U.S. presidential discussion thread: Part II

by Judith Curry

The U.S. presidential primaries continue to heat up.

Here is a new thread; the previous one has over 700 comments.  I would appreciate some new links to discuss.

686 responses to “U.S. presidential discussion thread: Part II

  1. I don’t know what to think of Trump:

    • I do know what to think Bernie Sanders. Venezuela!

    • Ted Cruz’s performance in the Congressional Hearing on experimental evidence on AGW convinced me that he is serious. The other have little or no chance of grasping that the National Academy of Sciences of the US (UK, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Russia, China etc) cannot be trusted.

      • I think I’m going to vote for Cruz in Michigan’s primary.

      • Our founding fathers believed humans were endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        Governments were established to protect those inalienable rights, and

        Governments hired scientists to give citizens the best possible information on forces that threatened human lives.

        Why then have government scientists deceived the public?

      • Don Monfort

        It will be interesting to see if Canman can make up Canman’s mind, before the polls close and he misses out. The last minute deciders are amusing. It should be a practice to announce the polls will be open til 9:00 PM, then close at 8:00 to screen them out.

      • Don,

        Cut people some slack. At least those who are not congenital like some here. Canman made a simple comment. No need to denigrate it.

        Put another way – it is the difference between targeting something that is worth the ordinance and firing away at any target that presents itself.

      • Don Monfort

        I didn’t realize that Canman is so delicate, tim. I’ll send him some flowers and candy. Or should I send them to you?

      • There is no time for petty bickering.

        The US National Academy of Sciences has taken control of government policy, as Eisenhower warned might happen in 1961, and we need a President that can take US policy away from the National Academy of Sciences:


      • You can send them to me.

        My wife will like the flowers and the women at work will appreciate the candy. (I have a wicked sweet tooth but am diabetic. But it’s the thought that counts.)

      • That is moronic. This site is a joke

  2. David Springer

    I could probably go for Trump and Rubio VP. That would push The Donald over 50% and since Rubio is the establishment guy it placates party leaders. Give Cruz a cabinet position and away we go.

    Let’s see if Trump’s deal-making ability is as good as some people think. The insult trading is boys being boys. A little unexpected on a national stage but otherwise not a big deal AFAIK. Except for Romney. That guy makes me uncomfortable and more so lately.

    • David Springer

      Actually I wouldn’t mind seeing Kasich in a new administration either. Deal him in too.

      • I think Trump, with Kasich as VP would be a good combination, and it could lead to a 8-16 year stretch with people who might be able to run a successful government and not give the store away to do it.

      • He was my lead candidate when primary season kicked off. Not that I gave him much of a chance. I could also support Christie and I think Rick Perry might make a good President. All three have shown they can govern.

        But then I’d probably vote for a Springer/Monfort ticket ahead of Hillary. As I told my brothers, while I may be embarrassed to be a Republican, I’m not st00pid enough to be a Democrat.

    • Trump and Rubio. Sign me up. Rubio would contribute much to the effort. Onward to November.

    • I have noticed that in recent elections no matter how much I see people trash GOP candidates other their own, most seem to change their tune when the general election starts. It happened with both McCain and Romney.

      • Danny Thomas

        I can say whatever I want about my brother/sister, but if you say anything bad…………………………………

      • Not always.

        If Trump gets the nomination, I suspect the Republican establishment may do the same thing it did in Connecticut in 2006:

        Lieberman received strong support from many prominent conservative pundits and publications.

        “[H]is most vocal support came from places like The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Commentary Magazine; Sean Hannity, Bill Kristol and right-wing radio hosts cheered for his victory.”[39]

        Thus, “Lieberman was able to run in the general election as the de facto Republican candidate — every major Republican office-holder in the state endorsed him — and to supplement that GOP base with strong support from independents.”[40]


        If the Republican establishment is forced into doing something like this, however, it will be quite an eye-opening experience for the American people, as it will expose Republican vs. Democratic partisanship as nothing but theater to dupe the sheep.

      • Yeah if that happened the establishment be tearing the party apart for good. I just don’t see that happening.

      • I think the word for the day is “realignment.”

        Some are saying there’s a realignment going on the likes of which we haven’t seen since the first half of the 20th century.

