed up with career politicians.

    • richardswarthout


      I don’t believe Trump will be president. The polls say that 2/3 of voters disprove. More likely, it will be Bloomberg – he has said that he may run as a third party candidate. However, Trump my lose the GOP primary give the recent revelations of business misconduct.


      • I had not heard of those. Which ones?

      • richardswarthout


        Cruz has been saying, at the Thursday debate and all day yesterday, and with no denial from Trump, that Trump was found guilty of using illegal Polish immigrants in constructing one of his towers. Also, that he is using cheap foreign labor at his hotels/restaurants; Trump says that he couldn’t get Americans to do the work however Cruz says that 300 Americans applied and only 17 were accepted.


      • At least Bloomberg is a self-made millionaire with ten times the wealth of Trump and less showy about it. Much better all around on that score.

      • Poor, richard. Utterly clueless.

      • richardswarthout

        Don Monfort

        “Poor, richard. Utterly clueless.”

        Not clueless. To date four states have voted and in nine days 16 more states will have voted, and only the mindless trust the polls. Perhaps I should bite my tongue and wait the nine days, but so should everybody; it will be a short wait.

        Tell me what you think the morning of March 8th.


      • richardswarthout

        That should have been “the morning of March 9th”

      • Pobrecito ricardito. Trump is the de-facto leader of the Republican Party and the very, very likely nominee for POTUS. On March 8, 9 or 10 story will be the same. Only add a couple more verys. I’m packing my little bag for Tejas. Got to go to church in the morning.

      • David Springer

        Donny couldn’t calculate his way out of a paper bag or, for that matter, see far enough to determine which way was the exit.

        Given the primary results so far the next president will likely be Hillary Clinton. Trump is the ONLY republican nominee who is well behind Hillary in the general election matchups.


        A vote for Trump in the primary is a vote for Hillary in the general election. Write that down.

      • It’s hard for me to believe that the polls are going to change and people are start all of sudden start liking Trump. He is a pretty much a household name so most people have probably already formed an opinion. But I guess anything can happen. I guess the hope would be for Republicans we have a low turnout overall with a high Republican turnout. Hispanics definitely aren’t going to vote for him and that hurt Romney.

      • the very, very likely nominee for POTUS.

        Don, I thought you said he was definitely going to be POTUS.

      • David Springer

        Joseph – the religious right won’t turn out to vote for Trump either.

      • If you now were to believe that MSM is simply a tool for propaganda, would you still tell the truth to pollsters and focus groups? Donald wants and is going to have; the biggest and most luxurious tent in this circus. It’s his life story. Welcome to the Revival meeting.

    • Trump Next President?

      “A political science professor who claims his statistical model has correctly predicted the results of every election except for one in the last 104 years has forecast that the odds of Donald Trump becoming America’s next president currently range from 97 percent to 99 percent.

      The professor is Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University, reports The Statesman, the campus newspaper at the public bastion on New York’s Long Island.

      Specifically, Norpoth predicts that Trump has a 97 percent chance of beating Hillary Clinton and a 99 percent chance of beating Bernie Sanders”


      • David Springer

        Trump would be the first US president ever to have not held a lower elected or appointed office, or a been a military general (Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower) prior to becoming president.

        I wonder if Norpoth’s algorithm takes that into account.

      • The country will elect the first tycoon or woman for President. The Pink-O won’t fly… let’s all ask Vince, what he thinks.

      • At Real Clear Politics, Trump’s poll numbers are trending up consistently. Same for Florida. But between now and Florida there are about 300 delegates. Rubio is Toastio.

      • That first sentence should have ended with “nationally.”

      • Trump has been very vocal about taking care of veterans. I think he has a chance with vets and the military.

        I know ICE is fed up with being throttled. They are being told to hit the road if they don’t like Obummer’s id-i-ot-ic refusal to enforce immigration laws.

    • I would have to see more proof of that beyond Cruz. I’m afraid the Cruz campaign has not been reliable on sticking to facts and they have been caught making things up.

  3. Presenting at Hibbing High School in Minnesota yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) told cheering students:

    “I have talked to scientists all over this world. And what they say, almost unanimously, is that climate change is real; it is caused by human activity; it is already causing devastating problems in our country and all over the world. And what they tell us is, if we do not get our act together, if we do not transform our energy system away from fossil fuel into energy efficiency and sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our children and our grandchildren is a planet that will not be healthy or particularly habitable. We have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. And by the way, when you make that transformation, we can create millions of decent paying jobs, building the solar panels we need, building them here in America, not in China; building the wind turbines we need, here in the United States.”

    I would point out that Sanders seems to be unaware that climate science has been politicized by radical environmentalism. There are indeed advocate scientists who say what he claims, but there are also many who disagree. The best evidence says that we are not causing dangerous climate change. There are no “devastating problems” so we would like to hear what Sanders thinks they are. Fossil fuels are supplying almost all of our and the world’s energy and that is a good thing. Solar and wind cannot replace fossil fuels.

    • You forget that in addition to the radical environmentalists who have politicized AGW, the unapologetic polluters (many of whom enjoy the trillions in corporate socialism to profit from publicly owned resources like oil, coal, air and water) have also politicized the debate.

      • richardswarthout


        What is the definition of “unapologetic polluters”? Certainly you do not lump CO2, which does not harm animals and humans, in the same category as well known gases and chemicals that do cause harm?


      • When too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing is it wrong to call the “too much” part a pollutant.

      • “When too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing is it wrong to call the “too much” part a pollutant.”

        Not at all. ”Sola dosis facit venenum.”

      • David Springer

        Robert makes an asinine misapplication of “the dose makes the poison”. This phrase is used in toxicology. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere today or in any reasonably foreseeable future is not toxic. Under that dimwitted view water is a pollutant.

      • I am an unapologetic polluters and proud of it. I enjoy driving my personal car and running the central air system to heat in Winter and cool in Summer. It keeps us comfortable. I love the household appliances that make our lives easier and more productive. I love to BBQ with charcoal. I don’t love the lawnmower as much, but life would be worse without it.

        I love producing CO2. So stick it.

    • Bernie Sanders said:

      And by the way, when you make that transformation, we can create millions of decent paying jobs, building the solar panels we need, building them here in America, not in China; building the wind turbines we need, here in the United States.

      This harkens back to the famous (or infamous) passage from Keynes, imploring the implementation of demand-side economcs:

      If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

      Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 The General Theory..

      The real problem plauguing the United States economy, however, is not a lack of demand, but a surfeit of mal-investment and a lack of production. Creating more demand offers no solution for these problems.

      If one misdiagnoses the disease as badly as Sanders has, then prescribing the wrong medicine is inevitable.


      • Essentially what Sanders is saying is that even more mal-investment is the solution for past mal-investmen.

      • Nice word, glennie: surfeit. Jogged a vague memory of J.K. Galbraith on production for the sake of consumption. Something about choking on a surfeit of nylon seat covers and plastic door knobs.

      • The real problem with the US as well as the world is their leader’s embrace of Keynesian economics. Exorcise that from the body government and you’ve gone a long way to fixing the various economies.

      • jim2,

        I tend to agree.

        Here’s how that populist arch-conservative Kevin Phillips (he stands accused of formulating the Southern Strategy, though I’m not sure that’s true) put it in American Theocracy:

        The Democratic presidential cycle that began in 1933 soon introduced willing use of deficitry and debtcraft, reflecting the spend-to-stimulate theories of John Maynard Keynes, whose view had become so widespread by 1970 that Richard Nixon acknowledges that “we’re all Keynesians now.”….

        By the Reagan years, besides encompassing supply-side tax-cut theology and monetarist faith in currency expansion and shrinkage, the ranks of conservative Republicanism included tax-cut Keynesians (deficits are fine if you’re giving money back to the folks who count), military Keynesians (the Pentagon houses government’s most deserving function), pork-barrel Keynesians (more roads and projects, and then even more), and even bailout Keynesians (large or well-connected financial institutions have to be rescued).

        By the decade’s end, as the philosophers of debt usefulness finished lining bookshelves with the paeans to junk bonds, leveraged buyouts, “deserving deficits,” tax cuts no matter what, and the belief that curren-account deficits signify only foreign hunger to invest in America, the debt fox was loose in the fiscal henhouse.

      • Yeah Glenn have you not noticed that the trade deficit really ballooned after we signed all of those free trade deals in the 90’s. I don’t think it is any coincidence..

      • Joseph,

        I think you’re mistaking a symptom for the disease.

        Bretton Woods fell apart because of Johnson’s, and even more so Nixon’s, refusal to pay for the Vietnam War and the Great Society programs through taxation. This resulted in an increased dollar outflow to pay for the military expenditures and rampant inflation, which led to the deterioration of the U.S. balance of trade position.

        In 1970 Nixon delcared “we’re all Keynesians now,” and on 15 August 1971, he issued Executive Order 11615, which unilaterally ended Bretton Woods I. This was also known as the “Nixon shock,” as Nixon made the policy change without consulting anyone outside his inner circle and with no forewarning.

        Once the Republican Party swung over to embracing Keynesian economics, there was no genuine (genuine being the key qualifier here) opposition to what Phillips dubbed “deficitry and debtcraft.” (see graph below)

        Now granted, Republicans continued to give lip service to sound fiscal management, but Republican hypocrisy doesn’t change the fact that the flood gates were opened, and the road to debt perdition was assured.

        I don’t know exactly why the other nations of the world have financed US profligacy for so long, and why the US hasn’t succumbed to the sort of debt trap dynamics that any other country in the world would have long ago fallen victim to. Certainly the reasons are very complex.

        Nevertheless, even though the United States has managed to maintain the current situation for some 45 years — a situation I would describe as nothing short of surreal — and many economists argue the United States can keep the gravy train going forever, I hardly believe the status quo is sustainable.

        The trade agreements are an effort to prolong the gravy train. At some point, however, I believe the gravy train will come to an end and the United States will be forced to learn to live on what it produces.


      • I’m also a fan of the Austrian School, so I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t understand why you think the trade deficit illustrates the point you’re making. If the rest of the world wants to invest in America because they don’t see anyplace better, that–like all other voluntary transactions–is great for both parties. The trouble lies in the fact that the very definitions of the metrics we’re using to talk about macroeconomics are flawed, and do not reflect what we pretend they reflect. C+I+G? A mathematical model more broken that GCMs.

      • Glenn Stehle | February 27, 2016 at 1:10 pm |
        Essentially what Sanders is saying is that even more mal-investment is the solution for past mal-investmen.

        The “If you have viruses on your computer, download a bunch more malware and they might kill each other off” theory doesn’t work well in practice.

    • Sanders is preaching to young and impressionable people who are grasping for anything to alleviate their financial pain.

    • A bit late to this thread, but fossil fuels are what make the lives we live possible. In fact, wind turbines and solar panels are not possible without fossil fuels.

  4. Trump – a legend in his own mind.

    • The Pope piece was excellent at capturing the way he talks. One study has put his vocabulary at third grade level. His base is the low-information voter, which, unfortunately for the US, is huge.

      • He would tweet that is an honer!

      • However, I would also ask Rubio, how he would spell “choker” because he seemed to think that was wrong.

      • I saw trump’s tweet: it said ‘chocker’

      • OK, that explains that, so Rubio didn’t say it right when he made a speech about Trump’s spelling errors.

      • JimD: By denigrating people as low intelligence, you only highlight and remind us that you are one of the least intelligent warmunist on this blog. Your only tools are sneering, the non sequitur and lame analogies. In Trump speak: a snob with no common sense, a jealous loser.

        If you had the self confidence to get out of the shadow of your exceedingly small ego, you might recognize realize that Trump is using state of the art communication strategies to completely flip the political playbook script and dominate the entire scene. Personally, I think the guy is has no real depth and would be a lame President, but that is irrelevant. The man is a communication savant and we can all learn something positive from him.

      • Low information is different from low intelligence. It correlates better with low education level, but even that doesn’t have to correlate with intelligence. Being informed on political affairs doesn’t require intelligence, just interest and open mindedness.

      • Jim D must listen to Rush Limbaugh as I think he invented the phrase ‘low information voter’

      • Both sides have low information voters, and I think I can guess who Rush meant probably in reference to Obama’s victories.

      • No he’s used that for years. But yeah there was a guy, John Ziegler, who paid for a poll by Zogby showing how ignorant Obama voters were. Zogby got a lot of criticism for that but he said it was paid for. Zeigler is a former right wing radio host and Rush fan. http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=175

      • –snip–

        American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term “low-information” in 1991 when he used the phrase “low-information signaling” in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.


      • You are worried about his spelling? And his vocabulary? He is kicking ass. Trump is talking himself into the White House. That’s how Presidents get there. By talking. You people are really naive.

      • DM, a certain Adolf was also very persuasive with the gift of the gab in his Make Germany Great Again campaign too. This echoes that.

      • Except the only National Socialist demagogue is Bernie Sanders.

      • Sanders doesn’t blame all our problems on ethnic subsets and other countries.

      • Nice Jim. Condescending attitudes are so becoming.

      • Horst,

        JimD does not sneer. He is immune to data and intelligent argument which runs counter to his beliefs and his comment regard Trump supporters was unbecoming, but yours are from out in left field, the bleachers to be more specific.

      • Trump plays on putting false ideas out that he knows his people will just believe at face value. Some, perhaps most, believe him that Obama was born in Kenya. This is his type of people, and he knows how to operate them.

      • Jim D, your invocation of “low information voter” suggests that if voters had more information they would think as you do. This blog shows well that is just false. We have just as much, probably more, information as you and we still think you are (shall I put it politely?) wrong.

      • It’s the same with armchair scientists who think they can criticize actual scientists based on politicized bloggings. Information is needed to judge things. Information is more than opinions. Cluelessness is not a good starting point, which is where Trump comes in.

      • Jim D: “It’s the same with armchair scientists who think they can criticize actual scientists based on politicized bloggings”

        Like you?

      • Actually I trust the scientists.

      • Jim D: “Actually I trust the scientists.”

        So do I Jimbo, I’ve built a successful career on my knowledge, training in and understanding and experience of science – all of it the work of centuries ow work by real scientists.

        Thing is, I trust a completely different variety to the ones you trust, the ones I trust are proven and honest.

      • You distrust the ones you disagree with from your armchair perspective. Fine, that is what I am saying.

      • Nice, yimmy. Adolph. You people are really desperate. Just when we thought you couldn’t sink any lower. Little yimmy is afraid he is going to be deported to his home planet.

      • Lots in common. Look up demagogue.

      • We are looking forward to hearing a nice thud when you hit bottom, yimmy.

      • I thought all things considered the discussions were going well.
        JimD – this is something to be avoided.

      • I tried, but a demagogue is a demagogue, and you look up famous demagogues of the past, and there it is. This is an interesting challenge to the American electoral system, as it was back then in Germany in the 30’s, also a democratic country. It doesn’t happen very often, but sometimes democracy produces vain cult-of-personality demagogues as leaders.

      • What’s wrong with representing the low information voter? Politics is not just for intellectuals you know.

      • That’s how demagogues get into power.

      • Perhaps but it is also how ordinary folk can shake off the shackles of intellectual know-it-alls who don’t have their best interests at heart. Democracy is about the opportunity to elect ones own representatives for ones own reasons not to have them chosen for you by those who consider themselves your betters.

      • the ones I trust are proven and honest.


      • “Chocker” eh? That’s the guy that blocks the jet tires at the airport.

        This is pretty senseless discussion about someone who, after the election will have professional speech writers and who’s greatest writing adventure will be signing his name for 4-8 years.

        Americans prefer good policy to good spelling.

        This point was proven a few elections ago after a previous spelling fiasco. Good spelling lost to good policy by a landslide. Dukakis ran on the campaign slogan, “He doesn’t have a clue, but he doesn’t have a Quayle.”

    • Jim D “Trump – a legend in his own mind.”

      Which makes you a legend in your own lunchtime, I imagine.

      When your bank account is a million dollars behind his, perhaps you will be qualified to make such comments.

    • You at least have some room to grow.

  5. I’m with Donnie, Trump is the man to beat. In the general, he takes out Hillary. If the superdelegates let Sanders win, he has the only shot to beat the Donald.

    Some of the best stuff I have read about Trump’s success on the campaign trail has been from Dilbert creator Scott Adams.

  6. richardswarthout

    Jim D

    I agree that the USA has many low information voters but question if it has more than most other countries; how knowledgeable can a population be if it votes for a progressive or a socialist? Should anybody be surprised that Trudeau is raising taxes?


  7. Bernie Supporters Describe Hillary Clinton In One Word


    While Bernie Sanders regularly refuses to criticize Hillary Clinton, his supporters do not hesitate. Below is a listing of some of the most common words used by Democrat voters to describe Hillary Clinton:

    •Liar (9 times)
    •Dishonest (5 times)
    •Emails (3 times)
    •Establishment (3 times)
    •Benghazi (2 times)
    •Monica (2 times)
    •Flip- flopper

    What’s a Reptilian-Shape-Shifter?

  8. For democracy to work, it “demands an educated and informed electorate” (Jefferson). Lacking that, I think you get the demagogues with simple but impractical or dangerous messages that people believe. In the so-called information age, what we have is not only more information, but also more noise to drown out the real information.

    • How do you explain that both the repubs and demos are sporting real contenders who are anti-establishment.

      This election is the most interesting one that I can remember. What is disconcerting is that the democratic party uses establishment insider super-delegates bought and paid for by wall street to anoint Hillary against the will of the people.

      • Sanders can point to other democratic countries as working examples of what he says he wants. Trump can only point to banana republics as examples of his style of leadership.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        Sanders’ socialist framework is unworkable; a fact that other countries are starting to realize.


      • Bill O’Reilly said he would go to Ireland if Sanders won. Ironically Ireland is about as socialist as countries get.

      • Jim D “Ironically Ireland is about as socialist as countries get.”

        Dear me, do you really believe that?

        You don’t get out much, do you?

      • JimD: Trump is a RINO. Don’t confuse his shtick with reality.

      • Horst, yes, Trump has a collection of opinions (some whacky) that fits neither party cleanly, and some of which change for convenience. It is surprising the Republicans wanted to adopt him for their presidential candidate. They have been taken in and are now being made to look like fools when he goes after what they considered to be their brightest and best and is actively bringing them down into the mud with him. It gets messier because personal attacks and blaming ethnic groups for all the problems is what appears to poll well among Republicans on the basis of the first few votes. The race to the bottom is what we see now on that side.

    • You’re silly, yimmy. Sanders can point to a few countries with relatively small and homogeneous populations that have had economic success under U.S protection that has allowed them to go down the welfare state road. They will all run out of other peoples money, sooner or later. They got very big problems with assimilating poor, uneducated immigrants. We don’t want that here.

      Bernie will soon be crushed by the Clinton-DNC machine and so will any enthusiasm that exists on the Democrat side. Trump is going to the White House, yimmy.

      • Hillary is already toast in the general. Even Susan Sarandon hates her.
        If Bernie gets screwed, and he will, his supporters will sit the election out and Trump will win:

      • Horst,

        I’m not so sure.

        The anti-establishment sentiment is so rife that I’ve heard some Sanders supporters say that if the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party prevails, they will vote Trump.

        The word I would use to describe the political situation in the United States right now is “turbulent.”

        Turbulence increases complexity and unpredictability by orders of magnitude.

      • Horst,

        Also, Trump has his own hurdles to overcome, which at this point seem insurmountable.

        One is the Latino vote. Bob Scheiffer describes the overarching problem the Republican Party faces here:


        And more specifically there’s this:

        Clinton Would Crush Trump Among Latino Voters, Poll Finds


        Trump wins only 16% of the Hispanic vote in a matchup with Clinton.

        That’s not anywhere near the 47% minimum threshold that some researchers consider necessary to prevail in the general election:

        In 2012, polling by Latino Decisions found that Mitt Romney won the support of just 23 percent of Latino voters. In 2016, the Republican presidential candidate will need twice that support to win the White House.

        The cause for the GOP’s “Latino deficit” is no secret and can largely be explained by two interrelated factors: Latinos are the growth segment of the electorate and just one Republican presidential candidate in the last six elections has won a majority of the popular vote.

        To assess how these dynamics may play out in 2016, we use data from recent presidential elections to model the sizes of the Latino and Non-Latino segments of the electorate and these groups’ contribution to the GOP aggregate vote.

        “The Latino Threshold to Win in 2016”

      • I give that TIME poll about as much cred as the Wall Street Journal Propaganda Poll. So, taking our lesson about models (used in polls) and polls to heart, let’s get some data from the field. From the article:

        Donald Trump won among just about every demographic group in Nevada’s Republican caucuses, especially voters looking for a Washington outsider, according to entrance polls. Perhaps the most surprising group Trump won was Latino voters, who made up 9 percent of the Republican caucus electorate and went for Trump 44 percent.


      • jim2,

        Following an easy win in Nevada Tuesday night, Donald Trump bragged that he was “number one with Hispanics.” The media also marveled at Trump’s big win in the Southwest, reporting that 45 percent of Latinos had favored Trump….

        However…, in fact, 93 percent of the Latinos in Nevada did not support Trump….