        Here, for instance, if Frank Rich:

        What’s exhilarating, even joyous, about Trump has nothing to do with his alternately rancid and nonsensical positions on policy. It’s that he’s exposing the phoniness of our politicians and the corruption of our political process by defying the protocols of the whole game.

        It’s as if Trump were performing a running burlesque of the absurd but intractable conventions of presidential campaigns in real time. His impact on our politics post-2016 could be as serious as he is not.

        As Wilson says, for all the efforts to dismiss Trump as an entertainer, in truth it’s his opponents who are more likely to be playacting, reciting their politically correct and cautious lines by rote. The political market for improvisational candor is as large as it was after Vietnam and Watergate, and right now Trump pretty much has a monopoly on it.

        By offering a stark contrast to such artifice, the spontaneous, unscripted Trump is challenging the validity and value of the high-priced campaign strategists, consultants, and pollsters who dominate our politics, shape journalistic coverage, and persuade even substantial candidates to outsource their souls to focus groups and image doctors.

        That brand of politics has had a winning run ever since the young television producer Roger Ailes used his media wiles to create a “new Nixon” in 1968.

        But in the wake of Trump’s “unprofessional” candidacy, many of the late-20th-century accoutrements of presidential campaigns, often tone-deaf and counter­productive in a new era where social media breeds insurgencies like Obama’s, Trump’s and Sanders’s, could be swept away — particularly if Clinton’s campaign collapses.


      • And here’s Ben Domenech:

        [T]he political realignment we are experiencing becomes obvious and impossible to ignore.

        This is not a temporary adjustment. It is a new reality, as Angelo Codevilla writes today. “America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites.

        “This class’s fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate.”

        Democrats and Republicans who still think that this is a phase – a fever they just need to wait out before a return to normalcy – are utterly delusional. They keep talking about voters “waking up” to realize that Trump is a bad choice – but the whole reason Trump is the choice is because voters believe they have woken up to the truth about the American leadership class. The old order is breaking down, thanks to Iraq. Katrina. The financial crisis. The failed stimulus. Obamacare’s launch. The Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street. Sanders. Trump. The American people are trying to find a new way, and they are looking for outsiders to lead them through the wasteland.

        To the establishment, this breakdown looks like chaos. It looks like savagery. It looks like a man with a flamethrowing guitar playing death metal going a hundred miles an hour down Fury Road. But to the American people, it looks like democracy….

        In ten years, the Republican and Democratic parties may still exist – but they could look as different from what they were in 2012 as the difference between Tower Records and iTunes.


        Donald Trump Is The Next Barack Obama

      • Oh Yeah – I forgot how successful McCain and Romney were.

      • Re changing their tune, I think it was more like holding their nose. Republicans have not had an inspiring candidate since reagan, but generally thought electing Mickey mouse would be a better option than the dem choice.

        My concern with trump is that he will in fact be a continuation of obama with a “phone and a pen” to bypass congress. I may be more in agreement with his objectives, but it will continue to take us away from our republican form of government and 3 equal branches.

        I frankly think the toxic dump cess-pool we call DC is too broken to be fixed and that this country may be in a death spiral with one possible out – Article 5, Convention of States, if we can find more prinipled leaders like Tom Coburn to help the cause.

    • cruz supreme court.

      • Danny Thomas

        “cruz supreme court” But there won’t even be a consideration much less a vote.

      • How many Republican Senators would vote to confirm?

      • cruz supreme court.

        So was that:

        1. A recommendation for Obama to nominate Cruz?
        2. A blurt of fear over the prospect of President Cruz making nominations?
        3. Another cryptic koan we grasshoppers will never figure out?

    • Cruz is regarded by some of his Harvard Law professors as the best student they ever had. Trump is a liar and a fraud.

  3. Clinton or Sanders beats Trump or Cruz. Apparently, Rubio’s poor showing has knocked him out of the polling.


    So, the Redimowit establishment may have already killed the party by their failure to control immigration. The Dimowits have done everything they can to get more immigrants, who overwhelmingly vote Dimowit, into the country. They are converting them to citizens as fast as they can. The Redimowit establishment are id -eee – ots!