        [O]nly a very small percentage of Latinos in Nevada identify as Republican — 55 percent call themselves Democrats and 29 say they’re independents. In other words, when Trump bragged that he won the support of 44 percent of Latino Republicans, he’s actually bragging about only 7 percent of the entire Latino population in Nevada supporting him….

        Weighing the total number of Latinos who caucused in both the Democratic and Republican elections, Trump only earned 2,600 votes out of 22,500 — or about 11 percent.

        Finally, in a separate poll that looked at Nevada and other general election battleground states, an overwhelming 80 percent of Latino voters said Trump’s thoughts on immigrants and Mexicans gave them a less favorable opinion of the GOP overall.

        “Sorry Donald,” Damore concludes rather convincingly. “You are not No. 1 with Hispanics in Nevada.”

      • I concede that point, Glenn. The numbers I posted were from the primary, not the general latino population. More later.

    • “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts…and beer.” A. Lincoln

  9. If a Republican wins the Whitehouse and the Senate remains as it is now, the EPA will be thwarted and subsidies for alternative energy curtailed – except where large donors bought favors. The media will scream about our denialist (word?) leaders. If Hillary wins and the Senate turns, cheap energy will vanish and costs will escalate, hurting manufacturers and the least wealthy – I hate to call families getting earned income credits, Medicaid, food stamps and free education “poor” – while overseas manufacturers continue to benefit from cheaper fossil fuel. Demand will collapse while prices fall, bringing on worldwide deflation. Global warming will be the least of our problems.

    • Your naive and silly. You know that fracking took off under Obummer, right? Hillary is only loyal to the sources of money that keep her in power and you think she will be more librul than Barry Hussein????

      • ” You know that fracking took off under Obummer, right?”

        You mean “fracking took off in spite of Obummer”, don’t you?

      • If Obama couldn’t stop fracking, no one can, that’s the point. Even libruls are bought and paid for by our omni-national corporate overlords.

      • Obama drove energy prices higher to make renewables falsely look good. This made fracking profitable.

        Crediting Obama for the fracking boom is like crediting him for the increase in gun sales.

      • Read harder PA, what is it with deniers like you who constantly need to mount the hobby horse to slay strawmen?? Obama couldn’t stop fracking, therefore, it is unlikely that Hillary or Sanders could either. Do you get me, sweetheart?

      • Horst,

        Well actually “fracking took off” under Bush.

        Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing correlation equals causation, Quite the opposite, Team Bush had little if anything to do with creating the hallowed “shale revolution,” which was created by three main factors:

        1) High prices of natural gas and oil (both ephemeral, looking in the rearview mirror)

        2) Improvements in horizontal drilling and fracking technology, and

        3) ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) and QE (Quantative Easing)


      • Horst, did fracking lower your utility bill? Replacing existing coal-fired plants with new plants that burn cheap natural gas raises the cost of electricity; subsidizing renewables, building storage for them or more fossil fuel back-ups also raises your energy bill; and employing all those who now work in clean energy raises prices, too – with minimal benefits. The reason for low gasoline prices is only partially because of fracking: lower world demand because of a slowing economy and renewables replacing petroleum are also to blame. Immediate consequences – lower price indices which show the world is headed towards deflation. As low oil prices continue (no upward pressure seen for years), commodity prices will drop (wheat, aluminum, everything – will see costs drop with low oil while demand stagnates). Now, Horst, I explained this without calling you naïve or silly. Can you do the same?

      • Jim: Your OP stated that a bought and paid for Hillary Clinton, along with a corporate purchased democratic senate would go full enviro-commie and escalate energy prices. Nothing you said in your second, rational and sane post (that predicts more of the same flat, sliding commodities) counters your naive and silly notion about Hillary. She is more conservative than Bush and craves power more than Trump. If energy does increase under Hillary, it will be to payoff corporate and political allies while throwing the useful idiot greens a small bone. Also, many think the low commodity prices are causing stagnation in the economy because a significant portion of our manufacturing and technical services feed off of the commodities sector.

      • jimeichstedt said:

        …lower world demand because of a slowing economy…

        I know that the mainstream media (MSM) has repeated this untruth ad nauseaum, but world oil consumption at no time since 2009 has declined.

        The takeway from this is that the MSM does not do factual reality. It hardly ever fact checks. The only thing the MSM does is to uncritically repeat whatever narratives it is fed by the powers that be.


      • jimeichstedt said:

        …lower world demand because of…renewables replacing petroleum…

        Well again, this is one of those false narratives that is shamelessly repeated by the MSM.

        The factual reality, however, is an entirely different story.

        Renewables (other than biomass) as a transport fuel don’t amount to a fly on an elephant’s ass.


      • jimeichstedt said:

        As low oil prices continue (no upward pressure seen for years),…

        Well if you’re crystal ball is that good, you’d be able to buy and sell Donald Trump a hundred times over.

    • ODu_mb_A_ss had nothing to do with promoting fracking, other than by some miracle he failed to regulate it to death. Bush II was the one that gave it a big boost, much to the chagrin of the Enviro-Not_zees.


    • Horst,

      Democrats and liberals may pay lip service to the climatariat, but let’s get real.

      No viable politician in the United States — liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican — is going to point a loaded gun at the head of the US economy and pull the trigger.

      Falling on one’s own sword to satisfy the demands of some fanatical secular religious group — the environmental Puritans — isn’t going to happen.

  10. At first Trump was the only GOP nominee to aggressively strike his opponents. Now, as they see he is winning, they are now attempting to beat Trump at his own game. This is exactly what he wanted. He’s up against two suckers.

  11. This has been the most open and entertaining election I can remember. I think it’s mostly due to Trump and Sanders but prolly mostly Trump.

    • ==> This has been the most open and entertaining election I can remember.

      Did you watch the recent Republican “debate?” If so, did you find it interesting?

      • It was AWESOME!!

      • Yes I streamed it as I don’t have speakers on my computer. As I said it’s entertaining. Although I don’t consider these much of a debate mostly a lot of nonsense. I harken back to the days when Bill Buckley and his good friend George McGovern used to have real debates of public interests.

      • ordvic –

        ==> I harken back to the days when Bill Buckley and his good friend George McGovern used to have real debates of public interests.

        Well, I guess that’s what makes for horse racing. Do you find the WWF interesting also?

      • Sorry – I hit “post” too soon. I mean to say that I, also, find actual debates interesting, but found that debate to be rather wholly uninteresting. I find some things interesting just for their quality of being absurd, but I don’t find all absurd spectacles interesting, and least after the first few moments when the novelty has worn off. The WWF being an example.

      • Didn’t bother. Guess I plan on being one of those ignorant lower class voters Jim D talks about.

        Besides, why waste the time. Christie has dropped out and Kasich doesn’t have a snowball ‘s chance. By the time Oregon primary comes along, Cruz and Rubio will likely be eating Donald’s dust.

      • I bet nobody here is interested in what you find interesting, no name.

      • Josh, no I never watch WWF. It’s all fake as far as I know. Now a fight between Ali-Frazier both Fathers and daughters now that’s entertainment and interesting too.


      • I don’t give a fruit flies’ fart what you think Josh.

    • It was only a matter of time for the presidential election to become a reality TV event combining elements of Survivor, the Amazing Race and Hell’s Kitchen with Celebrity Apprentice. Lot’s of media money to make on it, and no surprise that a pro at the game stands out having twisted the process to his own terms. It is one thing to win a reality show, and another to actually have the job to do.

      • Jim, you and Josh should get together for coffee. You’ll have lots to talk about. Particularly your views on low class, white trash voters who like NASCAR and pro wrestling, who shop at WalMart and like reality tv.

      • You may have a low opinion of these people, but actually they are a large group in America who just live their comfortable lives with politics only in the background noise, or some may be interested enough to tune into radio shows.

      • Jim D: “You may have a low opinion of these people”

        No Jimbo, that would be you actually, judging by your patronising, derogatory comments.

      • Do you consider people who are not interested in politics as lesser in some sense? I don’t. Just because someone is low-information I don’t assume they are dumb. More likely they are just not interested in that particular subject (politics in this case), and that is fine until they start believing and voting for a demagogue just based on slogans, which is also not dumb, just gullible. My opinion.

      • Rather typically, tim – you seem to think that you know (and apparently are quite interested in) what my opinions are or aren’t despite not basing your opinion on evidence.

        Any time you want to know what I actually think, fee free to ask. Or, you can fantasize about what I do and don’t believe as you have often done in the past. Entirely up to you, my friend.

      • “that is fine until they start believing and voting for a demagogue just based on slogans, which is also not dumb, just gullible. My opinion.”

        Hmmm…….that describes someone…I can’t place it right now but it will come to me

      • You need to look beyond the slogans, to what they have actually done or propose to do, and not just negatives like removing social programs, but positives like what they want to add for people to benefit. Does he want iPhone factories in the US if the pay is ten times higher and their cost goes up by a factor of ten? As a rich person, perhaps he hasn’t thought through what his ideas do to the costs of things. It may be a blind spot. Someone needs to ask him for details beyond the slogans before it is too late.

  12. Trump is basically far more right on the issues than the other candidates.

    He might not be the best messenger, but he is delivering the right message.

    The fact that he is a successful businessman and is not infected with the Washington mind set is in his favor.

    The problems are the economy and the border and he will fix them. His foreign policy is probably going to be interesting but should be an improvement.

    The 8 years of a failed community organizer have been a lost cause. A successful businessman should be a big improvement.

    • He is on the right on many issues, but still makes clear concepts like no one dying on the street for lack of medical care. I just wonder how the IRS would fare under Trump and a GOP/Independent Congress. It would be good to take them down a few dozen notches.

    • richardswarthout


      “The fact that he is a successful businessman”

      He inherited $200 million and now, after 30 years, has $10 billion. That is 10% per year, about average for the stock market for the last three decades.


      • That is some really tired crap, richie. He’s only got 10 $BILLION$.

      • Factual reality = “tired crap.”

        Apparently, Don is impressed by someone who inherents massive wealth and takes advantage of our economic structure to multiply that wealth, but thinks that pointing out that our economic structure enables people who inherit massive wealth to multiply that wealth is “tired crap.”

        Ah yes. The logic of a “skeptic.” Always a thing of beauty and a work of art.

      • richardswarthout

        Don Monfort

        I don’t recall you being this caustic. Is it a Trump effect?


      • The gross national debt is $19 Trillion.

        The government was given $87 trillion and still managed to over spend it.

        Trump has a better track record. At least he hasn’t managed a net -122% (a loss).

        If Trump was a government bureaucrat he would be $44 million in the hole and sinking rapidly.

        The track record of the government, particularly over the last eight years is disgraceful. The incumbent’s policies, the Stimulus, Obamacare, the regulation, etc.ad nauseam, turned potential recovery into a landslide in the wrong direction.

        Obama should be wearing an “L” on his forehead.

        Compared to the performance of the incumbent and the bureaucrats Trump is a shining beacon of hope. At least he makes money and creates jobs. The current government is clueless in that regard.

      • ==> I don’t recall you being this caustic. Is it a Trump effect?

        That’s beautiful.

        There’s nothing remotely uncharacteristic about Don’s comments in this thread. Your perception of a difference reveals a process of backwards engineering to construct an opinion. The reason why you see a difference in is tone is not because of anything different in his tone, but because of who his caustic comments are targeting.

      • Trump didn’t inherit $200 million. He inherited one fourth of his father’s $250 million estate long after he had made more money than that for himself and his father’s businesses. His older brother got an equal share and he messed around and died in his forties from alcoholism. The Donald is going to be the next POTUS. Only bozos don’t recognize Trump’s successes.

      • We should elect Oprah. She is worth billions, despite not inheriting nearly the wealth of Trump. Or maybe she should be vice-president under George Lucas?

      • Vince McMahon and Tiger Woods for top cabinet positions.

      • richardswarthout

        Don Monfort

        From Trumps own lips: he had $200 million in 1976 and $10 billion now. That is not remarkable.


      • Not remarkable, ricardito? That’s all the time I have for your foolishness.

  13. From the article:

    Trump-Effect: Fox News Channel’s Brand Takes 50% Hit Among Republicans


    • It is impressive that Trump is winning based on his message and not support from the major news shows.

      Fox has always appeared to be vaguely pro-establishment but compared to the MSM it was like night and day. They did appear fair and balanced compared the unfair and unbalanced (in all senses of the word) MSM.

      But here is a case that exposes their pro-establishment bias.

      Fox can still recover from this, and is likely to be pro-Trump after the nomination (they are pro-establishment but they aren’t crazy).

      It is just disappointing that the least biased news channel is somewhat biased. Trump gave them an opportunity to look really objective and they wiffed on it.

  14. It’s pretty evident that the center isn’t holding, and many people are looking to the extremes of the political spectrum for solutions.

    The proximate reason the center isn’t holding is because the American Dream is in crisis. For most families, their economic situation never recovered after the GFC began in 2007. (see graph below)

    So feelings of disaffection towards the ruling establishment are rife. People are angry.

    But all too often the anger gets deflected onto scapegoats. Scapegoats offer easy solutions. regardless of what the ultimate causes of the country’s malaise might be.

    And that’s where Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump come in. Their narrative is a vaudeville morality play: exorcise the villain (or villains), and everything will return to the way it was before the evil ones entered left (or right) stage.

    One of Sanders’ favorite villians is the fossil fuel industry, made incarnate in the Koch brothers. They provide valuable flesh and blood symbols of pure evil. Nevertheless, destroying the fossil fuel industry root and branch is not a viable plan to save the planet from the threat of global warming. One of the glaring omissions from this Good vs. Evil narrative is the great amount of good that burning fossil fuels achieves.

    Turning to Trump, we see that one of his favorite villains are Muslims. But “boming the sh-t out of them,” as Trump put it, is not a viable plan to save the world from the threat of Muslim terrorists. This much we learned, or at least should have learned, from the Vietnam War. Indiscriminate carpet bombing achieved nothing.

    During that war, we dropped more bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos than all the Allies combined on Germany and Japan in WWII. In all, the US made nearly 600,000 bombing runs during the Vietnam War, a “planeload of bombs every eight minutes for nine years” according to Jerry Redfern. All told, from 1964 to 1973 we dropped a total of 7,662,000 tons of ordinance on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. This tonnage far exeeded that expended in World War II – 1,613,000 tons in the European Theater and 537,000 tons in the Pacific Theater.

    And what did all this indiscriminate bombing achieve? It certainly did not break the will of the opposition.

    And then of course there was “shock and awe” in Iraq, another demonstration of “boming the sh-t out of them.” It stands as another example of the limits of air power.


    • GS. I’m not sure it’s the center that isn’t holding. The GOP has moved left, leaving out the center as well as the right-of-center. There is now a duopoly composed of Dimowits and Redimowits. If you listen to them, they are different, but in practice, they are almost exactly the same.

      So, the center and the right, feeling left out, turn to Trump. He isn’t perfect, and I hope he isn’t just saying what people want to hear, but he is the best bet to keep the US as it has been, a great nation composed of citizens, not illegal aliens. I also like his ideas to lower taxes so as to bring back to the US hoards of money that reside overseas. I like his idea to dial back some of the free trade, for example to impose tariffs on those who impose them on us. I like the wall idea. I like the deportation idea. I like the tax system revision idea. I like the strong military idea. There is more I like about Trump, including his willingness to get dirty when he fights for his principles.

      • ==> including his willingness to get dirty when he fights for his principles.

        That’s beautiful. Trump’s “principles.” It is too laugh. I wonder if GaryM will be along to explain how Trump’s “principles” align with Judeo-Christian values.

        It really doesn’t take much scratching to reveal the underlying ideological warfare that uses the discussion of climate change as a proxy.

      • I wonder if GaryM will be along to explain how Trump’s “principles” align with Judeo-Christian values.

        Have you actually studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church? Or the “Orthodox Catholic Church” before it?

        It really doesn’t take much scratching to reveal the underlying ideological warfare that uses the discussion of climate change as a proxy.

        Well, given how thoroughly the “science” behind “global warming” was corrupted from the start, why should anyone be surprised that it’s become an ideological football.

        The “traditional” climate change (a la the IPCC) paradigm is completely obsolete, with plenty of evidence that it can’t offer much if any prediction.

        The most likely new paradigm has little to say at this point except “it’s too complex to predict”. So the left pushes an obsolete paradigm that (somewhat) supports their anti-capitalist agenda, while the right coalesces around science denial not to different from creationism.

      • Trump will climb the fence and jump into the slop in the pig pen Hillary refers to as her life. It will be a dirty job, but he’s just the man for it. He won’t hold back. That’s what is called for here.

    • You know as little about bombing as you do anything else, glennie. The lesson of Vietnam is to fight to win and let the Generals handle their business.

      Obama’s following the Lyndon Johnson model of politically directed bombing. It’s not carpet bombing when targets have to be approved from Washington and 75% of sorties return with bombs hanging from the wings.

      Until Tricky Dick turned the military loose, bombing of strategic targets in North Vietnam was done pinprick style with fighter bombers. B-52 strategic bombers were used for tactical bombing/ground support in the South. Not that we weren’t extremely grateful for the help from the big boys, but it would have been better used elsewhere.

      Do a little research and you might find out what brought the commies to the negotiating table in Paris. Did you know that they were actually forced to agree to stop their aggression? Strategic bombing, glennie.

      Iraq is an even more obvious story of the usefulness of properly applied air power. You are really not very bright.

      • richardswarthout


        You and Glen are getting carried away with the bombing meme. Accuracy during the Vietnam War was not much better than during WWII, and trying to compare Vietnam bombing to Iraq bombing is nonsense; our capabilities in the 1990s were far superior. Also, trying to explain the outcome of the Vietnam War in terms of bombing is a stretch. That was a ground war lost by a dumb Westmoreland strategy, a strategy that confounded all the generals working for him. When he was replaced in 1968 the strategy changed and we began winning, although too late to win the war at home. Claiming that we forced North Vietnam to a negotiating table, where we surrendered – Hard to buy.


      • Don,

        I agree that airpower can be effective. It has limits, but you correctly point out examples of where it has worked.

        I disagree on your choice for the lesson of Vietnam. There are many lessons. My foremost one is “Don’t listen to the suits at State.”

        The people on the ground in 1946 argued for supporting the Viet Minh. State said we needed France as a bulwark in Europe against the Soviets. Said to accomplish that we needed to rebuild their confidence, which is why they recommended supporting France in maintaining their colonial empire.

        We picked the wrong horse. To be fair, it is easy picking winners the day after the race.

      • Don Monfort,

        Your comment reads like a neocon manifesto, and I’m sure it resonates with Trump’s and Cruz’s consituencies, as well as Democrats like Joe Lieberman, despite its pronounced departure from factual reality.

        I would point out, however, that neoconservatism is quite antithetical to traditional conservatism, and not all conservatives (or Jews) are neocons, regardless of what Jewish neocons like David Brooks would have us believe.

        Take this article, for instance, published a couple of days ago in The American Conservative:

        Unless they can con the public into believing that the world is falling to pieces, hawkish interventionists can’t make the case that the constant meddling overseas that they want is in the American interest, because it clearly isn’t.

        “The Hawkish Cult of “Leadership”

      • You are a dolt, richie. Do a little comparison shopping: B-52 vs. B-17. P-47 vs. F-4 and F-105.

        I explained to you the problem with the bombing campaigns in Vietnam. I directed a lot of those airstrikes, richie. Have you ever seen the results of a B-52 strike on a regiment of NVA regulars lined up sleeping on a dike in a pineapple plantation?

        The North Vietnamese signed onto the so-called Paris Peace because they were bombed into it. Linebacker II, richie. What was supposed to keep them honest was continued material support for the South and the threat of resumption of the bombing. But I don’t really care what clowns like you think.

      • richardswarthout

        Dom Monfort

        I understand where your coming from. Air Force member, directing air strikes, and now overstating the importance of those airstrikes. It is, of course, typical of air force thinking.


      • I wasn’t in the Air Force, you clown. You don’t understand that there was a huge qualitative difference between the equipment, technology and execution in WWII vs. Vietnam. Just compare the bomb load of a B-52 with a B-17. Do you think they used the same navigation and targeting systems? Had the same level of recon information available? Do you think that precision guided weapons were invented for the Iraq war? you are just plain old fashioned ignorant.

      • richardswarthout


        I am very familiar with U.S. military aircraft for the last 76 years. Those of the 1960s were vastly superior to those of the 1940s. However, the discussion was about bombing capability; was our capability in Nam greater than in WWII? Not much. Iraq? Yes – much greater. You are the ignorant one. Give up.


      • Richard: I think it would be valuable for you to provide your in country, on ground, front-line Viet Nam bomb-damage assessment to counter our precious little Donnie’s view from his beatnik coffeehouse in Berkeley.

      • David Springer

        Donny is a legend in his own mind.

        If we’d have approved unlimited bombing of north Vietnamese targets like WWII Germay, the Soviets would have approved of unlimited anti-aircraft weapons to take out our B-52s.

        Vietnam was a proxy war against the Soviets and the American public didn’t want it. McCarthism was dead by then. Any escalation would have ended with us pulling out even sooner. Only by carefully limiting the war, which was officially a police action not a war, were we able to remain engaged for as long as we did.

        You’re a dimwit.

      • richardswarthout

        Recon? We had no clue where they were hiding their equipment and supplies and used weasels to locate their missile batteries; nota great capability. You blew it, your targeting was a failure.


      • A parade of fools. I don’t have any more time for you clowns.

      • richardswarthout

        Horst Thank you for the comment, but I will stay clear of a propagandist.

        David. I thank you but will also stay clear. Frankly, your opinions and comments are worthless.


      • Don your last comments made me of this..


      • David Springer

        “David. I thank you but will also stay clear. Frankly, your opinions and comments are worthless.”

        Indubitably. As are yours. That’s why we’re here instead of some venue that pays its writers. I thought that was a given.

      • David Springer

        Donny doesn’t want to admit that the Soviets were supplying weapons to North Vietnam and that equipment was just as advanced beyond WWII as ours. Donny has barely enough sense to, like we did in Vietnam, not want to engage an enemy who can inflict serious damage over something not much worth fighting over. In other words, the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.

        In case anyone is wondering I was a volunteer serving in the United States Marine Corps in the Vietnam Era. The Soviet Union was defeated by outspending it in strategic weapons development not by outgunning it in worthless Asian schitholes like Vietnam.

      • David Springer

        Donny, Donny, Don-don… you ask if bombing capabilities were the same in WWII as Vietnam. We delivered more in WWII but that’s not the point. We could have delivered far more if there were the will to do it.

        How much of an all-out effort to win was America willing to get behind in each war?

        As Rummy might say: you don’t go to war with the budget you wish you had you go to war with the budget that congress gives you.

        Write that down.

      • David Springer

        Richard you’re a m0r0n. We could have bombed the infrastructure of North Vietnam back into the stone age just by taking out a few dikes in the Red River Delta. Hanoi would have been washed away and the most populous region of North Vietnam destroyed with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. We certainly knew where their roads, bridges, dams, electrical generation, and so forth was located.

      • richardswarthout


        True to form. You did not follow the discussion, which was not about could’ve should’ve would’ve. Your input is so invaluable. There are many people on this blog whose opinions and comments are extremely useful and respected. Too often you are off base.


      • David Springer

        That’s where the m0r0n part comes in, Richard. You missed Donnie’s point. I didn’t. Get over yourself.

      • David Springer

        “Frankly, your opinions and comments are worthless.”

        Here’s a clue to more effective communication, Dick. Don’t preface statements with “frankly”, “honestly”, or words of that nature. To put it nicely, it’s a giveaway that you aren’t normally honest.

        See how I used “to put it nicely”? It’s a giveaway that I’m not normally nice, which we both know is true. You’re such a schmuck.

      • David Springer

        One last thing, Richy. Horst’s coment to you was dripping with sarcasm. It was mocking both you and Don-don. And it flew right over the top of your pointy little head. Amazing. You could be such an inspiration to dullards everywhere. Why waste your talents here when you could write a book “The Idi0t’s Guide for Idi0ts? A frank look at how to get along with half a brain.”

      • Don Monfort and richardswarthout,

        The debate between you two is similar to a sectarian debate between two schisms of an overarching fundamentalist religion, the overarching religion being neoconservatism.

        I personally reject neoconservative arguments across the board, whether they be from dinosaurs like Monfort or the true believers in the revolution in military affairs (RMA) like richardswarthout. I favor the arguments of the realists.

        Here’s how one of the leading contemporary realists, John J. Mearsheimer, explains it:

        Neo-conservatives correctly believe that the United States has a remarkably powerful military. They believe that there has never been a state on earth that has as much relative military power as the United States has today. And very importantly, they believe that America can use its power to reshape the world to suit its interests. In short, they believe in big-stick diplomacy, which is why the Bush doctrine privileges military power over diplomacy….

        The key to understanding why the neo-conservatives think that military force is such a remarkably effective instrument for running the world is that they believe that international politics operate according to “bandwagoning” logic. Specifically, they believe that if a powerful country like the United States is willing to threaten or attack its adversaries, then virtually all of the states in the system – friends and foes alike – will quickly understand that the United States means business and that if they cross mighty Uncle Sam, they will pay a severe price. In essence, the rest of the world will fear the United States, which will cause any state that is even thinking about challenging Washington to throw up its hands and jump on the American bandwagon….

        The neo-conservatives’ faith in the efficacy of bandwagoning was based in good part on their faith in the so-called revolution in military affairs (RMA). In particular, they believed that the United States could rely on stealth technology, air-delivered precision-guided weapons, and small but highly mobile ground forces to win quick and decisive victories. They believed that the RMA gave the Bush administration a nimble military instrument which, to put it in Muhammad Ali’s terminology, could “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.”

        The American military, in their view, would swoop down out of the sky, finish off a regime, pull back and reload the shotgun for the next target. There might be a need for US ground troops in some cases, but that force would be small in number. The Bush doctrine did not call for a large army. Indeed, heavy reliance on a big army was antithetical to the strategy, because it would rob the military of the nimbleness and flexibility essential to make the strategy work.

        This bias against big battalions explains why deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz (a prominent neo-conservative) and secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed out of hand (the then US army chief of staff) General Eric Shinsheki’s comment that the United States would need “several hundred thousand troops” to occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz understood that if the American military had to deploy huge numbers of troops in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, it would be pinned down, unable to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. A large-scale occupation of Iraq would undermine the Bush administration’s plan to rely on the RMA to win quick and decisive victories.

        In sum, the RMA was supposed to make bandwagoning work, which, in turn, would make big-stick diplomacy work, which, in turn, would make a unilateralist foreign policy feasible.


        Events on the ground in Iraq revealed the theories, predictions, and romantic wishful thinking of the neocons to be highly unrealistic.

        Nevertheless, in the mind of the neocon true believer, when it comes to a contest between their cherished theories and factual reality, theory will always prevail, and objective reality will be annihilated.

      • richardswarthout


        Don’s posts were, essentially, that the air war was poorly fought, and I did not argue with that. My input was that the Nam air war could not be compared to the Iraq air war. Your comments to me were, typically, unrelated to that discussion. Also, your comments to me regarding communication are totally disregardable; the product of a mind lost in detail.


      • Springer,

        North Vietnam sported one of the densest and most sophisticated air defense networks in the world, courtesy of the Soviet Union. Including Soviet technicians to operate the equipment and supposedly Soviet pilots flying intercept missions. The North had unlimited Soviet support. One of the arguments for hitting Haiphong (sp?) was to prevent Russian ships loaded with SAM’s from resupplying the Vietnamese air defense network.

        The risk of escalation was the primary reason for limiting the air campaign in the north. In hindsight that risk was almost non-existent. The Russians were never going to get into a shooting war with the US and the Vietnamese were never going to allow Chinese troops south of their border. History provides proof of both of these. When Nixon finally did attack and mined Vietnamese waters, the Russians did nothing more than squawk. And Vietnam gave the Chinese a very bloody nose when they tried to extend their influence across the border and into Laos.

      • Don Monfort

        I don’t think I have seen a thread with more willfully ignorant nonsense than this one. We have the armchair warriors informed only by the vicarious accounts of left-wing egghead revisionist “historians” and “journalists”. We have the Vietnam-era Marine cook/dishwasher or whatever, who somehow avoided even being in the theater. Only timg the torpedoeman seems to get at least the basics.

        I guess not much else could be expected from the low-information disinterested civilian population and those who served elsewhere and only got a glimpse of the action on the telly. That’s one lucky Marine.

        I will just give you all some basic facts from my own first hand observations and leave it at that. I am not going to put up with the trash talk of little clowns who feel they have to denigrate and defame those who served with honor and distinction.

        B-52 bombers carried and delivered a bomb load of over 60,000 lbs per plane. The WWII workhorse strategic bomber B-17 on long range missions could deliver about 4500 lbs of bombs. Senior officers I met when I visited the B 52 Utapao Airbase in Thailand who had flown B 17s or fighter escorts told me that if the B 17s had very good weather and they could find the city they were looking for, a formation of a few hundred could get maybe 30% of their bombs on a big factory complex or rail yard and do some sort of damage. Where the rest of the bombs would land was anybodies guess and nobobies concern. They still had a long way to go to get home.

        I was a LRRP. Look it up. I was confident enough in the accuracy of B 52 strikes to have them routinely drop their loads 200 meters away from my position, in any weather. If you are curious about what a load of 60,000 lbs from each plane in a typical flight of 2 or 3 B 52s consisting of 500 and 750 bombs in a tight grouping does to a target area, see action at Khe Sanh:


        There is mention of the B 52’s radar guided navigation and targeting sytems and the airborne command and control. Not your grandpa’s mythic pickle-barrel accurate Norden bomb sight. You will also see F4 Phantom fighter bombers that could carry 18000 lbs of ordinance, the little Navy A4 Skyhawks that toted a B17 equivalent load, and my favorite, the single engine prop driven A1 Skyraider “Spad” of 1946 vintage, that flew low and slow and carried 8000 lbs of nasty things to drop on commies.

        And essentially the full story here of the political misuse of the military and airpower that culminated finally in the decisive strategic bombing of North Vietnam with Operation Linebacker II:



      • 200 meters – that’s pretty damn close. Even with precision guided bombs.

        But I can see getting good with enough practice. You must have had lots of practice.

        I do have one question off the top of my head. What do you do to top directing B52 strikes for excitement?

      • You would have been the old papa-san driving your bulldozer on the Ho Chi Minh trail during the airstrike.

      • richardswarthout


        I commend you for your courage. Your service and the service of many other warriors is a badge that should silence critics and give pass to minor fish stories.


      • My b-n-l did two tours at a large AF base in Thailand… he mentions B-52s and Blackbirds.

      • richardswarthout


        Blackbird crews have some great stories to tell. The USA is blessed, and also the UK. I was stationed there while in the USAF and the UK pilots/planes were amazing.


      • Don Monfort

        I would say it was more terrifying than exciting, tim. The satisfaction came from doing the job and getting out alive. Sometimes we all didn’t get out alive. But when we went in we knew that a lot of people with a lot of skill and guts would come to get us when we called for extraction, no matter what the risk. No Benghazi style fumbling and standing down in our operations, tim.

        Much appreciated, Richard. I just want the truth to be told. The U.S. military doesn’t lose wars. The politicians lose wars.

      • I was thinking more in terms of after the fact. As in several years and thousands of miles away from the events, with your sphincter having had enough time to relax.

        I wanted to join the Brown Water navy. Almost dropped out of HS to do so. After talking to a coworker at a nuke plant I worked at, I realized how lucky I was to have stayed in school. He was a radioman who got a 6 month assignment to Vietnam while he waited for his slot in Nuclear Propulsion school. His job was to fix radios back at the base. He regularly would see the PBR’s returning, all shot up, with blood by the bucket leaking from them. (There could be a bit of literary license here, but considering how uncomfortable we has recalling it, I took him at his word.) One day his chief came into the radio shack and told him to grab his gear. One of the boats needed a radioman. Bob told me he has never been more afraid than that patrol. He said that afterwards he didn’t crap right for over three months.

        I’ve always figured the danger inherent in ground combat is much different and probably harder to dismiss than that involved in submarine duty. Lots of bad stuff can happen to you on a sub, but it’s pretty easy not to think about it.

  15. Seen from the other side of the Pond, the most appealing feature of Donald Trump is that he gets right up the noses of all the most deserving people!

    GO TRUMP 2016!

    • A recent commentary put the Trump-Clinton matchup well — A celebrity slugfest! I think Trump is the only one who can stop Hillary. It is magic all the way down.

      • The little granny has very serious problems with the FBI and the intelligence community. Not to mention a few federal judges.

      • Perhaps Hillary is running for president so she can pardon herself.

      • A lot of people are going to vote for her. Time to leave the echo chamber and try thinking for a change. This is a very real fight.

      • I give it about a 40% chance she won’t be the nominee, David. And if she is, she will very damaged goods. But that’s coming from the FBI and intelligence community echo chamber. What do they know?

      • David Springer

        So David, you know better how people would vote in a general election than polls of the general public by Fox, Quinnipac, USA Today, and PPP?

        All of those polls find Hillary winning against Trump but losing to any of Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich.

        You people amaze me in how uninformed you are.

      • We cannot forget that the unemployment numbers are still around 5% either.

      • David Springer

        5% unemployment is quite good and more often than not considered full employment. I wasn’t aware it had fallen that low nationally.

        The problem is that it is misleading due to it not including anyone without a job who has not been actively looking for one in the past 4 weeks. Or if you’ve been worked more than one hour (60 minutes) or been paid more than $20 in any one week you’re counted as employed.

        I schit you not.



      • The BLS report “Not in Labor Force” shows it was 60 million in 1976, 67 million in 1996 and 94 million in 2016.

        There are some demographic factors in that huge increase, but there are some much more long term changes that have been around for several decades. For example the Labor Force Participation Rate has been dropping significantly since 1948. The increase in women LFP rate has flattened.

        It much more difficult to judge the health of the economy than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The old metrics don’t seem to apply any longer.

      • Labor Force Participation Rate for Men has decreased since 1948 from 87% to 69%. That parallels the drop in manufacturing jobs as a percent of the total workforce since 1944, from 40% to under 10%.

      • “Labor Force Participation Rate for Men has decreased since 1948 from 87% to 69%.”

        Look at age-specific rates and the distribution of workers by age for possible reasons for the decrease in the labor force participation rate of males.

  16. The disunity White House-Pentagon-State-intell is becoming stark, with the result that the US looks less military and more violent. How do you support four factions of Kurds in four different ways while continuing to support the mortal enemies of those Kurds? And we haven’t even left the Zagros/Taurus Mountains yet.

    And then there’s pipelines. Whew.

    I don’t have heroes but Reagan struck me as a reflective man with a long game and the right degree of ruthlessness and bloody-mindedness. It helped that he was not required to play catch-ups to prove his hawk credentials. Replacing Bomber Barry with Bomber Marco or Super-Bomber Hillary might not be the way to go.

    Better a scoundrel with brains, which leaves Cruz and Trump. Could a Cruz or a Trump maybe look about, see the USA’s strengths, consolidate them, and work from the position of those strengths? It’s just a question, but Trump is a sly trader first, and a bible-basher like Cruz who goes to Iowa and talks about removing corn and ethanol subsidies can’t be all bad. Like I said, just a question, because I don’t know these blokes.

    The Americans have oil again, and naughty new arrangements with Venezuela and Canada could have them awash with oil. Not a bad trump card right there, just for starters, if you were thinking of realigning your geopolitics and cutting losses elsewhere. Reagan would at least dare to think it.

    And if the central East African Christian states found a way to send oil and other resources to Asia from their own region (as now planned and opposed by Al-Shabaab terrorists)? That could make a hole in certain Sudanese and consequently Middle Eastern interests. And with Russia hoping, nay needing, to grab Asian energy markets…Hmmm.

    Compared to these considerations what does removing Assad have to do with anything? There is a lot of dividing and conquering an intelligent leader of the free world could do right now. And the gun can mostly stay in the holster, which would please peaceniks like me.

    • Good observations.

    • moso:”I don’t have heroes but Reagan struck me as a reflective man with a long game and the right degree of ruthlessness and bloody-mindedness. It helped that he was not required to play catch-ups to prove his hawk credentials. ”

      Reagan got the Marines blown up in Beirut, then pulled out. He sold Iran (the state sponsor of the Beirut bombing) anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to get a couple hostages released and send money to death squads in Central America, and he armed the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

      Reagans “long game” laid the groundwork for 911. He is a hero and inspiration to islamic jihadis.

      • –snip–

        Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to “almost daily use of CW” against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president’s recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.


        That’s one heckuva “long game.”

      • Horst, I have never doubted that Reagan betrayed and blundered (and borrowed, and spent, and borrowed again!). Though not every betrayal is a blunder, I think being “leader of the free world” will always require learning on the job and massive stuff-ups no matter who you are. But Reagan had a purpose and achieved much of it.

        So, purpose and results. Right now, no purpose and no results. Just aimless violence. And Hillary hasn’t even attacked Algeria yet. She’s got so much catching up to do.

      • Worth pointing out that the arms traded to Iran were used against Saddam, who knew the Americans were not his friends.

        Reagan lost face in Lebanon, tacitly admitted defeat and error – and shot out of there like a bolt rather than risk quagmire. He lied to Thatcher over Grenada because he knew it was winnable in quick time…Ronald Reagan was very naughty.

        But the only quagmire of his era was the SDI spending quagmire, which sort of worked, for all its absurdity. Sure he failed to anticipate the wars and geopolitics of the present day. But we now have Western governments who get the geopolitics wrong less than a week out. That’s a worse strike rate than the Bureau of Meteorology.

        And you’d be surprised how big a thing the Cold War used to be.

      • ==> Worth pointing out that the arms traded to Iran were used against Saddam, who knew the Americans were not his friends.

        Pretty amusing. Apparently moso posted this w/o considering how Reagan’s administrations supported Saddam (with CWs no less).

        Just goes to show how some folks will twist themselves into creative pretzels to avoid cognitive dissonance.

      • J-word: If you find the “moso” who thinks the Reagan admin did not support Saddam, let me know who and where he is and I’ll give the silly pretzel a piece of my mind. He must have the intelligence of a bamboo shoot.

        When an Iranian victory looked strong in 1988 the US was particularly supportive of Saddam, even knowing he intended to use gas. (That’s not the same as supporting him “with CWs, no less”, but a little theatre never goes astray.) It is also true that six years prior to that the White House not only sold arms to Iran and conferred with Iranian authorities but even collaborated with photos of Iraqi positions. So Reagan wasn’t one of the cowboys in the white hats. (Psst…they don’t exist, J-word. Roy Rogers was just an actor.)

        Reagan did not want either side to win, but especially not Iran. (That would have meant a lot of oil and Shias all coming together, and a lot of massacring to bring the civilian populations and minorities up to speed.) Much of what Reagan did was unconstitutional and illegal, that’s true. But the Cold War winner was cheating for the team and he had a plan.

        Now we have cheats with no plan. And, my, how they bomb!

      • Moso: Reagan’s brutality and buildup did not win the Cold War. The USSR imploded under it’s own weight, your fairy tale just helps you to justify murder. The moon shot and the US normalizing relations with China are what done in Uncle Joe’s house of cards.

      • moso –

        My point was to note your laughable idealization of Reagan’s “long game,” such as helping advance the progress of a maniacal mass murderer. It’s tantamount to praising Bush’s “long game” by invading Iraq.

        But if you want to walk that back, that’s good enough for me. Go for it.

      • Whew. With “idealizers” like me Reagan hardly needs detractors.

        But do carry on with the massive but inconsequential bombings. Don’t let me spoil your quagmire.

      • moso –

        ==> But do carry on with the massive but inconsequential bombings.


        Apparently you think, that I think, that massive bombing is a good long (or short) game?

        Nope. Not even close.

    • Socialist Venezuela is close to an implosion. What an abject failure! An they fail while sitting on top of an ocean of oil!! They need to study capitalism and free markets.

      From the article:

      HOUSTON (Reuters) – As Venezuela grows closer to exhausting nearly every means of paying its debt, some oil market participants are seriously pondering the possible implications of an unprecedented event: the default of a major crude producing company.


    • David Springer

      That’s bible-thumper not bible-basher.

  17. Vote HRC:

    Finally, Zeifman says Hillary Clinton conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. Sound familiar? Like Benghazi maybe? Zeifman had this reaction after Hillary Clinton’s phony tears at a campaign rally in 2008:
    My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.

    Arkansas Money Management:

    Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50 million

    Clinton establishes the Arkansas Development Finance Authority that will be used, in the words of one well-connected Arkansan as “his own political piggy bank.” Though millions of dollars are funneled to Clinton allies, records of repayments will be hazy or non-existent. AFDA brags to prospective out-of-state corporations of Arkansas’ anti-union climate.
    Arkansas state pension funds –deposited in Worthen by Governor Bill Clinton — suddenly lose 15% of their value because of the failure of high risk, short-term investments and the brokerage firm that bought them. The $52 million loss is covered by a Worthen check written by Jack Stephens in the middle of the night, an insurance policy, and the subsequent purchase over the next few months of 40% of the bank by Mochtar Riady. Clinton and Worthen escape a major scandal.

    But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal.

    Whitewater controversy

    Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution (Hillary billed for law work)
    A March 1992 New York Times article published during the U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons—then governor and first lady of Arkansas—had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, owned by McDougal. She looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but she continued to pursue it. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1994.
    Hillary Clinton stated that they were the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”,[203] characterizing the Lewinsky charges as the latest in a long, organized, collaborative series of charges by Bill Clinton’s political enemies[nb 8] rather than any wrongdoing by her husband.

    Aficionados of complex financial crime will want a look at a new, never-before-seen document obtained by Judicial Watch. Last month, Judicial Watch released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) internal memos on criminal charges against Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater investigation.

    Hillary Clinton’s Great Nursing Home Rip-Off
    Here’s just one case Clintonian corruption, which I wrote about in The Nation in 1994, where Mrs Clinton and her law firm were central to a vast and methodical scheme of profiteering, gouging taxpayers and, above all, the defenseless residents of nursing homes in four states, including Arkansas.

    Hillary Clinton’s Career at Rose Law Firm a Bellwether for Modern-Day Document Destruction
    But for Hillary, a sitting first lady, the subterfuge was only beginning. Federal prosecutors subpoenaed documents surrounding the real estate transaction, but the papers went missing for two years—until January 1996—when Hillary’s aide reported that they had magically appeared in the book room on the third floor of the White House in the Clintons’ personal residence.