    • Danny Thomas


      Good news/bad news. Who’s ‘converting’?

      More applications for U.S. citizenship. But why? http://www.salon.com/2016/03/08/donald_trumps_anti_immigrant_campaign_is_actually_inspiring_more_latinos_to_seek_u_s_citizenship/

    • Sunday, March 6
      Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
      Michigan: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 52, Trump 36 Clinton +16
      Michigan: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 48, Cruz 41 Clinton +7
      Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 56, Trump 34 Sanders +22
      Michigan: Cruz vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 54, Cruz 36 Sanders +18

      • The USA polítical system is breaking down. This leads to incompetents being elected (Clinton, Bush II, Obama were lousy). Gerrymandering leads to polarization, campaign financing and media exposure rules lead to distorted over representation of rich elites, including elites which represent foreign interests not focused on USA well being, but that of other nations (Israel is a premier example).

        What’s needed is a couple of amendments to remedy these serious ills. But the entrenched powers won’t ever allow it. Thus the USA is doomed to follow in the footsteps of other world powers, which decayed and eventually fragmented due to the shortsightedness and ignorance of history they suffered from.

        Given the harsh realities on the ground, the USA does need to block illegal inmigration. It has to achieve full control of its borders, and develop an inmigration policy which allows individuals who share USA cultural values and have a strong work ethic to enter as Inmigrants. This doesn’t mean they are automatically given USA citizenship, that comes later, and they would have to earn it.

        I don’t see any worthwhile candidates left standing. Kasich and Rand Paul seemed the better ones on the republican side. Trump has many good ideas, but his mouth is cancerous. Hillary is simply a former president’s relative, groomed to serve as a special interest aglomerator. Her foreign policy decisions will be made by neocons, the gang which already put the USA in the Iraq/Syria quagmire.

        In conclusion, I’m voting for my son. I can’t vote for myself because I’m not a USA born citizen, but my son would do better than any of these candidates.

      • catweazle666

        fernandoleanme: “The USA polítical system is breaking down.”

        So are many others, such as the UK.

        It’s because they are infested with professional politicians with worthless bits of paper, who know everything about nothing and Sweet FA about anything useful.

        Not a single one of them has the financial acumen or management capability to run a corner sweetshop.

    • The last Wall Street Journal poll was wildly off base, so I don’t put much stock in their numbers. They are an Establishment Redimowit puppet.

    • Net immigration from Hispanic countries to the U.S. has been negative for years. Obama managed to do what Bush could not–reduce immigration.

      I will cheerfully vote for either Clinton or Sanders, mostly because I believe the White House should be occupied by adults, but partly because I am a true blue Democrat.

      I am (from afar) enjoying the reality TV show that is the Republican race for the nomination, but I suspect that is mostly because, being afar, I don’t have to put up with the advertisements.

  4. Candidate quotes on climate change.

    They obviously have a point of view, but the quotes are telling.

    Cruz: “Big Government Politicians” Like “Pseudoscientific Theory” Of Climate Change Because They Want
    “Massive Government Control Of The Energy Sector, The
    Economy, And Every Aspect Of Our Lives.”

    Cruz: “Public Policy Should Follow The Actual Science And The Actual Data And Evidence, And Not Political And Partisan Claims.”

    Kasich: Humans Have Impacted Climate Change, But “The Jury Is Out” Regarding “To What Degree.” ( Winner )

    Kasich: Climate Change Is Real, But Humans’ Impact Has Not Yet Been Determined; “Worshipping The Environment Is Pantheism, And I’m Opposed To It.” ( Winner )

    Rubio: A “Skeptic Of Climate Change Science,” Said, “I’ve Never Supported Cap And Trade, And I Never Thought That Was A Good Idea.

    Rubio: Called For A Cap-And-Trade “Mandate” At The State Level, And Hoped That It Would A Model For A Federal Cap-And-Trade Program.

    Rubio: Climate Has Always Been Changing; “Scientists Have Already Said That In Terms Of Climate Sensitivity, There Is Not A Global Consensus On That.”

    Trump: “Bullshit,” Adding, “Our Planet Is Freezing, Record Low Temps, And Our [Global Warming] Scientists Are Stuck In Ice.”