    Documents like her speeches to Wall Street Firms Bernie Sanders wants a look see.

    Emails and Benghazi

    “Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.”

    “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.” – Clinton shouting over Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson

    Bernie Sanders finally wakes up:
    “And after refusing to talk about the Democratic front-runner’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, Mr. Sanders on Sunday called her email practices a “very serious issue” that could render her unelectable.”

    New Benghazi Emails Prove Hillary Clinton Lied To Victims’ Families, Likely Congress

    Newly uncovered emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton always knew the Benghazi mission compound was under attack from a terrorist group, and Clinton herself lied to the victims’ families. The documents, which were obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video.

    Vote HRC!

  18. I’m not as confident as Don about Trump winning. But if he does, he will be our greatest cheerleader President. That is not all bad. Leadership can be manifested in many ways.

    I see some parallels with 1968 and 1976, but for different reasons. The sense of losing law and order was prevalent in 1968. The silent majority prevailed. There was a cultural funk in 1976, with stagflation and a leaderless malaise infecting the nation. We got a boost of optimism and a can do spirit.

    Democrats are congenitally sourpusses and whiners overridden with guilt and a loser mentality. They always see the glass half empty and obsess on the shortcomings and negatives always seeking, in vain, the perfectability in the human condition.

    Ain’t gonna happen. Even with 1% unemployment and 10% real GDP growth, they would form fetal position clubs to sulk that things aren’t better.

    Trump instead will focus on the positive and cheerlead the country to where people will at least feel like things are better even though they may not be. Which isn’t all bad. At least there will be a reason to get out of bed each morning. There is nothing so debilitating as feeling sorry for oneself. We have an entire country doing that.

    • David Springer

      Hillary is praying the GOP nominee is Trump. She can’t beat any of the others but consistently polls well ahead of Trump.

    • “There is nothing so debilitating as feeling sorry for oneself. We have an entire country doing that.”

      I don’t feel sorry for myself. I feel fortunate to be an American.

  19. Two posts put up a few hours apart. One, on presidenetial politics, with 137 comments and counting.

    One, posted a couple of hours later on climate science, 16 comments on counting.

    You know, I read someone a while back write a comment that the climate wars are largely explainable as a proxy ideological battle. I’m beginning to think that dude knew what he was talking about.

    • It just happens that this year’s election is a lot more exciting than climate change. Not that “climate change the disaster” was ever all the exciting.

    • The Climate wars are old news here and rather boring at times. The election is red hot and rollin’.

      Josh: “You know, I read someone a while back write a comment that the climate wars are largely explainable as a proxy ideological battle. I’m beginning to think that dude knew what he was talking about.”

      That finally dawned on you? Must be an eye opening revelation.

    • David Springer

      “I’m beginning to think that dude knew what he was talking about.”

      Beginning to think it’s all about politics? Good grief. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a pulse thinks it’s about science.

    • I guess some stuff just goes right past some folks. I’ve been posting here that the climate wars are a proxy ideological battle for years.

    • Prove J@#&!@ clueless.

      J@#&!@ writes, “You know, I read someone a while back write a comment that the climate wars are largely explainable as a proxy ideological battle. I’m beginning to think that dude knew what he was talking about.”


    • As for the large interest here, i think the “fizz” in the presidential politics can has just built up more under conditions of limited venting. I predict that if You take the cap off and keep shaking, the response and audience for subsequent shakes will be less. I’d guess that’s why this thread is here.

  20. This would be an excellent candidate
    Atlas, The Next Generation

  21. It looks like Obumbles has had his executive action wings clipped. I hope this is the beginning of a trend. From the article:

    Texas Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)60%
    scored a major victory this week in the battle against sanctuary cities. This victory follows on the heels of his victory in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) attempted ban on .223 caliber ammo. Both events were accomplished by using the House’s power of the purse.


    • David Springer

      Interesting. I have .223 re-loading equipment. That might become a valuable commodity in the event of a ban on .223 ammo.

      • David – “I have…re-loading equipment.”

        Good man. The lefties will never forgive you. Hopefully, the Repubs will show some round things, block Obama’s nominations for the Supreme Court, and get their candidate elected.

      • They won’t simply ban sale of .223 cartridges Springer. They’ll throw in reloading, shell casings, bullets, primers. Might be difficult to ban powder.

        Recall that early in his first term Obama issued an Executive Order prohibiting resale of used brass cartridge casings by the Defense dept. They were directed to sell to the Chinese. The apparent motivation for this order was to eliminate a significant source of low cost cartridges in military calibers. They thought no one would notice. They were wrong. The outrage was so great the order was rescinded a few weeks later.

        If you reload perhaps you haven’t noticed how expensive ammunition is getting or how often store shelves are empty. I have wondered if the massive purchases by the federal government the past few years isn’t contributing to that. Why does the EPA and multiple other government agencies require millions of rounds of ammunition? There is no good explanation unless the objective is to create shortages and drive up the price. After all, if you can’t take away peoples guns, limit their access to their ammo.

  22. Here’s the thing – the crazy left has seriously weakened America – we no longer project the kind of power that the rest of the world respects and fears. Many federal agencies have gone rogue under Obummer. We need a SERIOUS house cleaning of these agencies, with many of them flat out shut down. For example EPA chief Gina McCarthy, and NOAA chief Kathryn Sullivan both need to be canned along with all their top staff. The NSF is out of control flushing Billions down the toilet on worthless research grants. The list goes on. Trump is the only candidate that projects the kind of power to actually accomplish this. The world fears Trump far more than any other candidate. These are extreme times, and extreme times call for extreme measures. The stature, the voice, the personal fortune, the worldwide connections of Trump project a msg of “Don’t f**k with me!”. Frankly, at this time, right now, I want a President that projects that kind of power. It’s the best way to undo all this leftist crap of the last 7 yrs! Rubio projects wimpiness. Cruz is better, but his squeaky voice and goofy looks just don’t project the power that we REALLY need right now! Please support Trump!

    • David Springer

      Trump can’t win in the general election. There is only one person that polls worse than Hillary in a general election and that one person is Donald Trump. Anyone but Trump can beat Hillary. Interestingly only Marco Rubio stands a chance against Bernie Sanders but he’s not going get the nod due to Democrat establishment use of super-delegates who are already pledged to Hillary.

    • David Springer

      The stature? A clown who inherited $200,000,000 and a bad comb-over? You must be joking.

    • Tyler,

      >…Here’s the thing – the crazy left has seriously weakened America …

      You right. Whether we like it or not, or whether we chose it or not, the USA is the defacto Global Cop. When the cops are gone, the thugs come out of hiding to do the thing they do. Broken windows and all that…

  23. David Springer

    Karl Rove: “Trump nomination would be a disaster for the GOP”


    The scenario Karl Rove outlined was bleak.

    Addressing a luncheon of Republican governors and donors in Washington on Feb. 19, he warned that Donald J. Trump’s increasingly likely nomination would be catastrophic, dooming the party in November. But Mr. Rove, the master strategist of George W. Bush’s campaigns, insisted it was not too late for them to stop Mr. Trump, according to three people present.

    Rove, the penultimate GOP campaign strategist, finds corroboration in general election match-up polls:


    Trump is the ONLY GOP primary contender running behind Hillary Clinton in general election polls at -2.8%. Cruz is only marginally ahead of Hilly at +0.5%. Rubio is a respectable +4.7% votes ahead and Kasich a remarkable +7.4%. Interestingly Trump gets smoked twice as bad by Bernie Sanders -6.0% with Rubio the only candidate with a chance against him and it’s a dead tie at 0.0%.

    The long and the short of these polls is that America is desperate for someone other than Hillary but not so desperate they’d elect Trump. Anyone but Trump in other words.

    Thankfully voting in the Democratic primary is a formality and the nominee is determined by establishment super-delegates. Hillary is the establishment choice. So the road to victory for the GOP is simply anyone but Trump.

  24. “The world fears Trump far more than any other candidate.”

    Including a large proportion of American voters.

    I agree that Cruz looks has goofy looks.

  25. David Springer

    Important resource:


    This is my fifth US presidential election as a retired pioneer of information at your fingertips. I spend way too much time on them. An obsessive amount. I’m trying to cut down though.

    The only primary source you need for politics is RealClearPolitics.com but pollingreport.com provides a quick compendium of indexed polls on almost any subject of interest including politics.

  26. David Springer


    ‘You inspire us all.” With that fulsome greeting, Pat Robertson welcomed Donald Trump this week to the stage of Regent University. According to the school’s catalogue, the university’s name invokes the fact that “a regent is one who represents Christ, our Sovereign, in whatever sphere of life he or she may be called to serve Him.” We leave it to others to decide what sovereign Donald Trump has served in his life. We will simply note that Trump seems not merely an all-too-human example of one who has on occasion fallen into the grip of some of the seven deadly sins. He seems rather a veritable apostle of most of them. A proud defender of greed, an unabashed indulger in adultery, a wanton mocker of the meek (the “losers”) of this world, Donald Trump does not inspire us.

    Oh come on, we can hear Trump supporters say: Lighten up! We’re choosing a president, not a pastor. We’d like a nominee who can take it to the Democrats and the media. We want a chief executive who’ll really shake up Washington. We need a commander in chief who’ll stand up to our enemies.

    Fine sentiments. But here’s the reality: If we nominate Donald Trump, we’re choosing the nominee who is the least likely to defeat the Democratic candidate. If we were to elect him, we’d be placing our trust in a chief executive who’s shown zero interest during his long career in shaking up Washington. And if we swear him in, we’ll have a commander in chief who is seemingly more enamored of our enemies (Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad) than of a recent president of the United States, whom he accuses (falsely) of knowingly lying the country into war.

    Oh man, we can hear Trump enablers say: You just don’t get it! You’re out of touch. Your points might once have been relevant. But we’ve moved on from the politics of the past. Trump is different. He’s broken all the old rules. We live in a new world. You’re making analog arguments in a digital age. You’re obsessing about evidence in an age of appearance. You’re worrying about character in a time of celebrity. Your concerns are anachronistic, your opposition futile. “You better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone / For the times they are a-changin’.”

    So they say. But here’s our response: The times may be changing, but principles don’t. We choose not to dive into the infinity pool of Donald Trump’s Republican party. The water in the pool might seem refreshing, even cleansing, at first. But in truth, Trump’s waters are cold, shallow, and not fit to swim in. Rather than join the crowd and go with the flow, we choose to make our stand on dry land, with flags flying and guns blazing.

    But let’s not jump the gun. So far, after the first four contests and before Super Tuesday on March 1, Donald Trump has won an impressive but not conclusive 32.7 percent of the 1.3 million or so votes cast. (Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have gotten about 20 percent each.) There has been almost no negative advertising from super-PACs and campaigns against Trump. The mainstream media have given Trump an amazingly easy ride. Weak-kneed conservatives, desperate to sidle up to the winner, have made extraordinary excuses for him. And he’s still beatable.

    But he won’t be defeated if no one tries to defeat him. Surely it’s worth fighting to save a respectable political party, an admirable political movement, and a great country from a charlatan and a demagogue. There’s nothing inspiring about the appeasement of Donald Trump. It’s the fight to defeat Donald Trump that should now inspire us all.

    • What I find most fascinating is how strongly much of the Republican establishment and the conservative media are disparaging Trump. The might have been sides chosen in the past, but the vitriol is at an all time high.

      I have supported Rubio but he is getting whipped. I understand the support for Trump and emotions behind it. I wonder if most of his supporters even care about some of his positions on issues. This might be a wholesale rejection of ideology and traditional policy choices in favor of saying to all establishments, media, political and otherwise “up yours. We tried your ways and nothing worked.”

      • David Springer

        If Trump stood a decent chance of winning a general election I wouldn’t be quite so concerned. Futile gestures of defiance aren’t my thing.

      • David,

        The question I have is Assuming Trump is the nominee, would you vote for him, if he’s running against Hillary?

        I think John Kasich is head and shoulders above everyone else as a Presidential candidate. Yet he’s so far back they need a flashing beacon to even know he’s in the race.

        Trump as President? I shudder at the thought. But nowhere near as much as I do imaging Hillary as President.

      • cerescokid, I was watching a media event for Trump today in a stadium in Madison Alabama. He had 30,000 tickets sold out. He is not just a candidate he is a superstar. Meanwhile Cruz talks to a crowd of 5 or 600 in Tulsa (good by the old standard). A friend of mine said it is because he is so raw, he says what he wants and people are sick of phoney politicians. I actually disagree with Springer, I think he has by far the best chance to beat Hillary as he is so unconventional the usual mud doesn’t stick, in fact it seems to make him more popular. Who is more likable to people Trump or Hillary. IMO no contest.

  27. “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Did I miss when it stopped being great? As a Cornucopian in his late 60s I’ve seen nearly every facet of America improve greatly in my lifetime. Longevity? Incredible increase. Healthcare? Even the Big C is being slowly wrestled to the ground. Many other diseases are virtually gone or easily treatable. Pharmaceuticals are available to mitigate even the excesses of our numerous poor lifestyle choices. Child mortality? Greatly improved. Sexism and racism? A black president, maybe soon a female one, but certainly a granddaughter soon to be a mechanical engineer. Crime? Greatly reduced from my youth, especially violent crime. Automobile fatalities? Greatly reduced despite enormous increase in population and miles driven.
    Tiny black and white TVs with a handful of stations have been replaced by monster screens with access to an endless range of video. A sprinkling of libraries have been replaced by the ubiquitous Internet and its proffered access to an ever-growing portion of humankind’s acquired knowledge. Party land lines have been replaced by mobile phones that give us access to that Internet, have a camera, a flashlight, a GPS and a million other apps.
    Duck and Cover nuclear nightmares no longer terrify schoolchildren. Food of ever-increasing variety is available year round. And it is raised in a more environmentally friendly way than in my youth. Endangered species, our forests, our rivers, and our air are all better protected than they were. Often even our poor have more and better stuff than their well off grandparents did.
    I could go on like this for hours. If you are tired of the demagogues who are trying to profit with fear and negativity check out the website “Gapminder.org.” Click the “Data” heading and review their endless statistical presentations about global trends. Then you’ll know why there is a powerful case to be made that “Nearly everything gets better in nearly every way nearly every day.” And that America is Greater Than Ever and Works Just Fine and Will Get Even Better. Dump the Trump!

    • JV,
      Thank you for ‘confusing us with facts’.
      Entertaining to read these words here: “Trump is different”. If anyone thinks this is not about money for Trump I think they may just be deluded. And expecting the retort that he’s got all the money he needs, why then won’t he show us and why does he have such an issue with others who measure him and he states ‘well it’s bigger than that’?

      Could maybe vote for Kaisch: https://johnkasich.com/

      In the end it likely goes this way for me, not holding my nose as has been done in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/02/25/this-is-the-closest-thing-weve-ever-have-to-a-hillary-clinton-political-manifesto/
      Female (maybe it’s just time for a women’s perspective and abilities)
      Connected in Washington
      State Senator
      Secretary of State (connected worldwide)
      (This is not the resume of Barack Obama)

      • So you can read it for yourselves, if so inclined: http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/documents/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf

      • David Springer

        Bill Clinton is more of a woman than Hillary.

      • Eh. What folks do on their weekends ain’t no concern of mine.

      • Danny,

        Would you hire someone with this referral from a previous employer?

        “she was a liar,” “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.”

      • Timg56,

        I’m not advocating for Ms. Clinton, but there are skelton’s in all closets. If you’ll look upthread you’ll see that my initial comments suggested Kasich. I just don’t think he’ll get nominated. So I think have to look towards my lesser of evils. I’m not a Bernie fan, I don’t trust Trump. He may not be an insider, but he’s proven to be a user of the system. He’ll make out like any who cross him as moron’s and imbiciles and I don’t think that will fly across the world. UK has even talked of banning him (just a parade, but has a sitting prez been banned from UK since the revolution (not even sure then)?

        Then I look towards experience. If Hillary turns out to be that lesser evil, I’ll look to congress to be on the lookout.

        As I find to be typical in our election process, these folks don’t put out what they’re ‘for’ only what they’re against. It’s relatively easy to tell others what’s bad out there by reading the polls. How to fix them? Different story. I’m leaning towards experience as that difference maker. Dishonest lawyer? Are you repeating yourself? (Sorry Rud) : )
        I need her to be fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. I’m not sure any can be what I need them to be.
        And I’m not sure any of them are actually what they’re made out to be.

        In so many ways, ‘the truth’ may not be the truth: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

    • “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Did I miss when it stopped being great? As a Cornucopian in his late 60s I’ve seen nearly every facet of America improve greatly in my lifetime.


      It could be code for let’s start another war, but this time be sure of the outcome before engaging.

      Other than that, I don’t know what it means.

      Wait, maybe it means we should return to making all the goods we consume instead of importing, which would mean higher prices or lower wages.

      It could mean we need good passenger train service like Japan and Switzerland have.

    • Yes, and the best improvement of all has been the national debt. It’s to the Moon, Alice!!

      • The deficit anyway. From 2 trillion per year in 2009 to near zero projected for 2016. I call that progress.

      • There are some places you should be smart enough not to go, Jim D.!!!

        From the article:

        $20 trillion man: National debt nearly doubles during Obama presidency


      • You see the distinction, right? In fact the deficit has been steadily declining during the 8 years, and is on a trajectory to put it in the black. Next you will be saying that was a success and it was due to Congress, right? Obama – bad, Congress – good. Same result.

      • You see the distinction, right?


        You do know that doubling the debt means it is twice as large?

        If Obama hits $20 Trillion he will own 1/2 of the Federal Debt. A “hopefully” never to be equaled record.

      • No JimD the deficit is not on a trajectory to zero. The deficit had come down but from astronomical levels to only awful levels. Both Obama’s budget and the CBO multiyear budget having the annual deficit going up from the current $550 Billion in the next couple of years. There have been 11 recessions since WWII. We are due for another soon. All current projections assume no recession. With interest rates near zero and other countries below zero, there are no bullets left in the chamber for the Federal Reserve to help or the other central banks to juice their economies.
        We are in a world of hurt when the next recession hits.

      • The deficit has been cut by at least 75% since 2009. It is going in the right direction in this administration. A lot of the early deficit was the stimulus that was used for getting out of the recession that ended the previous Republican attempt at administration.

      • No JimD, the deficit didn’t go to near zero or cut by 75%. I’m looking at page 28 of Obama’s FY2017 Budget Historical Tables and the deficit went from $1.4 Trillion to $615 Billion for 2016. About 56%, not zero or 75%. But more important after 2018 it begins to move up again. There is no recession forecasted for the out years so it is only going to get worse.
        The explosion in debt shown in the graph above was driven overwhelmingly not by the Bush tax for the rich, under $100 Billion per year and now repealed, and not by the Iraq war, total debt for a decade under $2 Trillion, but by Democratically inspired Social Programs which are now nearly $2 Trillion per year more than in FY2000.
        The Bush tax cut for the rich is gone. Almost all the Iraq war costs are gone. The Democratically inspired Social Programs costs will live on in perpetuity and will only get larger. By 2021the cost for Social Programs in Obama’s budget is $2.5 Trillion more than it was in 2000. The Defense budget in 2021 is only $300 Billion more than it was in 2000. Big, big difference.

  28. We are going to elect Bernie the commy, Hillery the liar and cheat, or a Republican.

    I choose the Republican.

    No need to complicate things.

  29. Warren Buffet had the excerpt below in his yearly letter to shareholders that was just released. Mr. Buffet, who I admire greatly for his business acumen and for his pledge to give away much of his wealth, (ten times puny Donald’s ill-gotten filthy lucre) said in part: “It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do. That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

    American GDP per capita is now about $56,000 — six times the amount in 1930 (the year Buffett was born) in real terms. “America’s economic magic remains alive and well.

    “America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs. America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous,” he said. “And, yes, America’s kids will live far better than their parents did.”
    Who you gonna believe? Buffet or Blowhard?

    • “Who you gonna believe? Buffet or Blowhard?”

      “Believe”? Really? Looking up the thread I seem to be in the political 15th century. Can I leave the Earth now? I can’t tell you in verbally expressible terms how unacceptable these people are as ‘leaders’, especially of me.


  30. David Springer

    Must see:

    • David

      As far as I can see Sanders is quite far left and Clinton has been dragged that way as well.

      Trump is quite far out on the right.

      Normally it is said that the middle ground decides elections, be they slightly to the left or slightly to the right of centre.

      However it seems that there is now a gaping void in the middle. Does that mean American politics has become very polarised?


      • It means both the Dimowits and now Redimowits inhabit the left, leaving the citizens to appear to be on the right.

      • Hi Tony

        I’m not sure I would put Trump on the right. He almost defies description since some of positions line up with sentiments of the left. He certainly is a populist and wants to impose taxes on Wall Street, not a traditional right thing. He lines up with Sanders and many left blue collar on trade and China, etc.
        He blames Bush for Middle East along with all the left.

        He uses the absurd solution of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse to cut the budget along with Education, EPA. This is the right talking point. The problem is that might cut the $4 Trillion budget by 1%. The elephant in the room for both sides is if they want to reduce deficit, then the most popular programs have to be cut. That is where the money is, in the entitlements. Neither side dares to do that. We are on our way to be Japan, which spends 40% of their annual revenue for debt service. If we did that our annual deficit would jump from $500 Billion to $1.5 Trillion.

        I see no solution. Like de Tocqueville said, the American Republic will flourish until politicians learn they can bribe the public with their own money.

      • David Springer

        What leads you to believe “Trump is quite far out on the right”?

        From wickedpedia:

        “Trump’s party affiliation has changed over the years. Until 1987, he was a Democrat;[4] then he was a Republican from 1987 to 1999.[3] He then switched to the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001.[3] From 2001 to 2009 he was a Democrat again;[3] he switched to the Republican Party again from 2009 to 2011.[3] An independent from 2011 to 2012, he returned to the Republican Party in 2012, where he has remained.[3]”

        Trump is a con man. He can and does purport to be on the right or left whichever most suits his goals at the moment which is evident in his party-affiliation history.

      • David, “Trump is a con man”, should have left it there no need for further explanation.

      • From the article:

        He may be the patron saint of limited government, but Ronald Reagan started out as a registered Democrat and New Deal supporter. An F.D.R. fan, the Gipper campaigned for Helen Gahagan Douglas in her fruitless 1950 Senate race against Richard Nixon


      • Tony, The “right” in the US is not what most foreigners think it is. One thing that is definitely not is authoritarian,….ie Trump. Most American right wingers top priorities are limiting the size and scope of government and adherence to the constitution. That simple. We are going to have quite the choice this year. A con man with no apparent principles vs a corrupt pathologically dishonest ideologue.

      • cerescokid – you are wrong about Trump and taxes. Take a look at his positions page. His position on taxes is spot on! Tony, instead of listening to the politically motivated here, take a look at his own words.

        No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.


      • jim2
        I was only talking about taxes on Wall Street. I saw his interview discussing taxes on carried interest and high income earners from Wall Street. Your link has it covered under how he will pay for his plan.

      • That’s a relief cerescokid. :)

    • David Springer

      That’s frickin’ WEIRD dudez. I put a link to a youtube and it turned into a image link. I saw the youtube land there properly myself too. Here it is again:

  31. From the article:

    Tony Blair accused of conspiracy over mass immigration
    Tom Bower’s new biography of Tony Blair claims the former prime minister paved the way for mass immigration to the UK but ordered civil servants and ministers never to discuss the issue


  32. Looks like the millionaire/billionaire control freaks just don’t learn. If the rumors are true, if Rubio fails, they will put Jeb 2.0 in the GOB nominee race: Mitt Romney. Another limp dishrag and one that has already been thrown in the trash.

    From the article:

    Roger Stone reveals establishment using Mitt Romney as Plan B if Rubio fails!


  33. Reposting on the correct post:

    This poll doesn’t define the category of latino, don’t know if they are likely voters or what, but this sample seems to epitomize the definition low information person since a significant number don’t know who Cruz or Rubio are.

    From the article:

    But the road to the White House is not clear for Clinton. There are Latinos who significantly have a very negative opinion of the former New York senator. Twenty percent of Latinos said they have a “very’ negative view of her, higher than the 10 percent that hold a “somewhat” negative view. While 14 percent were neutral towards her, 27 percent have a “very” positive view and 24 percent were “somewhat” positive.


  34. Reposting on the correct post.

    Trump seems to be gaining ground against Hillary in the polls. Some of the more recent results show him with a national advantage over Hillary. Too soon to call it a trend, but it could turn out to be one. Time will tell.


  35. From the article:


    The Goals Of Donald J. Trump’s Tax Plan

    Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:


  36. Immigration
    Mr. Trump advocates building a wall along our Southern border and has said disparaging things about immigrants. Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel peacefully across borders to work, trade, or live.
    This is one of my larger differences with Trump. Blaming them for our problems and having the vague answer of making them pay for it. The amount of money and change involved with such a thing would make this a war on immigration if it not already is. He prefers mitigation to adaptation and thrivability. As he points the harm of immigration, others point to its benefits. What would cause someone to come all the way to Minnesota perhaps skirting laws and pack turkeys for 10 hours a day for low wages? Some of us embrace the workers while others scapegoat them, proposing more governmental power to solve the problem. He may be tapping into a Republican and lower income xenophobia. The Republicans haven’t been able to do much about immigration and the Democrats have a more varied position yet generally opposed the Republican one. A war on immigration would do about as much good as one on CO2. With each tragedy blamed on weak immigration laws, we are reminded of each study finding CO2’s influence on climate. That immigration is the control knob of our well being.

    • Open borders is tantamount to national suicide. All you have to do is look at Europe. Open borders is working oh-so-well for them. From Mr. Trumps web site:

      When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.

      Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

      1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

      2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.


    • The wall would just be a symbolic waste of money with little effect. The majority don’t even use that route, but it makes for good campaign speeches.

      • Another fact filled fantasy from Jim D.

      • 1. We know we have a border problem. CAGW, and renewable energy are quite frankly bad jokes.

        2. The border fence is estimated to cost $6.4 billion. We could terminate the useless flush of $22 Billion a year that is the global warming program, build the fence, save $15.6 billion and save $22 billion in the out-years – which could be a tax cut.

        3. The illegal aliens must stopped. They are illegal. They should be confiscated. Since the government does a lousy job of confiscating illegal aliens we must stop them from coming into this country.

        At least the “symbolic waste of time” is solving a real problem instead of a real problem. I’m fine with a fence, turning vigilantes loose on the border, putting a bounty on illegal aliens or anything else that solves the problem.

        Eisenhower corrected the problem with Operation Wetback, it is inexcusable we have allowed the problem to fester and not fixed it.

        Terminating the global warming program or renewable subsidies (both colossal wastes of money) for even 1 (one) year would easily fund a high quality border fence.

      • Jim D,

        Drones, available easily on line, can carry drugs/weapons over a 20′ (or 30′ depending how PO’d ‘the Donald’ is) wall. How much longer before one can carry a 150-200# person.
        Wall’s a joke.

      • Shoot. Forgot to mention tunnels.

      • Blaming the nation’s ills on illegal immigrants, and then concocting a solution, is what they do. In fact, illegal immigrants are a net help to the economy by providing cheap labor to some of the same people who are voting for the wall. Some states tried to enforce legal farmworkers, but they found Americans were far less efficient at the job and could not make a living wage based on their low productivity rate picking and planting things. That gives some appreciation for the skills that these immigrants bring. They keep your prices down through their efficiency. If there is a case other than hate against these types of illegal immigrants, it has not been made. Make guest worker programs, and don’t just deport them.

      • Or, we could build a $6B wall and deploy ‘drone killers’ via our border patrol agents. Seems like there’s a bit of an unnecessary middle step here. But it’s only a few billion so no matter.


        or just increase the farm bill.

      • And how would you know how the majority of illegal aliens come into the country Jim D?

      • I don’t, but there are other methods including boats, road vehicles, small planes, Canada, that a wall does not defeat, and visa overstays. Build a wall, and the other methods increase to compensate. Less effective than you think.

      • Jim,

        “other methods including boats, road vehicles, small planes, Canada, that a wall does not defeat, and visa overstays.”

        Seriously? Thousands of illegal immigrants are going to switch to alternative methods of transportation? Boats? Small planes? Or they are going to do an end around and come in from Canada? Please try a bit of critical thinking. How many boats and planes would it take? Where would they land or dock? How would people get to Canada in the first place?

        You do point out one form of illegal entry that doesn’t get as much attention, at least in the media. I’ve read that people over staying visas make up a considerable percentage of those in the country illegally. But that appears to be a matter of enforcement. There is also the distinction that they entered legally.

      • Take boats, for example, Europe knows that boat trips that are much more difficult are undertaken there. You can imagine hired cargo ships launching dinghies full of prospective immigrants off various parts of the US coastline.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim D, good points. In fact, I was telling my bank manager just the other day that it was pointless to try and prevent robberies because people will figure out a way to rob banks anyway since that is where the money is.

      • The original point is that the illegal immigrants are being scapegoated as a cause of national ills. Forced eviction doesn’t solve anything. The wall doesn’t solve anything. They are a net plus to the economy because their efficiency keeps prices low. Give them a legal guest worker program and restrict hiring to that program, then they won’t need a wall. A lot of the problem is that these people are being illegally hired by Americans for exploitative labor. Attack it from that end. Makes sense, right?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim D, I’m skeptical that an influx of unskilled labor is a net to the economy.

      • I don’t think these people are the biggest problem. It’s part of the dehumanizing demagoguery to ask for a wall and forced deportation rather than better employment regulation. These people contribute more than they take.

      • Jim D, this is just about the first thing that we agree on

      • Don Monfort

        One of the more ridiculous things you have uttered, little yimmy:

        How are mostly unskilled workers who are not likely to even read and speak English more efficient? Don’t you mean they are abundant and “cheap” labor, yimmy? Is that good for the unskilled workers that we already have living here, yimmito? Put on your little pointy progressive hat and think on it.

      • They are more efficient agricultural workers. That has been found out the hard way by states that stopped their hire where the employers could not find local replacements that could do the grueling work at the same rate. Appreciate the Mexican immigrants more for what they can do for the country.

      • You guys are sweating over an opening gambit in a long negotiation, how silly is that?

      • Jim D,

        “Europe knows that boat trips that are much more difficult are undertaken there. You can imagine hired cargo ships launching dinghies full of prospective immigrants off various parts of the US coastline.”

        I’m sure you don’t realize it, but you are seriously outside your area of knowledge. Have you spent any time in “European” waters? Do you have any experience involving boats? It does not appear so.

        Refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq are mostly travelling by land. Those that are taking a water route have relatively short distances to travel. Reviewing a map of the Med will show you that. Then there is the fact that nations like Turkey and Greece are facilitating travel. Any refugee who moves north is one less they have to deal with. As for your cargo ships launching dinghies full of immigrants, ignoring what that actually entails – i.e. launching small craft on the open ocean, filled with people who have most likely never been on a boat of any kind – or who would pay for these cargo ships – there is an organization very well trained and perfectly suited to preventing this. They are called the US Coast Guard. People have been trying to reach the US from Cuba, Haiti and locales south for decades. Very few make it. Those the Coast Guard doesn’t intercept often flounder at sea and drown.

        It is safe to safe you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Stick to discussing climate change. At least there you have a clue, even if many of them are wrong.

      • Thousands of refugees have lost their lives in the Mediterranean for several years now. Look it up. Boats are a popular mode of transport for refugees crossing borders globally, and these are usually called boat people. Nothing new.

      • Jim D | March 2, 2016 at 9:03 pm |
        They are more efficient agricultural workers. That has been found out the hard way by states that stopped their hire where the employers could not find local replacements that could do the grueling work at the same rate. Appreciate the Mexican immigrants more for what they can do for the country.

        When I started working in the DC area the low end jobs were held by Americans. Today if you want something picked up as trash you have to write “Basura” on it.

        There aren’t many crops grown in downtown Rockville or DC.

      • It’s important to realize why that is.

      • Little yimmy wants to exploit the illegals because they do grueling work for low wages. Whatever happened to $15 an hour, yimmy? Are farmers’ profits more important to you than the poor suffering migrant workers? What did Cesar Chavez have to say about American farmers exploiting cheap Mexican labor, yimmito? Do you want me to translate for you? You make me sick with your hypocrisy.

      • A guest worker program would be an improvement for them and the farm owners who don’t have to compete with others that are hiring underpaid illegals. Yes, prices may go up, but that’s the cost of not having illegals around to do it. You take your choice.

      • That incoherent BS is non-reponsive, yimmy. What about the $15 hr? How about a living wage? Why do you want think it is OK to exploit Mexicans for profit? Aren’t you being blatantly hypocritical? And you haven’t disavowed the KKK.

      • $15/hr would be great, unless they are illegal in which case the market rate goes. Anyway for farm workers, they are paid by productivity rather than time, for obvious reasons. I think Trump “loves” anyone who votes for him, including the poorly educated and the KKK.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,

        Maybe Don’s right: ” Few are willing or able to perform the physically taxing and low paying labor which requires them to move with the crops, even with wages of $15-$20 an hour. Georgia recently experimented with creating a program that allowed parolees to work as farm laborers, but it was unsuccessful when they wouldn’t — or couldn’t — endure the grueling days.

        We could: Pay more for produce; eat less of it; or increase the dollars in the farm bill to cover (reverts back to pay more for produce but indirectly); spend $6.4B for enforcement (reverts back once again).

      • Don Monfort

        So, we have little yimmy on record as approving the exploitation of Mexicans to work grueling jobs in the fields for low wages that nobody else will accept and he refuses to disavow the KKK. A new low.

      • I think those Mexicans make the choice to be exploited rather than deported. No one is keeping them here.

    • The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market.
      The left of the Democrats on immigration and to the right of the Republicans on understanding markets.

      “1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.”
      We have borders. Porous as they are we will be a nation with or without walls. If half of Mexico moves to the Midwest, still a nation. Just not Trump’s kind of nation, where he helps decide who lives here based on his criteria. It’s protectionism. Going into a shell to solve problems. We have this great opportunity to lead the world on open borders. Improving persons lives and allowing them to be more productive and better off economically as well as being more free. But rather we appeal to peoples fears.

      • The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

        I see you are a member of the paving crew.

        The world is over populating.

        The US can enforce its borders, only let the best in and thrive. Or it can have open borders, high unemployment, lower standard of living, less security, lower quality of life, etc.

        The people crawling under the fence are less honest and have a lower IQ than the people who come in legitimately, even if you don’t include the terrorists and smugglers. We have too many unemployed, much of it is due to illegal immigration. There is no reason to allow this foolishness to continue.

      • Open borders? Are you kidding me? Maybe we have a great opportunity to lead the world on open sewers? How about total id-eo-see? If we want the US to lead the world on anything, it is the well-being of citizens first, immigrants second. Your ideas on this are disgusting Ragnaar.

      • From the article:

        As drones make their way into more and more places where they don’t belong — over wildfires, near airports, at the U.S. Open, on the White House lawn — there’s a growing interest in finding ways to keep them out.

        Play VIDEO
        Another drone crashes on White House grounds
        French firm Malou Tech created the Interceptor MP200, a large drone that catches smaller drones in a net. Here in the U.S., Boeing has developed a laser that can take down an unmanned aircraft by invisibly setting part of it on fire from afar. And now a partnership of British companies is marketing a somewhat subtler way of knocking airborne intruders out of the sky.


      • Only $1.2M per drone killer and 5 miles of ‘coverage’. Then 2000 miles of southern border and 5500 of northern. (If ya plug one leak won’t another develop elsewhere?).
        And all this assumes someone doesn’t develop a drone killer killer.

      • Suppose a farmer from the United States wanted to hire workers from Mexico. The government would have no right to prohibit him from doing this. To prevent the Mexicans from coming would violate the rights of both the American farmer and the Mexican workers to engage in voluntary transactions.
        Our citizenship rights we have here, are granted by our government. The right to be here that is. Now we could just talk about rights, not those specifically codified in our laws. We have a duty to our fellow man, be he in Minnesota or Mexico. Or not. My government told me I have no duty to you, I say to the Mexican. Is it part of my duty to attempt to prevent a Mexican to work for my neighbor? I think my duty is to not interfere with the voluntary exchanges my neighbor wishes to make with the Mexican.

      • Here’s what Trump’s trying to do in my opinion. Two people in some peoples opinion have the right to make a voluntary agreement. He wants to take that right from them in the case of Mexicans. So Trump wants to take away one right from the Mexicans and say, look, I gave us here more rights. And it was my government that did that. Then we go to the rule of thumb that governments can only transfer rights, not create them. The government transferring rights should always be looked at to see if it isn’t destroying someones rights. Say the case was the right to free healthcare. It destroys some peoples rights to keep their own money when they have to pay for someone else’s healthcare. If it’s a right to somehow be safer or have better jobs that he’s trying to appeal to, that is some right he thinks should be bestowed by the government for a trumped up threat. We have the right to be safe from all people, once they’ve done something wrong, not beforehand. The government trying to give us better jobs has history of countless failure, and boondoggles, as does all forms of protectionism. It’s just more big government.

      • Ragnaar – you have it all wrong. Illegal immigrants have no rights in the US, not to make contracts, to agree or disagree to work for the farmer, or whatever. Sure the farmer would love to have some near-slave labor, in fact, farmers in the Southern US used to have that. It’s not right.

        You are just SO WRONG about this. The US government owes allegiance to its citizens, not foreigners. American workers need jobs, but H1B visa holders and illegals are taking a lot of them, and a lot of the jobs aren’t just labor. We are talking doctors, nurses, and other higher paying jobs.

        Google visas + hospitals + universities.

      • Jim2:
        From where to rights originate? I’d say we grant them to each other. They don’t emanate from government, or the Constitution. We respect each other and not interfere with or harm others. Claiming that they have no rights here is saying we banded together, voted and then can point to something on paper. Not much better than cavemen excluding neighboring other bands and justifying it. That same paper says we as citizens here have rights. Now the rights that we grant directly to each other, or would wish to, can run afoul of what’s on that paper. In the end what’s on paper is the result of the acts of men sometimes and sometime not granting rights. Sometimes taking them away from people. If you use the paper to relieve us of having to make our own judgments about what rights we decide to grant each other, we have ceded yet more to the government. I think the laws on paper in this case lack a lot. Are somewhat unjust and limit both ours and their rights. They interfere where that isn’t warranted. We are trying to not trust government so much as the arbitrator of this right. This is where the Republicans have little problem turning their backs on voluntary exchanges. It is a core value of many libertarians. And they seem to be flocking to the man who will sacrifice this. Give that right to the government and preserve it for us as individuals.

      • Ragnaar,

        Your understanding of law regarding interactions between parties in two different countries needs a lot of work.

        According to you, I can contact a Syrian gentleman (lets call him Assad) and offer a contract to provide him with medical supplies (at a nice markup) and I don’t have to bother with getting any sort of permission or approval from my government.

      • timg56:
        Yes we have to check with our government to see if we have permission to sell medical supplies. To do many things.

      • Jim2:
        “The US government owes allegiance to its citizens, not foreigners.”
        We are having the US government grants rights with your statement and then not granting rights to others, foreigners. Yes we voted to exclude these people, and a few judges weighed in as well. We voted to prevent voluntary exchanges.
        Here we have an example of winning exchanges:
        Some parts of rural Minnesota have varied and often stagnant or declining populations if it’s not vacation type land. These people still need infrastructure and people to pay property taxes such as homeowners and packing plants to pay for that infrastructure. Trump would hinder that, disrupt that, and for what? Can’t find a good reason for that. It may be said that the people of Western Minnesota are rednecks and I have plenty of them in my family and consider myself one if they’ll have me. They are adapting, thriving, and making money. With the immigrants.

      • David Springer


        Texas shares a huge border with Mexico, has a very large Hispanic population, and has for a very long time looked the other way while illegal workers cross the border in both directions. This turns out to be beneficial so long as you’re only allowing able bodied males to cross the border and they aren’t getting any free services underwritten by the tax dollars of US citizens. Labor that US citizens aren’t willing to undertake such as field workers on farms or unskilled construction workers are done at very low cost. The low cost of production ends up being passed along to US citizens in the form of cheaper goods and services. Paying less at the supermarket and less money for a new home leaves more money to pay US citizens from taxi drivers to college professors. Of all the Republican candidates only Marco Rubio is either smart enough or honest enough to tell it like it is and not make illegals out to be evil if only we’d stop giving them rights and privileges of legal citizens once they make it across.

        In principle this is no different than buying sneakers or cell phones made in China where cheap labor is abundant and reflected in the cost of those imported goods. In the case of illegal workers inside US borders we’re just getting the same benefit of cheap labor applied to goods and services which aren’t amenable to slow journeys in a packing container on cargo ships.

      • David – I think the bigger picture with the millions of illegals from South of the Border is that the Dimowits are going to do everything in their power to get them converted to voters. Voters who will overwhelmingly vote Dimowit. If this were simply a matter of a few vegetable pickers here and there, it wouldn’t be an issue. But we are talking the potential for 100 years of Obummer clones. And that’s serious.

      • And the bigger picture with Muslim immigrants is they aren’t compatible with Western culture and we need to stop them coming in yesterday.

      • Ragnaar – your odd ideas that rights emanate from the government or are granted by one to another does not comport well with history. History tells us that rights emanate from somewhere inside the barrel of a gun.

      • It’s human nature to distrust people who are culturally different, even if they don’t look different. Irish immigrants to America in the 1800’s were seen as a threat because of their religion and because Irish men had a reputation for drinking too much and being rowdy.

    • Our neighbors from south of the border make fine citizens. My sons have friends and school buds from all those places and they are all just like any other American kids.

      The real victim of our current policies and politicized enforcement and is the rule of law.

      As JFK once said, “…we are a nation of laws, not of men…”

      Not anymore.

  37. From the article:

    A few weeks after Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
    joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.

    Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.

    Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.


  38. People sometimes give lip service to the Constitution, only to kick it to the curb when it lines their pockets. The poor ignore it when they can get more welfare. The rich ignore it when they can get cheap labor via immigration, just another disgusting example of corporate welfare. Trump is right. We would be a much better country if everyone played the game within the confines set out by the Constitution.