    Trump: Climate Change Is A Hoax, And A “Money – Making Industry.”

    Clinton: “Hard To Believe” Some Presidential Candidates Don’t Accept “Settled Science Of Climate Change.”

    Clinton: Climate Change Was “The Most Consequential, Urgent, Sweeping Collection Of Challenges We Face As A Nation And A World.” ???

    Sanders: Climate Change “Absolutely” Remains The Greatest Threat To National Security ( Crazy )

    Sanders: Endangers The World, And Republicans Refuse To Acknowledge It ( Crazy )

    NPR has a categorical list of positions – Ds and Rs are pretty much each uniform.

    Not clear where John McAffee stands.

  5. I must admit I started supporting McAfee as a lark:

    But since he’s changed to Libertarian and since I’ve read some of his regular articles, I really do think from an intellectual and philosophical perspective, he’s the best. Insane, perhaps, but the best.

  6. Trump by 7 points

    What they need to do is attack him… lol.

  7. What a circus. Makes British politicians look adult.

  8. Based upon past performance, Trump will nominate a good looking lady of Eastern European extraction to be his mate… er, running mate: like Havrudd educated Malim Bialik

    • His current wife is Slovene.

      That’s Central Europe, not Eastern.

      • As long as she looks and sounds like Arnold with ovaries, I doubt he cares.

      • Don’t know how to paste photos, but Trump’s wife is hot. I’m not into blondes and she still looks hot.

      • Yeah, she’s hot if you are 70 years old. I can see her in a Viagra commercial.

      • Culturally, materially and politically, anything east of Austria is Asia.

      • Max,

        I need to learn how to post photos for no other reason than to show how retarded your latest comment is. Google Trumps wife.

      • She’s good looking for a 46-year old. My point is men usually look for women younger than them. Trump, for example. I’m sure men in their 60’s and 70’s would salivate over her, and even men in their 50’s would find her appealing. But I think most men under 50 would prefer a younger woman. Life is unfair to women that way.

    • I think your numbers for vs Clinton are either wrong or outdated.

      • It’s from an article published March 02:

        Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the [Democratic] party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official.

        Secretary of State William Galvin said more than 16,300 Democrats have shed their party affiliation and become independent voters since Jan. 1, while nearly 3,500 more shifted to the MassGOP ahead of tomorrow’s “Super Tuesday” presidential primary.

        Galvin called both “significant” changes that dwarf similar shifts ahead of other primary votes, including in 2000, when some Democrats flocked from the party in order to cast a vote for Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary.

        The primary reason? Galvin said his “guess” is simple: “The Trump phenomenon,” a reference to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who polls show enjoying a massive lead over rivals Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and others among Massachusetts Republican voters. …

        See more at: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.mx/2016/03/can-hillary-clinton-beat-donald-trump.html#sthash.xcdj9bHM.dpuf

      • Of course, the numbers for the general election matchups are wrong. They won’t be potentially useful until the primaries are settled and we see how much trouble the granny is in with the FBI.

        What the little lizards, mice and low-information kibbitzers are missing is that Trump has been under assault from virtually the whole universe, including self-inflicted incoming, for the whole process and he is the man to beat for the Republican nomination.

        The powers that be have spent hundreds of millions against him and he has spent virtually nothing in comparison (one of his larger mistakes). Even Fox News is trying to crush him. He still stands.

        If all the folks who normally rally around the most likely Republican nominee want to continue to be incredibly stoopid, Trump can be stopped. That will result in the Republican Party self-destructing. I am inclined to believe it won’t go that far, but those clowns running the show are not giving any detectable indication of having freaking brains in their little heads.

      • Trump is a known commodity and not that well liked. I really don’t see people all of sudden falling in love with him.

      • Huffpost is even more up to date. Here it is for Clinton vs Trump


      • Don Monfort

        There is a caricature of Trump that is being promoted by virtually all the media and both his Demo opponents and his Repub opponents spending hundreds of millions of bucks. OMG! Trump won’t disavow the KKK properly and often enough. He wants to ban Muslims. He been bankrupt and destitute so many times. The pernicious peronista pope, who recently discovered the “Arab invasion” of Europe, has put the sign of the devil on The Donald. Of course his negatives are high.