    • jim2 – “…give lip service to the Constitution, only to kick it to the curb when it lines their pockets…”

      That is why Scalia was so important – the words mean what they meant when they were written and ratified by the states. No more, no less…

      The idea of a “living constitution” is an Orwellian construct of the left, mostly, though it is also exploited by conservatives.

      The Constitution is, theoretically, flexible via the deliberately difficult ammendment process. The left is expert at exploiting this vulnerability. Perhaps it began with Roosevelts threat to expand and pack the Supreme Court, I’m not sure.

      The most important aspect of the current election will be the selection of the Justices of the Supreme Court. We are at a tipping point right now, a 4-4 deadlock with only the “conservatives” demonstrating any flexibility. The data shows that the leftist justices consistently vote as a block. I think the only likely explanation for that is that their votes are idealogically and politically driven.

      We need honest scholars of the Constitution to serve our “nation of laws and not of men”.

  39. The Trump Rebellion! Chris Christy, now this …
    Game Change: Jeff Sessions Endorses Trump from Stage in Alabama; Stunning Event Unites Populist, Nationalist Movement


  40. From the article:

    My Dear Fellow Americans, I have wondered for years what is happening to our country. It seems both parties are not speaking to the issues eroding America’s Sovereignty.

    With the current revelations about Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
    and the “Gang of Eight” doing the biding of Globalists, it now becomes clearer to me what has been happening. America is being “bamboozled” by both parties. They will do anything to keep power. They pander to conservative or liberal values but in reality it is just a “three card monte” perpetrated on the American people to distract them from the real game being played.

    America is being sold into globalism. I am not a conspiracy theorist per se, but I must say nothing else explains what has happened to our country. Nothing else explains how both the House and Senate under GOP control has not really moved the needle. Have you ever thought why?


  41. From the article:

    European ministers are meeting Thursday to discuss the latest escalation in the region’s migrant crisis amid rising concerns that the survival of the region could be at stake.

    Interior and Justice Ministers from the European Union (EU) are meeting in Brussels to discuss plans agreed by Austria and the Balkan nations on Wednesday to fingerprint all migrants entering their countries and to turn away anyone without a passport or valid documents.


  42. From the article:

    There is a big difference between 2 and 3.5 percent growth. It’s not abstract or theoretical. Essentially, the middle class has not gotten a raise in 15 years. In fact, a new report from Sentier Research finds that median household income of $56,700 (adjusted for inflation) at the end of 2015 is almost exactly where it was at the end of 2000.

    Not surprisingly, the middle class is cranky and angry. And people are voting for change. Significant change. As in throw-the-bums-out change. That includes presidents, members of Congress, big-company crony capitalists, and corporate welfarists.

    Middle class voters are saying the system is rigged against them, and they want to change who’s running the system.


  43. This open letter from Ben Sasse to Trump supporters is excellent:


    As is this piece in American Interest by Eliot Cohen:


    • The Cohen piece is terrific. The problem is that the left conflates concerns about a failing culture with overreach by the religious right. They mix up being tolerant and non-judgmental of who the individual is with being tolerant and non-judgmental of behavior that is anti-social, self destructive and counter productive. All individuals should be accepted for who they are. Societal sanctions against aberrant behavior is how cultural norms are enforced. Cultures are not neutral on sustainability of a civilization nor on productivity of its economy.

      There is a reason why we are the largest and most affluent economy of the world. It has mostly to do with our aspirational culture devoted to free markets and the rule of law and property rights and allowing people to fail.

      The country needs a leader who can explain in an historical context how countries stay great by paying attention to their culture and to their economy.

    • It’s too bad Sasse didn’t get this fired up over Obummer. I think all the angst over Trump is misplaced. He is uniting the country, not dividing it. Obama and the Dimowits divided it. Jesus! Trump draw 30,000 people at a time. That’s phenomenal. He is going to be President. And he will make a good one.

    • Trump will be a thousand times better President than what we have now. Why all the screeching?

      • David Springer

        Seriously? Trump is a clown and a con artist. He distracts you from the utter disconnect between what he says (blurts is more apt) and the truth by being over-the-top outrageous. It’s a great act. He’s got you conned but it won’t be for long.

        Watch this:

      • David Springer

        Trump has never held a single public office, either elected or appointed, nor served in the military. He would be the first president in history who didn’t first serve as an army general or a US congressman or a state governor. His business record is a string of bad ideas and bankruptcy fillings so there’s nothing in that to make him desirable as US president. It’s beyond belief he’s a serious contender.

      • David Springer

        He would be the first president in history who didn’t first serve as an army general or a US congressman or a state governor.

        Addition: or vice-president or cabinet member.

      • From over the pond I have often expressed surprise at the poor quality of the candidates from both sides and astonishment that Trump should have got so far as he seems a bully and a braggart with few thought out policies.

        However, David cites the list of things Trump hasn’t done and the offices he hasn’t held. Surely that is the point? The public are very fed up with career politicians and see in Trump someone who-despite being a billionaire- is on their side and wont be corrupted by money or power as he already has both.

        I can’t see him winning, but the Democrat alternative-Clinton-seems to embody everything a large section of the public doesn’t like and would merely be a continuation of the much derided status quo.


      • Scylla and Charybdis – the state of play
        in the late great USA as elsewhere.

      • Don Monfort

        How many here remember springy being right about anything?

      • Screeching

        I can’t imagine a gaffe taking down Trump. Howard Dean screech did it for him. Muskie’s tears? Gone. Dukakis looking like a dork in his tank. Gore lurking over Bush like a bully. Donna Rice did in Gary Hart. Romney Sr got brainwashed.

        Nothing that would torpedo other candidates will do him in. His supporters will love him more if he gets criticized by the usual suspects. His numbers will just keep climbing.

      • David,

        ” He would be the first president in history who didn’t first serve as an army general or a US congressman or a state governor.”

        Well our current President comes pretty damn close to meeting this criteria. He spent such little time in elected office prior to getting the nomination that it is questionable whether he ever took his coat off. What is not questionable is his complete lack of accomplishment during his short time in office. At least President Obama has been consistent. 7+ years in the Oval Office and still no accomplishments.

        Granted, pointing out our current President’s lack of qualifications, experience and accomplishments is not exactly a ringing endorsement for Trump. I personally am concerned that Trump as President would consign us to another 4 years of gridlocked divided government. If he wins AND has some long coattails, he might be able to get Congress to go along. I suspect they would simply try to wait him out.

      • David: agree 100% WRT Drumpf being a huckster, snake oil clown con-artist. However, that’s what it takes to win votes in the information age. Also, look who he is running against. I find it very hard to look down on Drumpf supporters because all the the republican candidates are wide-eyed knobs or tools of corporate socialism, except Kasich who is as dull as dirt.

    • A lot of Republicans will refuse to vote for Trump because they see how shallow he is. They know Obama was born in Hawaii, which is already more than Trump knows, and won’t vote for someone so provably wrong, or variable, on the things he says. If it comes to that, look for an Independent candidate with Republican values (perhaps Romney again), mainly as a method of getting people to the polls to vote for the Senate, House, and Governors, otherwise it will be a rout. They need to be deciding this kind of exit strategy in March to be in time for the third party tactic. A third party guarantees a presidential loss, but cuts their losses elsewhere. Anyway, that’s all going on in the Republican backrooms now.

      • Democrat voters do it often.


        It is obvious who has the real, big tent this season. Even you.

      • Perhaps they see that the best way to sabotage the Republicans is to vote for Trump.

      • David Springer

        Whatever Republicans he loses he’ll gain in Democrats, Jimbob. He’s been a registered Democrat twice as many years as Republican. He’ll swing to the center so fast and far it’ll make your head spin as soon as the nomination is a lock, which might be Wednesday morning depending on how well he does in Texas. If he’s a close second behind Cruz it’s all over except the crying. Rubio needs to get over 20% in Texas and preferably within a few points of Trump. Cruz is about to flame out. Texas is all he’s got.

      • Trump was in DFW. The corporate heads did a big push against him, and nobody downstairs appeared to be listening. A lot of people downstairs are already laid off. Lots of people are scared and mad. For many people in the oil business, the Obummer years could be the best years of their lives. Seems to me Trump is going to do very well in Texas. The data on Cruz… the guy is just unattractive… especially to women. The word they use.. creepy, or similar. A lot of people act like they don’t know him, or have never heard of him. He’s their Senator. It’s weird.

      • Sort of understandable if Trump isn’t knowledgeable about Obama’s place of birth. Supposedly neither is Obama.

      • That would be a good trivia question for the debates. Watch him equivocate like the politicians he despises for their lack of straight talk, just as he does about his KKK supporters. It’s his version of PC to equivocate, and he is doing it now more and more. His supporters who wanted a straight talker are being sadly let down by this new Trump. He should be saying he “loves the KKK” as he does with his other supporters, or condemn them for what they are. There is no in between.

    • “. Sasse supports federal subsidies for farmers and ranchers, particularly in the form of crop insurance. Sasse also supports legal status for illegal immigrants. – See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/benjamin-sasse/#sthash.AaUJGjCh.dpuf

    • Don Monfort

      I am surprised at you, Mark. Who TF is Ben Sassie? He has been in the Senate for one freaking year. Inherited a safe Republican seat and got passed along to D.C. with a grand total of about 350k cornhusker votes. That’s not enough support to get elected dogcatcher in NYC. And that putz is lecturing the multitude of Trump supporters across the nation. F that clown.

      Keep watching the turnout in the R primaries. Trump owns the Republican Party. Sassie is going for a third alternative. What a freaking maroonic clown. He makes little Jonnie Huntsman look like he’s got some gravitas. Govs Christie and La Page were ranting the same Trump-trashing BS two weeks ago, now they have endorsed him.

      Christie and La Page have seen the handwriting on the wall. The remaining stoopid pearl-clutching handwringers will come along. What are they going to do? They have already squandered hundreds of million$ on a gaggle of Lillitputian also rans, and they have echoed the attacks of the Democrat community activists and their totally owned mainstream media lackeys. The Donald just keeps rolling towards the WH like a big freaking atomic powered snowball.

      The lavishly financed Jeb “Shhhh!” Bush guy failed the Establishment miserably so out of sheer desperation and panic they go with the young unaccomplished ethnic minority first-term senator with big ears and a line of BS. Hey, it worked great for the Demos, twice in a row. OK, it worked because we put up a couple of soft little mild-mannered wimps. But you got to do that to avoid offending anybody, especially the 47% who won’t vote Republican no matter what you do.

      If the Rovian genius clowns had to insist on backing a classy mild-mannered get along patrician, like another freaking Bush, they should have gone with the olde dude. He’s a proven winner and Constitutionally eligible. He’s old enough, native and high born, and he only served ONE TERM and OUT.

      Who TF is Eric Cohen with that debauched and depraved crap? Anybody ever voted for him? If he and Trump gave a speech in the same town on the same night, would Cohen need any security? Half-dozen chairs, just in case anybody got the venues confused.

      I just got back from Tejas. Cruz looks like a lock there, but The Donald has largely skipped it and will clean up elsewhere.

      Watch Trump roll. We don’t care if you like it, or not.

      • OK Don, we are going to have to just disagree on this one. Personally I find Trump to be an embarrassment with no redeeming virtues. I too am frustrated with the seeming dysfunctional nature of our government, but Donald Trump is not the answer.

        The notion of this election coming down to a choice between 2 candidates that are inherently dishonest, disingenuous and distrustful is depressing.

      • You should sit this one out, Mark. Wait for Jesus to come back.

      • No f..king way am I sitting this one out Don. You do what you gotta do and I’ll do what I gotta do.

    • ‘Government exists only because the world is fallen, and
      some people want to take your property, your liberty, and
      your life. Government is tasked with securing a frame-
      work for ordered liberty where “we the people” can in our
      communities voluntarily build something great together for
      our kids and grandkids. That’s America. Freedom of
      religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association,
      freedom of speech – the First Amendment is the heartbeat
      of the American Constitution, of the American idea itself.


      So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr.
      Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution?
      Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the
      First Amendment – or an attack on it?’

      Good question. Or more Obama rule by fiat?

  44. With an ego as big as Donald Trump, has, how will he want to be remembered by future generations?

    • David Springer

      He seems to be happy playing a clown. I guess it distracts from the long series of bad ideas and bankrupt companies left in his wake. Remember Trump Inns, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka? No? No one else does either but they will brought up to date soon. How about Trump Entertainment Resorts. It’s hard to bankrupt a casino but Trump managed. Twice. Once in 2009 and again in 2024.

      He’s flipped flopped back and forth from Democrat to Republican all his life (a democrat 66% of the time). He’s on record lauding Hillary Clinton, nationalized health care, pro-choice abortion, among other things.

      Here’s John Oliver of “Last Week Tonight” a smash hit half-hour comedic news show on HBO. Oliver has never devoted even close to an entire show to a single subject but he made an exception for Donald Trump this past Sunday. A must see. It’s here. HBO uncharacteristically released it to Youtube for free. The press is going to go apesh*t on Trump. If you thought Hillary had skeletons in her closet she’s Mother Theresa and the Virgin Mary combined compared to Trump.

    • Don Monfort


  45. The show:
    “With 10 furled American flags and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie standing behind him, Trump poked fun at Rubio, referring to him as “the little senator” and “a lightweight.”” 
    Christie previously weaponized himself, attacked Rubio and then dropped out of the race. A real class act. I suppose Trump thinks he can now start acting presidential and after all, what’s a little scorched earth?

    • It’s politics and campaigning Ragnaar.

      I’m always amused by how people exhibit their lack of history whenever they complain about something that has been a staple of American politics since before we were a nation.

      • I guess I am confused over the presidential portrayal of him last night in front of the flags and how that constrasts with all the insults he’s issued. Christie standing behind him was a priceless image.

      • That place with the flags was apparently a new room in Trump’s own house. Part of his fantasy land. Christie looked like he was having second thoughts.

  46. David Wojick

    Given the super tuesday results the question is no longer can Trump win the nomination? It is now can he be stopped? By my count he now has more delegates than all the others combined.

    • The republican establishment does not seem to appreciate that Trump has greatly expanded their party. He is winning and now the establishment is in the position of destroying the party rather than support an outsider.

      • David Wojick

        I doubt the establishment has that power. In any case the contrast between Clinton, the perfect insider, and Trump the perfect outsider, is fascinating.

      • The “republican establishment” hates someone who ignores their positions. Perhaps the biggest is Trumps belief that US corps should be “punished” for moving manufacturing jobs to lower cost nations. The “establishment” position was that it is good for the world economy and that is eventually good for the USA.

      • How exactly has he expanded the party?

      • “How exactly has he expanded the party?”

        His presense in the race has significantly increased republican voter turnout. “How” he did that is debateable. The fact that it occured is not.

      • Trump is a Democrat with mostly Democrat positions and Democrat instincts. He has attracted Democrats to vote for him in open primaries. Given that voting in the Democrat primary is a choice between evil and insanity, not a surprise that people might wander his way.

        That doesn’t mean he has expanded the party. Not at all. Democrats voting for a Democrat isn’t expanding the GOP. Not that these people aren’t changing their party affiliation to vote for him in closed primaries.

      • Increasing voter turnout by Republicans is not expanding the Republican party. Stanton where can find the source for your statement that more Democrats are crossing over to vote in the Republican open primaries (as opposed to any other election year)?

      • I would guess that Democrats voting for Trump in a primary causes a certain amount of them to switch in the General. An example of expanding a party is locating oneself right in the middle. Clinton is probably middle left and might lose half of the voters between the middle left and the center. I know Trump’s postions are all over the map depending on when he has them but I am averaging them to the middle. The interest generate mostly by Trump is overwhelming compared to the coronation of Clinton, same old same old. A lot of people, some Democrats are fed up with the same old same old. I also agree with supporting an outsider. This is their’s and Democrats club. Other admitted only by invitation. See the Libertarian Party. The same attitudes it has towards 3rd parties may cause them to lose this one badly. Is that Karma?

      • Of course, voter turnout in the primaries doesn’t necessarily translate into voter turnout in the election

      • ==> The interest generate mostly by Trump is overwhelming compared to the coronation of Clinton, same old same old.

        Overwhelming? Once again, people are drawing a slew of conclusions based on thin evidence.

        Trump has a relative large % of support from those folks who have voted thus far in Republican primaries, relative to the support for multiple other candidates. It remains to be seen what happens when/if he faces fewer opponents in the primaries. Further, it remains to be seen what happens in the general election should he get nominated. Is there reason to believe that he would pull a larger % of the overall vote than, say, Romney? Will he drive voters to the polls who haven’t voted before, or who have voted for Demz in the past? What is the evidence for that? What is the evidence that the increased voter participation in the Republican primaries will translate to increased voter participation in the general? I haven’t seen any.

        And unless someone shows me some, all this speculation looks more like confirmation bias than anything else.

        The evidence thus far is that he has a pretty immovable ceiling that limits his vote to a pretty much extremist element. The level of support he might get from the overall Republican electorate is questionable, as his overall % of the Republican vote seems to not have exceeded @35%.

        Perhaps more important is whether Clinton will pull in the large swaths of minority and young voters that enabled Obama to beat McCain and Romney. The demographics favor Dems, and are increasingly going in that direction at about 2% per election. But in this election that depends on Clinton’s ability to get non-regular voters to the polls as Obama did.

      • Josh, as far as the evidence “thus far’ there is a wide range of support for Trump and flabbergasting % increase. Hillarys’ support has almost halved across the board:

        Indeed, Republicans vote totals exceeded 2012 primary numbers in every state but Vermont. Certainly, several states held later primaries four years ago, drawing less interest. But some increases were nonetheless eye-popping:

        386 percent in Virginia, 261 percent in Arkansas, 154 percent in Tennessee.

        Turnout was up even in states Trump lost, almost doubling for Cruz’s win in his home state of Texas and more than doubling in Minnesota, which gave Rubio his only victory thus far.


        Turnout for Hillary is depressing (if you were her):

        Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states that have held caucuses or primaries through Tuesday, according to unofficial election results tallied through Wednesday afternoon.

        It declined in almost every state, dropping by roughly 50 percent in Texas and 40 percent in Tennessee. In Arkansas, Alabama and Georgia, the number of Democrats voting decreased by between a quarter and a third.

        The falloff in Democratic primary turnout — which often reveals whether a candidate is exciting voters and attracting them to the polls — reached deep into some of the core groups of voters Mrs. Clinton must not only win in November, but turn out in large numbers. It stands in sharp contrast to the flood of energized new voters showing up at the polls to vote for Donald J. Trump in the Republican contest.

        Beneath Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday Wins, Signs of Turnout Trouble


        ‘Bernie or Bust’: Clinton can’t count on Sanders’ supporters in November


      • Facts don’t carry any weight with that little alinskyite putz, ordvic. Especially if you don’t use bold lettering.

      • Don, Bold lettering only works if you use it sparingly to emphasis something not when most of the tltr post is bold.

      • I like this unbiased reporting of the NYT:

        “Mrs. Clinton must not only win in November…”

      • Trump dominates with huge turnouts, wide base of support


        “Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and other media across nine of the states showed Trump drawing significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications. Perhaps most important for Trump: Even among voting groups where he was weakest, he maintained enough strength to deny Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio any chance of catching him.

      • ordvic –

        ==> Indeed, Republicans vote totals exceeded 2012 primary numbers in every state but Vermont.

        Apparently despite the use of bold, my point didn’t register.

        What is your evidence that the increased Republican votes in the primaries will translate to a larger % of the electorate voting for Trump than voted for Romney or McCain? Do you have evidence that voters supporting Trump in the primaries were previously voters for Demz in the general? Do you have evidence that large numbers of voters who previously supported Repubz in past generals won’t fail to show up to vote for Drumpf?

        In short, what evidence do you have that Trump’s support in the general won’t be limited to the 35% ceiling that has existed in the primaries?

        Bring it on. Evidence-based reasoning is what separates a “skeptic” from a skeptic.

      • Josh, apparently you don’t know how to read.

      • You asked; ” as far as the evidence “thus far’ “

      • Josh, This is a little like so called climate science, you base you’re projections on previous results. How else can you say what the outcome of the November election could be? You can only project based on results as of now. There is no crystal ball. At this point we don’t even know if Trump will be the nominee. Hillary could have a thyroid coughing fit and die on the spot. I presented four news articles from ABC, NYT, the Washington Times, and the AP. All cited polls showing a huge upswing in voter participation for Trump and a depressed showing for Hillary. That’s the current consensus it’s not skepticism here. You are the only skeptic.

      • ordvic –

        I asked you what evidence you had that support for Trump in the primaries (where there seems to have been pretty much a ceiling to his support at around 35% of Republican voters) will translate into significant support (say compared to Romney or McCain) for Trump in the general election. I asked it more than once.

        In response, you do stuff like say: “All cited polls showing a huge upswing in voter participation for Trump and a depressed showing for Hillary. “

        Basically, a non-sequitur.

        Trump has huge negative favorability ratings. Many Republicans are very opposed to his candidacy, including many very popular and powerful Republicans. Assuming that the upswing in primary votes will translate into general election votes is unskeptical.

        As just one example, you speak of using past performance to help guide projections going forward. Well, what does precedent tell you about candidates in the general who have such high unfavorability ratings, or so much direct opposition from popular and powerful leaders within their own party?

        Projecting from the primaries at this stage is entirely unskeptical.

      • Joshua:
        I have no evidence. My source is an hour or so of Megan Ryan most nights. I think mostly Trump and some of the other Republicans are causing increased turnout in the Republican primaries and so forth. I think Clinton is not doing the same, and Sanders is. Sanders voters so far are not as likely to vote for Clinton as Trump’s supporters are likely to vote for Trump in the General. Increased activity now is suggested to mean increased activity in the future. Unless that activity is frustrated such as in the Sanders/Clinton situation. I still have no evidence. Ventura surged. It was unexpected. It was denied beforehand. He was a radio talk host I listened to. To this day, his producer, ‘the Rookie’ will impersonate him quite well on KSTP radio. One of our major stations with many blue collar and Republican listeners, call it center right with reach to the left as well. It was the young voters of Minnesota and independents that helped. Ventura had less savvy than Trump does. He debated well enough, and had a great presence he learned as a professional wrestler. A shaved head. We were shocked. The establishment failed for once in a fight under their own terms. As I’ve said recently, the establishment should absorb Trump. Use the enthusiasm now, and settle with him later after the victory. I think Trump is distancing himself from Ventura while Jesse is comparing himself to Trump. Ventura has a point that it’s a similar situation. It’s shaking things up, rigid regimes may be shuddering before the collapse into the next one.

      • Ragnnar –

        ==> Sanders voters so far are not as likely to vote for Clinton as Trump’s supporters are likely to vote for Trump in the General.

        Anecdotally, I doubt that’s true. I haven’t seen evidence that supports that conclusion (except some anecdotal evidence such as in that laughably bad Washington Times article that ordvic linked which didn’t attempt to collect information in any type of systematic fashion).

        If it is Trump vs. Clinton, a lot of people who now say that the won’t support Clinton will be faced with facing perhaps 3 SCOTUS nominations by Trump. That is a big motivator. Of course, it would depend on how much Trump might walk back his rhetoric on issues such as building walls, deporting 11 million, banning Muslims from getting into the country, jettisoning the AHA, etc., but those are all big issues that would matter greatly to Sanders supporters.

        On the other hand, we have important and prominent Republican leaders who are saying that they wouldn’t support Trump. Again, whether they would carry that out or not is unknown, and we don’t know if they might change their views if Trump moderates.

        But meanwhile, Trump has huge negativity ratings. Extrapolating from the increased primary voting to an increased turnout for Trump relative to McCain or Romney seems very much unsound, IMO. The evidence, thus far, shows that he has a ceiling in his support from Republican voters. Of course his support from Republicans will go up if he gets the nomination, and he may well get some support from voters who haven’t voted for Republicans in past recent elections and there is no doubt that he has very enthusiastic support from a certain sub-segment of Republican supporters – but unless someone shows me evidence that shows that he’ll be a particularly strong candidate in the general, I’ll suspend judgement, with noting that the polling that has been done on him in the general so far, does not support such a conclusion.

      • –dnip–

        Trump does not just divide rank-and-file voters from Republican poo-bahs. He’s also extremely divisive among Republican voters, much more so than a typical front-runner. In exit polls so far, only 49 percent of Republican voters say they would be satisfied with Trump as their nominee — remarkable considering Trump’s lead in votes and delegates.


      • –snip–

        You might wonder whether this sort of thing always happens during a nomination campaign. The short answer is that it doesn’t. By comparison, 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their nominee, while 62 percent have said so of Bernie Sanders.

        Eight years ago, the battle between Clinton and Barack Obama was much tenser. With a few notable exceptions in Appalachia, however, both Clinton and Obama were widely acceptable to Democrats in 2008. On average in the 35 states where the exit polls asked the question, 69 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Obama as their nominee, while 71 percent said so of Clinton:


        I also looked up these numbers for the 2004 Democratic and the 2008 Republican races, elections that bear some similarity to this year’s Republican race because there was no clear front-runner early on. Although it took a while for John Kerry and John McCain to catch on with voters, they eventually became very popular. In 2004, an average of 79 percent of Democrats said they’d be satisfied with Kerry as their nominee, while 77 percent of Republicans said so of McCain in 2008.

        Not only is Trump’s 49 percent satisfaction rating lower than any recent party nominee’s, it’s also lower than almost all the losers’. Rick Santorum in 2012 was more widely acceptable than Trump, for example. The only exception was Ron Paul in 2012, although the exit polls asked about him in only two states.


        There’s more:


      • Josh, that non-sequitur stuff is pretty funny. It reminds me of a dream I had the other night. There was three of us lying on a circular bed one guy was a guy (a Harvard graduate) I used to know that had six million dollars he got from stock options from being an executive with Time Warner that had all of his money in a W Buffett like mutual fund. He moved to Poland with his Polish wife. She was an Olympic rower that graduated with a BA in marketing from Pepperdine University.

        Anyway, he took all of his money a invested in a Polish football team (American Football). He even imported some really good African American football players from the US. Not unexpectedly he went bankrupt. He now lives in Philadelphia totally broke. The other guy was a Bernie Sanders fan. Then there was me. We laid on the circular bed in a triangular fashion like the three stooges.

        The ‘Feel the Bern’ boy started sing a song about Fascism in Indiana. I had to interrupt. Dude have you ever been to Indiana? It is flat as hell. They all have flat minds as well. Mountains scare the hell out of them. If you’re luck you’ll grow up and be just like those Fascist Indianans. You’ll come into you’re little foyer and put you’re little rain boots on the little square tile entryway. You’ll go into you’re living room and find evidence of corn chips and spilled beer where you partied in front of the flat screen rooting for the home team . You’re fat pregnant little wife will be in the kitchen cooking a roast and making cinnamon rolls. That is if you’re like the lucky 99%. Otherwise it’s all heroin and misery from then on out Pal.

        Luckily I woke up and realized it was another one of those non-sequitur dreams. Go figure.

      • Ordvic –

        Thank you for that comment. Nis that I have read it,), I can see your evidence-based reasoning to conclude that increased voting in the primaries explainable by Trumps-s candidacy will translate into an unprecedented landslide of voting support in the general election. Sorry for not understanding your explanation earlier.

      • Joshua:
        Yes he has high negatives from many sectors. That hasn’t matter yet, but will in the general election. I am not so much worried about the general as fascinated by watching the evolution of the Republican Party. That is the soap opera. Yes I hope he wins if he gets the nomination. I am for change. Such as for Republicans who spend like they talk. One of his strengths is how he’s positioned himself. In the middle with a blue collar appeal. Clinton’s record puts her middle left. If the Republican Party doesn’t split, and he’s testing it, and picks the lesser of two evils, he’ll win. Here’s one of Trump’s problems. He surged too early. Ventura only had to keep things together for a few months. The Democrats will have over half a year to attack him, and Trump has to maintain enthusiasm into November.

  47. David Wojick

    I get a lot of spam, which I sometimes study, and for the last few months there have been a lot pitching drugs based on Trump’s supposed genius. Below are some Trump spam titles (just a sample). What is interesting is the pro-Trump messages these titles send, plus the great name recognition that goes with them. I see 10-20 of these a day.

    Sample spam titles:
    1. Men’s Health: How Donald Trump Turned into the Quickest Thinker on the planet
    2. ABC News: Donald Trump’s secret for improving critical thinking
    3. “Trump’s Memory Booster” Re: Trump’s presidential bid is all due to this.
    4. “Trump-Saving Economy” Re: What Donald Trump plans to do for the economy
    5. Fox News: How Donald Trump Increases Analytical Thinking Skills to Stay Sharp
    6. Exclusive: Trump’s plan for Americans to double-their-income
    7. ABC News: Donald Trump’s tip to enhance memory
    8 Forbes: Donald Trump Turbo-Charges His Brain Power to Make Billions
    9. Exclusive: Trump’s plan for Americans to earn $7-$8k/month
    10. Trump’s plan for American’s to triple-their-income from home

  48. Who knew?

  49. Since Trumps strong primary performance, his press coverage seems to have doubled. There is a torrent of vitriol aimed at trump on the internet, the radio, and TV. It’s astonishing.

    This is the sort of vitriol that SHOULD have been aimed at Obummer, TWICE! Why didn’t it happen? This is the sort of vitriol that SHOULD be aimed at Clinton. Why isn’t it happening?

    Trump is far better than either of those two liars.

    Trumps take on immigration is being cast as racism. But really, it’s about jobs. To me, it is also about keeping from having Obummer clones for the next 100 years. And that’s exactly what will happen when the Dimowits convert all those illegals to voters. BUILD THAT WALL!!!

    • Danny Thomas

      You wanna use my money to build that wall? WUWT?

    • Heh. A good proportion of the vitriol directed Trump’s way is from mainstream Republicans. Perhaps the explanation for that is that he’s an insufferable blowhard with no discernible policies beyond leveraging hatred and anger for political expediency and his own ego gratification?

      Dude, just because your ideology is only shared by a minority of Americans at an extreme end of the political spectrum doesn’t justify a conspiracy theory that mainstream Republicans are in cahoots with everyone to the left of Atilla the Hun.

      Trump, very deliberately, courts media attention by trying to promote outrage. It’s so funny that you’d find anyone but him responsible for the negative attention he garners.

      What ever happened to conservatives promoting “personal responsibility,” anyway?

    • Time has come to terminate the “Global Warming” and renewable subsidy programs until the wall is built.

      We have wasted over half a trillion dollars on eco/liberal causes that from what I can tell, like most liberal programs, accomplished nothing.

      If liberals block the roughly $6.4 billion needed to fund the wall we should terminate the liberal “Style points” programs that yield no beneficial result.

    • Once the trump recession latches on, Mexico will hire cheap American migrants from the Texas oil patch to build the wall.

      • We are effectively in the worst recession in history from a job standpoint.

        Let’s drag out the jobs chart since this keeps getting ignored.


        The jobs were starting to recover, when the Stimulus was passed. The Stimulus was a combination of waste and mostly public sector job retention. It saved public jobs at the cost of private sector employment. The states kept public sector workers who should have been let go, at the cost of civilian jobs.

        After a fall the jobs started trending up – then Obamacare was passed and jobs never recovered.

        If Trump terminates Obamacare, sh*tcans the Obama regulations, and caps non-defense/non-border spending he won’t know what to do the explosion in jobs and economic growth.

      • PA, something is peculiar about your labor force participation rate chart. Some decades appear to be longer than others. Also, you mistakenly refer to the rates as jobs.

      • David Springer

        OMG the ignorance. It burns.

        The chart is from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The person responsible for that agency is the president. So you think it’s jacked up, Maxie? Ha.

        That said the chart is splitting hairs – the y-axis only covers 10 percentage points from 58% labor participation rate to 68%. The rise reflects women entering the work force in 1960’s and peaks after a generation in the 1980’s. It stays stable for another generation and when the baby boom generation starts retiring in 2000 the rate starts dropping.

        Nothing nefarious. Nothing unsurprising. Perfectly reflective of a multi-generational social evolution that anyone who could pass a high school civics class ought to know about. The ignorance here on this blog displayed by people who I thought knew more is the only surprising thing.

      • David Springer

        Recessions are marked on the chart. One can see that in the first half of the chart they happened more often than in the second half. The second half more or less represents Alan Greenspan’s tenure at the helm of the Federal Reserve. Alan thought he could end something called “the business cycle” through federal monetary policy with the primary tool being the overnight lending rate. The business cycle is basically defined as a small recessionary period once every 4 years during which time the labor market swings from too many jobs (labor has the upper hand) to too few (business has the upper hand).

        That policy doesn’t really work. It just bottles up the adjustments causing longer periods of full employment and deeper recessions to adjust. So after 25 years from 1982 through 2006 where there were only two small recessions the pressure gets let out of the bottle in 2007 with the biggest recession since the 1930’s great depression.

      • The labor participation rate has more to do with the baby boomers retiring and other demographic changes rather than the economy. As you can see it started falling in 2000.

      • Yes, disaggregate for the story. Look at age-specific labor force participation rates by sex, race, and educational level. For example, baby boomers retiring could reduce the overall participation rate because they represent a disproportionately large age segment of the labor force. Moreover, I recall reading that during the last economic downturn many older workers who lost their jobs, just gave up, and did not return to the labor force.

      • Don Monfort

        Yes you twerp, let’s actually look at the labor participation rates by age group:


        More older people working longer to make ends meet and more younger people dropping out of the labor force to smoke and joke, or whatever.

        Did you think that nobody had actually seen those stats, clown?

      • Don, you are right, but you missed a few things. LF participation rates also are down for those of prime working age (25 to 54 or whatever), and a little more for men than women. Stay-at-home dads? Also, rates for whites are down more than rates for Blacks and Hispanics.

        I’m glad to see older people working longer, since life expectancy is greater. I don’t know what to think about the decline in participation rates for younger people. I would hope it reflects affluence and school attendance rather than discouragement over lack of employment opportunities, but it could be some of both.

      • Don Monfort

        I didn’t miss anything, maxie okie. You are confused/wrong, as usual. Your question marks and hopes that there is some progressive favorable happy explanation are irrelevant. The numbers tell the story.

      • Sorry, I thought you missed those things. Maybe you saw ’em but didn’t feel like trying to explain ’em. I can empathize.

      • Don Monfort

        Well maxie okie, I just proved that you are a clown for telling us to look at the age-whatever labor part. rate, when you obviously had not done so yourself. You admittedly got it wrong (you should have STFU right there) and now you tell me I missed some things and you launch into more stoopid speculation. I didn’t miss anything. I don’t have the time or interest to comment on every stat in those tables. I will leave the faux micro-analysis and silly speculation up to you. Carry on with your clowning.

      • Make that lousy hat great again.

      • Yep, glad you’re back, Kim.

      • From Springer,

        “OMG the ignorance. It burns.”

        To bad it burns without generating heat. Otherwise max could keep much of the Northeast warm all winter.

  50. Trump, the unifier … well … so he doesn’t try to include illegal aliens in the unification … that’s fine with me. From the article:

    Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and other media across nine of the states showed Trump drawing significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications. Perhaps most important for Trump: Even among voting groups where he was weakest, he maintained enough strength to deny Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio any chance of catching him.


    • Yes, I think the talk about stopping him at the convention… that prospect is vanishing, if not already completely gone. He did not do quite as well in Texas as I thought he would do.

    • David Springer

      The salient fact is that no Republican candidate has won a state by majority so far. The field is fractured and Trump is winning by a plurality. Republican rules are that the nominee must win by a majority of delegate votes at the convention. If no single candidate has a 51% majority of pledged delegates then the pledged delegates are released from the their pledges, super delegates (read establishment delegates) get to vote, and horsetrading starts happening until a majority winner is declared. That’s called a “brokered convention”.

      There has not been a brokered Republican convention since 1948 and since 1952 for Democrats. In the old days before primary voting, when the entire selection process happened at the conventions, brokering was common. It should be noted that it is very rare for a nominee selected at a brokered convention to win the general election. This is the problem faced by the Republicans. However, it’s quite unlikely to be brokered in 2016. Trump will likely be the majority winner in less than two weeks when the big winner-take-all state primaries happen.

      The last best hope for a non-Trump nominee walked out the door when Marco Rubio failed to get the minimum 20% of the vote in Texas needed to qualify for a pro-rated share of pledged delegates.

  51. Jim D | March 2, 2016 at 8:56 pm |
    I don’t think these people are the biggest problem. It’s part of the dehumanizing demagoguery to ask for a wall and forced deportation rather than better employment regulation. These people contribute more than they take.
    JimD. There should be employment regulation along with the wall. The wall potentially could partially stem the flow of drugs and terrorists, that alone is worth it. Anyway, all this (pufforous) hand-wringing about the loss of cheap labor is silly. The US can still allow work permits to screened aliens.

  52. Why can’t they allow work permits to the people currently doing the work with enforcement of using them? The Republicans seem totally opposed to this simple concept. Instead they want to deport all of them and ban them from ever entering again. It is far too extreme for what is actually not a large problem in terms of the US economy.

    • addressed to jim2 above

    • That is so not true, JimD. Mainstream Republicans by and large want the cheap labor. You will note the even when the Redimowits controlled the Admin and Congress, nothing got done on illegals. It’s mostly Trump who is proposing to do something about this. But even with all that, there are millions of foreign workers in the US. And Obummer wants more only for the votes!

      Just look at all the different papers a foreigner can get!


      mmigrants accounted for nearly 17 percent (26.2 million) of the 158.6 million workers in the civilian labor force in 2013. Between 1970 and 2013, the percentage of foreign-born workers in the civilian labor force more than tripled, from 5 percent to 17 percent. Over the same period, the foreign-born share of the total population grew from almost 5 percent to 13 percent.


      • Trump is wall first, deport first, think about jobs later, but first that wall thing. With the Mexicans to pay for it, so he loans the Mexicans money (or gives import credits or something to buy them in) to build the wall using their own workers rather than using American labor. Not a good plan, and with that I think I have thought it through more than Don T has at this point. Why not use American labor for Trump’s wall? It would be a stimulus plan that may gain support.

      • I just realized – Don T spells DON’T.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Trump’s rhetoric reminds me of the Democrats when they used to be a blue collar party.

      • Who, Kennedy?

      • stevenreincarnated

        It wasn’t all that long ago that Clinton signed a law forcing companies to check the legality of workers. I don’t don’t think companies should be forced to do what is clearly the job of the federal government but the intention was the same as building a wall. Protectionist trade practices are more associated with Democrats instead of Republicans. Creating penalties for companies moving out of the country sounds Democratic to me. All in all I’d say Trump is a 1970s Democrat and today’s Democrats are feeling the Bern.

      • Obama is deporting at the highest rate in years, and Trump still doesn’t think he is fast enough, but it was Bush who built a wall section, so that is more a Republican thing. Trump also likes playing armies and bombing things, which again is from a Republican leaning. I think the Make America Angry Again motto is appropriate, and it is already working with his supporters. So far it is only minority groups, foreign countries, and ineffective congressional Republicans that they are angry at, but in the next phase it will also be Democratic-voting members of the public, and any Republican politicians who don’t support him will get special treatment.

      • Obama is deporting at the highest rate in years

        That’s funny. I like people with a sense of humor.


        “30 Million” eh?


        The criminal deportations would indicate he has twice as many illegals to deport. The criminal to non-criminal deportation ratio went up significantly during the Obama administration.

        He is deporting more simply because he has run out of places to hide them.

        At the current rate it will take 68 years to deport them all. Many of them will die from old age, particularly since the fresh meat tends to get deported first.

        Fence. It is the only way. Only deporting 1/68th of the illegal population each year turns government policy on illegal immigration into a farce

      • David Springer

        Yes, there’s the catch. Republicans don’t want to let illegal immigrants to become legal and then be able to vote. Democrats do. Only idi0ts on both sides don’t want the cheap labor for service sector jobs that can’t be exported to China. Only idi0ts on both sides don’t know that manufacturing migrates to where labor is cheap. Democrats are the greater idi0ts in that they want to extend the financial (entitlement programs, public education, etc) and self-determination benefits of US citizenship (right to vote and hold public office) to illegal workers. That’s a BIG problem. These workers haven’t contributed their fair share to the system but instead allows them to exploit something they didn’t help build through their own blood and treasure.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, perhaps we should hire Mexican border guards?


      • I think Reagan proposed a similar law… to require employers to verify citizenship. We were getting ready to train employers on the record keeping. They were mad as heck. They liked their employees. One of the lobby groups that helped stop it was the Chamber of Commerce.

        How would GDP be impacted if a wall stopped any undocumented employee influx, and aggressive deportation winnowed down the existing population of undocumented workers? Within blocks of me there are four houses under construction and one major renovation. Plus yard guys and house cleaners and nannies. It would be a huge problem. They’re not all illegal, but a bunch of them are.

      • stevenreincarnated

        JCH, it wouldn’t be a huge problem. Once you get the border under control you can figure out how many work permits you need to issue and actually have some sort of quality control over who gets in and who doesn’t.

  53. FBI grants immunity to hilly-billy underling who set up and maintained the private FOIA dodging server. I wonder why? Lot more shoes to drop. I a’tollah you so.

    • The email thing is funny. They are all only known to the public because of the investigation. A case could be made that that has done more to harm national security than keeping the emails hidden. Instead it is leaks of things of marginal interest from several years ago, out of which some hope a case will be made about endangering national security due to the emails not being hidden well enough, despite the fact they are now being leaked by the investigation anyway. It’s weirdly circular.

      • You are deteriorating, yimmy. Can you show us some examples of the nearly 2,000 emails containing classified information that have been released to the public with the classified information unredacted? Don’t you care anything at all about your own credibility?

      • Even with it redacted, it is more than the enemy knew before, plus all kinds of hints and speculation in the media as to what the subjects were. It’s a goldmine they never read even the first word of before, and wouldn’t have. They have to make a case that putting all this stuff out is better than not. If, big if, a case comes from it, those emails will be scrutinized in public too. Doing exactly what they are accusing Hillary of, but in spades.

      • Don Monfort

        You are just making crap up in a very lame attempt to protect a very dishonest little granny, yimmy. No use discussing anything with your type. Very pathetic.

      • No proper answer from you about revealing all Hillary’s emails to public scrutiny, Don.