        Ask Rubio and Cruz supporters if they will vote for Donald in the general and a lot will say they won’t. Same with the sore losers who supported the also-rans who Donald ran over. We’ll see. Wait till it’s Donald vs. granny the felonious grinch.

      • Don Monfort

        It’s ridiculous the words that throw comments into moderation:

        There is a caricature of Trump that is being promoted by virtually all the media and both his Demo opponents and his Repub opponents spending hundreds of millions of bucks. OMG! Trump won’t disavow the KKK properly and often enough. He wants to ban Muslims. He been bankrupt and destitute so many times. The pernicious peronista pope, who recently discovered the “Arab invasion” of Europe, has put the sign of the devil on The Donald. Of course his negatives are high.

        Ask Rubio and Cruz supporters if they will vote for Donald in the general and a lot will say they won’t. Same with the sore losers who supported the also-rans who Donald ran over. We’ll see. Wait till it’s Donald vs. granny the XXXXXX grinch.

      • Don Monfort said:

        ….those clowns running the show are not giving any detectable indication of having freaking brains in their little heads.

        I like how it’s expressed here:

        “I’m so tired of these people who hate Trump so much they refuse to even think about why people support him.”


      • Don Monfort said:

        The powers that be have spent hundreds of millions against him and he has spent virtually nothing in comparison….


      • Clinton vs. Trump isn’t really going anywhere right now. Should Trump get the nomination, it will be lots of fun to watch him take down socially tone deaf Hillary. The press will probably support her, but it will be hard to keep Trump’s masterful jabs away from readers, listeners, and watchers.

      • ==> There is a caricature of Trump that is being promoted by virtually all the media and both his Demo opponents and his Repub opponents spending hundreds of millions of bucks.

        I guess for some folks, playing the victim card never gets old.

        Pretty amusing, trying to portray Trump as some kind of victim.

        So much for “personal responsibility,” eh?

      • I didn’t say Trump is a victim, you little no name –snipper–snipping– putz. He is the big dog.

      • David Springer

        Montie would have a really sore backside right now if Trump didn’t have such a tiny hand.

      • Hi Don –

        Nice to exchange views with you again.

        It isn’t a “caricature” being promoted other people, it’s an image that’s being deliberately crafted and pushed by Trump, for the sake of political expediency and ego gratification. His whole game is to say outrageous stuff to garner attention.

        It’s funny how you can simultaneously fawn over what you see as his stunning capabilities and then whine about how he’s a poor victim when his publicity-seeking gets him exactly what he wants.

      • Only a certain no name little –snipper–snipping– liar would try to portray what I said as whining about Trump being a victim. My point is obviously the opposite. It is simply factual that Trump is being attacked from all sides. He thrives on it. He is one bad –snipper–snipper–.

      • See what happens when David & Don show off their sniping skills. The putz thinks he’s invited to the conversation.

  9. The Media constantly rants about turmoil in the Republican party.
    Ignoring the alienation of the Sanders base by the heavy handed tactics of the DNC.
    The populace has soured on both establishments.
    The alleged problems of the Republicans should be seen as vitality.
    While unruly, the Republicans have pathway to redefinition. They could emerge more in tune with American public.
    The Democrats have chosen the Beltway model and lack an evolutionary path.

    • I tend to agree.

      Trump has bashed many of the icons that both parties hold dear: Wall Street, the military-industrial-complex, the US’s pay to play politics.

      Here’s an article on how he’s taken on the military-industrial complex and the neocons, which Bernie hasn’t done:

      One of the most interesting results of Super Tuesday is that the anti-establishment candidate in the Republican race is soaring, Donald Trump, while the anti-establishment candidate on the Dem side is just sputtering along, Bernie Sanders.

      And while politics is a great mystery, one likely reason for Trump’s success is that he has taken on the establishment foreign policy in the Republican Party– neoconservatism, which gave us the Iraq war– while Sanders has largely laid off the establishment foreign policy in the Democratic Party, liberal interventionism, which also gave us the Iraq tragedy.

      Trump’s critique has put him at war with the neoconservatives. Neoconservative godfather Bill Kristol is stunned that Trump may actually capture the support of Republican establishment figures. Lately he compared Trump to Hitler….