      • Don Monfort

        You are a blatant liar, yimmy. All of hilly-billy’s emails have not been revealed. The 2000 that have been determined by the State Dept and intel agencies to contain classified material have had classified material BLACKED THE FREAK OUT! or the ENTIRE email has NOT! been released. How long are you going to keep BS this up?

      • There has already been media discussion on an email that referred to a newspaper article and that email since got classified. Obviously the newspaper article is still out there. That type of thing is one example where the press is revealing things that give clues to the contents, and there will be more if there ever is a case that any email was actually important in any way. You have a blind spot about the investigation itself doing more harm than what it is investigating in the first place.

      • There has been media discussion on an email that referred to an article, yimmy. That’s what you got.

        You don’t have a freaking clue about the investigation because you are a little blind, deaf, lame and dumb huffpo drone.

        There were 2000 emails with classified material, including some top secret and higher, on an unsecure server accessible through the WWW in hilly-billy’s house, which is not an approved environment for that stuff to be residing. That is illegal.

        The emails were copied onto a thumb drive that was given to hilly-billy’s lawyers and kept in a law office where it did not belong. That is illegal.

        The server was put in the custody of some freaking little company and kept in a closet or whatever. That is illegal.

        The server was directed to be wiped clean destroying classified emails that belonged to the gubmint. That is illegal.

        Somehow the classified information got from State Dept secure servers and from other protected classified sources to a homebrew server where they ain’t by no means supposed to be and somebody had to do that deliberately. That is illegal.

        Somebody is responsible for having that server set up and causing that little operation to do all those illegal things for years, co-incidentally thwarting Congressional inquiries and FOIA requests. That is illegal.

        The dumb clown who was hired to set up and maintain the nefarious server has been granted immunity from PROSECUTION for some reason by a FEDERAL JUDGE at the request of DOJ PROSECUTORS acting on reerals made by the FBI in relation to a MASSIVE INVESTIGATION of all of the above AND MORE that you don’t know about. Can you guess what that’s all about, yimmy? Is it about a newspaper article?

      • OK, what was the consequence in terms of anything getting out (excluding all the pieces leaking from the investigation). It is a large deal about nothing that actually happened. You have Bush’s Secretaries of State also using private emails, also leading to nothing going wrong. Try parsing out the law that separates these examples. If you wonder why the Dems and mainstream media don’t care, it is because there really is nothing there.

      • Don’t give me that ClintonNewsNetwork crap, yimmy. We are talking about the FBI, the DOJ the federal courts and an investigation of a lot of demonstrably illegal activities. Somebody is responsible for those activities. Do you know what PROSECUTION means? We all know what you are about, yimminy.

      • Are you also angry at Powell and Rice? Want them prosecuted too? Or is this just a political sham?

      • I am not conducting a massive investigation, offering immunity, or PROSECUTING anybody. It’s the FBI the DOJ and the Federal Court system what’s doing it, yimmy. My educated assumption is they aren’t doing it to Powell and Rice, because the sets of facts are different. You should ask the feds why they are after poor hilly-billy and not the others.

        I will say that I may have underestimated the integrity of AJ Lorretta Lynch. My friends tell me she seems to be playing it straight, up to now. Very, very, very bad sign for hilly-billy and her slavishly loyal little drones.

        I wonder if granny can find some dumb clowns to take the fall for her. Even that will be disastrous for her career in politics. Take the last word, yimmy. I am sick of your nonsense.

      • Powell had retroactively classified private emails too, so you’re going to need more than that. It will fizzle. Ranked alongside Snowden or wikileaks, where classified things actually did get out, these emails are nothing. It will fizzle out, but maybe only after the election.

      • The FBI… Issa… 100s of thousands of emails and other documents… experts predicting jail time… IRS… Issa… FBI… complete congressional flame out… crash and burn… abject incompetence… augers into the ground… millions and millions spent… goose eggs.

        And so it goes with the keystone cop Republicans. All show; tons of tough talk; gawd they can talk tough; zero go; meek little pansies; they remind me of the AMO.

        Maybe Issa could steal Mrs. Clinton’s car. That way DONald ‘Trump might have a chance.

      • You should ask the feds why they are after poor hilly-billy and not the others.

        Well, one person thinks it’s a move by Obama to give Sanders the Presidency.

        Of course, like anything else from HuffPo, it should probably be taken with a grain of salt…

      • Look yimmy, some genius clown thinks it’s Issa what’s running the FBI, DOJ and the Federal Courts. Issa must be in charge of the IG’s in the State Dept and the intel agencies, also. How did a used car salesman get to be so powerful? Must be a vast right-wing conspiracy.

      • Congressman Issa is the best you’ve got. He blew a giant wad of cash straight into the dirt, and the FBI turned him down flat… on prosecuting the hated group of people in America… the IRS.

        The FBI is not going to go along with thugs like you and Issa and don’tRUMP.

      • Darrell Issa, Car alarm business success. Richest man in congress:

        Quantum/Steal Stopper

        After leaving the military, Issa and his second wife, Kathy Stanton, moved back to the Cleveland area. According to Issa, he and his wife pooled their savings, sold their cars: a 1976 Mercedes and a 1967 VW Beetle as well as a BMW motorcycle and borrowed $50,000 from family members to invest in Quantum Enterprises, an electronics manufacturer run by a friend from Cleveland Heights that assembled bug zappers, CB radio parts and other consumer products for other companies. One of those clients, car alarm manufacturer Steal Stopper, would become the path to Issa’s fortune. It was struggling badly, and he took control of it by foreclosing a $60,000 loan he had made to it when its founder, Joey Adkins, missed a payment. Adkins remained as an employee.[13]

        Issa soon turned Steal Stopper around, to the point that it was supplying Ford with thousands of car alarms and negotiating a similar deal with Toyota. But early in the morning of September 7, 1982, the offices and factory of Quantum and Steal Stopper in the Cleveland suburb of Maple Heights caught fire. The fire took three hours to put out. The buildings and almost all the inventory within were destroyed. An investigation of the cause of the fire noted “suspicious burn patterns” with fires starting in two places aided by an accelerant such as gasoline.[13]

        Adkins said Issa appeared to prepare for a fire by increasing the fire insurance policy by 462% three weeks previously, and by removing computer equipment holding accounting and customer information. St. Paul Insurance, suspicious of arson and insurance fraud, initially paid only $25,000, according to Issa.[13][21]

      • Look yimmy, the genius clown is not as smart as we thought. He thinks that Issa’s FBI made the decision on whether or not to prosecute the 5th amendment taking, hard drive shredding, no backup tape finding slimy miscreant IRS officials. Our learned bozo doesn’t know that it was the Obama appointed politically motivated apparatchiks at the DOJ that declined to do their duty. I bet that he doesn’t know that The Donald’s Attorney General can re-open that deal and lock them all up. You people are hilarious.

      • Jim D,

        Yes a case could be made. One that only you and max would be foolish enough to believe.

      • If a case goes forwards, watch for leaks of emails and regard anything there as more than the terrorists would have known without the investigation. The investigation is net negative in terms of security. There is no evidence of hacking and on the contrary a large government computer has been hacked (OMB). A case could be made that less accounts make a private server more secure not less.

      • Only a very cheap and very incompetent scheister lawyer would try to make the case that hilly-billy’s homebrew server was more secure than the State Dept’s communications setup for secret stuff, little yimmy disingenuous. But you better tell the FBI your story that they should call off the massive investigation of the hilly-billy massive security breach so secret stuff doesn’t get out to the terrorists. The best policy is to pretend that security breaches never happened. Shhhhh! Loose lips sink ships.

        Let’s see what lies you can spin up about this, yimmy:


        And this:


      • So you are pointing to leaked emails that were classified, which nobody knew about until this investigation, but now reporters are reporting on. Makes my point. Also anything here is a drop in the bucket next to that wikileaks dump, and what harm did that do? Perspective helps.

      • You keep lying about classified emails that you say have been leaked as a result of the massive FBI investigation of hilly-billy’s unsecured homebrew FOIA and Congress subpoena evading server, yimmy. But you can’t show us one freaking email that has been released or leaked that contains any unredacted classified information. If you had any integrity, you would just STFU.

      • By the way, you still don’t get or pretend not to get that the emails are being released because they were ordered to be released by federal judges in response to legitimate FOIA requests that were illegally stonewalled for years. The FBI and the DOJ have not released anything. If you hoipe your lies to be of any use to your cause, you have to have a least some element of truth in there somewhere.

      • So far one of your highlights is that she called a couple of Republicans Grinch and Mittens. It’s all down in the weeds as usual, and unless they come up with something big, it won’t catch on with the public. 50k pages emails later, still nothing big. Anyway your patience is appreciated. Perhaps the FBI will come up with a complaint about the server security and blame the IT guys, then that’s that for that. Don’t waste your time.

      • Don Monfort

        Enough of your pathetic lies, yimmy. We are done here.

  54. Jlm D

    “Doing exactly what they are accusing Hillary of, but in spades.”

    Yes, partisan politics trumps national security.

    • Don Monfort

      Have you seen unredacted emails released that have revealed classified info, little maxie okie? Do you think parroting yimmy’s lies is a good idea? Ain’t gonna help the little granny.

      • Don, as Jim D said, enemies will know more than they knew before. Intelligence analysts in many countries will be going over this info with fine tooth combs.

      • Is it ignorance with you or just dishonesty, maxie okie? We know it’s both with little yimmy. The State Dept and various intelligence agencies have been vetting the emails that have been released. What has been released is stuff that belongs to the people. Classified stuff is exempt from FOIA. This is run of the mill dispensable FOIA stuff, clown. If it is of any use to foreign intelligence it is stuff that could be had by filing freaking FOIA requests. Now show us some freaking stuff that has been released by the State Dept that is classified, or shut your big mouth.

      • You could also try to explain why the first defense of the hilly-billy crowd was that there ain’t any classified material in the emails. Now it’s that the classified material shouldn’t have been classified and the State Dept IG and the IGs of various intel agencies are out to get granny. Some vast right wing conspiracy thing. And hilly-billy is demanding that the TOP SECRET stuff IN HER EMAILS be released, knowing it won’t be. Call lewandumpski!

        And you two monkeys are complaining that it’s the Repubs who are causing classified info to get out. If they hadn’t caught hilly-billy in her crimes, this would have never seen the light of day, except to the very likely hackers of the freaking server. You can’t make this stuff up folks.

      • Don raises an interesting point:
        “This is run of the mill dispensable FOIA stuff, clown. If it is of any use to foreign intelligence it is stuff that could be had by filing freaking FOIA requests.”

        A citizen acting for foreign intelligence could obtain information from any US agency simply by making a FIOA request. We don’t know for sure that this information could not be damaging to our national interest. This risk is the price we pay for FIOA.

      • Don Monfort

        You should just STFU, maxie. Sensitive information is excluded from release under FOIA. Try reading the freaking law.

      • Don, people do that. People make mistakes. Not everyone is like you.

      • Don Monfort

        People with good sense don’t talk about things they know nothing about but pretend they do, maxie okie. They come off as fools, as you are doing here serially.

      • Don, I know you game. You are trying to get me to insult you, but I’m in too good of a mood. Maybe another time.

      • You are wrong again, maxie okie. I am proving that you are not very bright. You keep shooting off your mouth about things on which you are woefully uninformed and/or blinded by bias. Which puts you a few notches above yimmy, who is smarter than you are but that little rascal is extremely dishonest and shameless. You are redeemable, maxie okie. Yimmy is not.

      • Don recommended a link to Rory Cooper in Soap Box. Quoting Cooper, one of three e-mails he believes will spell trouble for Hillary follow:

        On July 25, 2010, Hillary Clinton emailed Middle East Envoy George Mitchell. The subject line was: “Here’s my personal email.”

        To which George Mitchell replied: “I talked with Frattini again and went over the point again. He said he understands and agrees.[CLASSIFIED] He again said he understands and agrees.”

        OH MY GOD, what was Hillary thinking when she had our Middle East Envoy discuss our secrets with Italy’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, obviously foreigner who could tell our secrets to God knows who. Maybe this was no accident. It’s time to start connecting the dots.

      • You are not bright enough to get the significance of that exchange, maxie okie. I won’t waste any time trying to explain it to you. You really must enjoy making a fool of yourself.

      • Well, that’s not all Rory Cooper found out about Hillary. Get a load of the following:

        Rory Cooper: “On July 4, 2009, top aide Huma Abedin emailed Secretary Clinton…well we don’t know what she emailed her because it is entirely classified SECRET.”

        Rory Cooper: “What we do know is that this was a day after North Korea launched short-range missiles and the same day they were launching cyber attacks against the United States, including the White House and Pentagon.”

        HOLY COW, this may mean she was in on it. Were Hillary and her Muslim aide congratulating their commie pals in North Korea? I guess that’s what the SECRET was about.

        For a fun time, follow Don’s above link to Rory Cooper’s Soapbox.

        Rory reminds me of someone in the following video.

      • Don Monfort

        Do you play the banjo too, maxie okie? Pathetic. Carry on without me. No more time for your foolishness.

    • There’s a dilemma, dashing through the horns of which will probably slash him bilaterally.

    • The basic problem is the Scooter Libby example. He got a felony conviction for just being less than forthcoming.

      Hillary has been even less forthcoming and added obstruction and other charges.

      The people who don’t believe Hillary should get what’s coming to her are either misinformed or some of the liberal “Justice is for just us” types.

      If Republicans are going to get crucifixion for basically nothing, Democrats guilty of considerably more should face at least crucifixion if not the whole “Spanish Inquisition” treatment.

  55. David Springer

    Trump has been a Democrat more than he has been a Republican.

    For the first 20 years of adult life he was a Democrat and then began flip flopping back and forth from Democrat to Republican in the 1980’s with one two year stint as an independent thrown in for good measure.

    He’s a con man. A used car salesman born with a silver spoon in his mouth followed by a long history of bad ideas and bankrupt companies built around those ideas.

    If it’s him and Hillary are the choices it will be the most severe case of having to choose the lesser of two evils that I’ve ever seen. Neither of them are going to make America great again. They are both living evidence of its decline.

    • The Donald is now the de-facto leader of the Republican party and next POTUS. Get used to it, sorehead.

    • “For the first 20 years of adult life he was a Democrat and then began flip flopping back and forth from Democrat to Republican in the 1980’s with one two year stint as an independent thrown in for good measure.”

      Make up your mind, Mr. Left.

      Either Trump is Hitler or trump is a liberal Democrat.

      Or is it possible that our country is so drugged by the influence of political correctness that we now view a 1980’s moderate as a Facist? Adorno would be very very proud. That would be my answer.

  56. David Springer

    Hillary – poster child for corruption in the public sector.
    The Donald – poster child for corruption in the private sector.

    I’m going to have to choose The Donald I think primarily because as an outsider he doesn’t have the knowledge, experience, or connections to get much done in Washington. In other words he’s not capable of inflicting as much damage as Hillary.

  57. Beneath Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday Wins, Signs of Turnout Trouble


  58. ‘Bernie or Bust’: Clinton can’t count on Sanders’ supporters in November


  59. The Republican party faces challenges. It may split with some of its leaders diverging from its voters. While the Democrats may have a minor split with the Sanders supporters it doesn’t come close to the magnitude of the Republican one. As others have suggested, blocking the Democrats with a Ventura type administration will not be as bad as a Clinton win. Ventura had his own party and little help from either side. He accomplished little of substance. His greatest accomplishment perhaps was consigning two politicians who ran against him to footnotes in history. There will be every opportunity overhaul the party after a Trump loss if it goes that way. If he wins, the Republicans can still freeze him out. They have more power as congressmen than they have over the this election. If he wins, they can isolate him, fail to fund his idea given a majority. Trump stole the voters from the establishment Republicans. He played their game and won. They need to absorb Trump and deal with him later in D.C. If not, we may see an epic meltdown play out this year.

    • Ragnaar weaves a tale:
      If he wins, the Republicans can still freeze him out. They have more power as congressmen than they have over the this election. If he wins, they can isolate him, fail to fund his idea given a majority. Trump stole the voters from the establishment Republicans.
      Ask RINO’s John Boehner or Eric Cantor what happens when you piss off the electorate. If Trump is elected, all he will have to to is publish his “establishment” RINO hit list and let the voters at ’em.

      • jim2:
        This could be the one of the top two political theater events of my life. I am starting to enjoy it after some of the stages of grief. It’s a new world of reality TV and liking on Facebook. Ventura’s people understood what of course? The interwebs. How is Trump on that? How many people are following their first candidate and of that how many are following Trump on Twitter. SNL’s rating are going to skyrocket. Ads will command Super Bowl pricing. I am almost on the boat jim2. What a grand adventure this may be.

      • I don’t do twitter and don’t have a facebook page. I’m a programmer, so I’m not anti-technology although I do have reservations about the internet and privacy. I’m not all that social in the first place, so I don’t see the need.

        At any rate, the wolves are going after Trump light-speed tonight. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next few days.

      • Yes, Fox looks very organized in its attack on Trump. The moderators have specially prepared graphics and clips to contradict his statements. You don’t usually see that in debates. He will call it an ambush. Wait and see.

      • Actually jim I think Ragnaar makes a potentially valid point. People like to think “outsiders” are going to come in and make sweeping changes. If Trump doesn’t help get other Republicans elected to office, they will have little incentive to help him. We could end up having another President who rules by executive decree.

      • timg56. The split between Dimowits and Redimowits is very even. It won’t take very many illegal immigrants converted to citizens to swing the balance to Dimowits. It is known immigrant lean heavily to Dimowits. So your FUD about “outsiders” is misplaced. It’s a very real possibility – not racism, not xenophobia, none of those usual Libtard Red Herrings.

        If Trump makes a hit list of RINO Redimowits, he can just as easily compile a preferred Redimowit list. No problems with this either.

        Any other rabbit holes you would like to explore?

  60. I mean; there really isn’t much to say:

    We all already know the problems with the DemiCommies.


    • The Neocons and their purge of all true conservatives:

      “And the fact is the expulsions have gone forward for more than one reason. Still, this generalization may be hazarded: In the last 30 years, purges have reflected the leftist course of the conservative movement and, more generally, of the Republican Party. Anti-racism, anti-Anti-Semitism, moderate feminism and, certainly in the younger generation of neoconservatives, enthusiasm for gay rights, including gay marriage, have all become characteristic positions of a transformed conservative movement. Conservatism, Inc. has moved exactly in the same direction as the Center Left, albeit more slowly, and it has made critical distinctions between what count as permanent concerns and what may be changed. Clearly, support for the Israeli Right, liberal internationalism as a foreign policy, and improving the tax and trade situation for large corporations are more important to the movement than whether an editor at National Review endorses gay marriage as a human right. Social issues are brought up in such circles as a parenthetical activity, to jolly along the GOP’s Evangelical base and to appease subscribers and donors to certain publications.”


  61. Don Monfort

    Now the Republican elite have rolled out that loser Romney, who got fewer votes than McCain, to try to stop Trump. And that little loser is playing the KKK card. Pathetic and extremely stoopid.

    It has become too obvious that the “pledge” was just a ploy that included a plan to stab The Donald in the back. I don’t think The Donald is going to take the backstabbing and lay down and die. Many millions of people will exit the Republican party if this stoopid, underhanded, undemocratic crap continues.

    • What the Republican establishment doesn’t grasp is that the dissatisfaction of Trump supporters is as much with them as anyone else. Conservatives held their noses in 2012. When the MSM criticizes Trump about something that would sink anyone else, it just intensifies backing for Trump.

      The experts are out to lunch missing all the calls. Trump is tapping into a lot dynamics that have been building for many years and the know nothings don’t have a clue.

      While Trump talks about making America great again and creating a vibrant economic powerhouse again, kicking some a.. and taking no prisoners, Hillary meows about love and kindness. (ugh) If I was a young guy out of work, I know who would get my vote.

      • Don Monfort

        Every cable channel just carried Trump’s speech, in front of the usual big enthusiastic crowd. They think that little loser Mitt is going to turn this around? Mitty was doing OK until Candy Crowley and Obama teamed up to thump him in that debate. Little Mitty looked like a puppy who had been smacked with a rolled up newspaper. All downhill for him from there. Loser. Does he think we don’t remember?

        So the clowns who have been rolled over by Obama for the last seven years send out this yapping puppy. The clowns who thought Trump wasn’t serious, didn’t have a chance. The Trump ceiling and all that crap. Bush was their man and they blew hundreds of millions on that wimp for nothing. What made them think the folks would go for another Bush? Now they are desperate. Looks like they are desperate enough to risk blowing the whole freaking election.

      • David Springer

        I never cared for Romney or Mormons in general for that matter. In 2012 I started out supporting Rick Perry. Same as in 2016. Perry knows WTF he’s doing and how to run a big economy especially when it comes to energy. Just because he stumbles some in open debates don’t mean chit you don’t run a country debating. He was the most popular and longest serving governor of Texas ever and never let this state be effected by the great recession. He especially knows energy and how gov’t can best support private enterprise. Proof is the pudding. I liked Gingrich after Perry dropped out.

        At any rate the Republican establishment trying to out-trump Trump is a step way too far. They basically made themselves and whoever they support indistinguishable from Trump! M0r0ns.

      • David Springer