      Again, the chief contrast here is to the Democratic side.

      Bernie Sanders opposed Hillary Clinton’s Iraq war vote energetically, but he has never tried to animate the base by extending his critique by stating, she’s never seen a regime change she didn’t like.

      While Trump has directly taken on the neoconservative donor base of the Republican establishment and called out Sheldon Adelson, Sanders has never that I’m aware of called out Adelson’s billionaire Democratic double, Haim Saban, who has committed Hillary Clinton to support Israel.

      Sanders obviously feels safe slamming Clinton for her friendship with 70s bad-guy Henry Kissinger; but he has never gone after her friendship with the universally-despised Benjamin Netanyahu. That would be one way to try and rally African-American support, but Sanders hasn’t gone there yet. Maybe he will take some anti-establishment cues from Donald Trump.

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/as-trump-takes-on-the-neocons-kristol-likens-him-to-hitler/#sthash.oVVQLqdR.EwQh3bqt.dpuf

      • And there’s also this:

        Donald Trump’s runaway success in the GOP primaries so far is setting off alarm bells among neoconservatives who are worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican thinking for decades.

        Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan — one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq War and an advocate for Syrian intervention — announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination, “the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”…

        With Trump’s ascendancy, it’s possible that the parties will reorient their views on war and peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.

        Neoconservatives Declare War on Donald Trump

  10. If elected, Hillary Clinton probably will appoint Al Gore as Climate Czar to stop the seas from rising.

  11. it killed them to do it, but the Washington Post took Bernie Sanders to task for exaggerating both the threat from fracking and global warming.


    Sanders says global warming will be “cataclysmic.”

    • Fracking causes earthquakes. Did Bernie say anything about that?

      • Now Max, didn’t you get the memo? You’re supposed to say the “C” in CAGW is a right-wing straw man. Get with the program!

      • Some oversized saltwater injection wells probably cause minor earthquakes in some places in central Oklahoma along some known faults that are also known to be stressed. Solutions include reduced individual well volume, and better geological siting. The Arkansas swarms were all about the New Madrid fault, and one recent swarm in the same area occurred before there was any Fayetteville shale fracking. Nothing in North Dakota or Pennsylvania. Wrote that up in the correlation does not equal causation chapter of the Arts of Truth. Antifrackers are making mountains out of molehills.

      • As Ristvan mentioned, seismicity can be caused by poorly designed water disposal wells. Hydraulic fracturing of producing wells causes micro quakes (they are measured using very sensitive devices located at the surface within the area targeted for depletion).

        These fractured wells produce water, which has to be injected in water bearing reservoirs located below fresh water aquifers. The water being injected increases pore pressure, and if the well is receiving too much water, the rocks begin to yield and an earthquake can indeed take place.

        The solution is to reduce injection rates, and/or limit the cumulative injection volume in a given well/sector. This is fairly easy to model. But state regulators are behind the technology. In general, USA regulators are second rate. Those in Kansas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota are inept. Texas is better, but still behind the ball.

      • Hydraulic fracturing of producing wells causes micro quakes […].

        When I hear of micro-quakes, my first question is whether they’re relieving progressive strain that might otherwise cause a damaging larger one.

        Just a question. I don’t have an answer, even whether the issue has even been studied.

    • ristvan, are you up to date?
      Oklahoma regulators aren’t anti-fracking.


      • My Aunt bought her house in Irving, Texas around 1960. Between then and the advent of fracking, that family cannot remember a single earthquake. The actual number… who knows? There have been so many now that SMU is doing a research project. They’re centered on the old Cowboy Stadium location. Not much damage,but people are concerned.

  12. Don Monfort

    “Clinton: Well, what I’m saying is, it wasn’t [classified] at the time. Now, if you — let’s take Mary Smith who has some information in the government. And she is FOIAed — Freedom of Information Act — give us your information, your memos, your emails, whatever it might have been. That then goes through a process. So even though the agency she works in has none of this as classified, others start to have a chance to weigh in. So others might say, you know, that wasn’t at the time, but now with circumstances, we don’t want to release it, so, therefore, we have to classify it.

    It wasn’t a perfectly smooth answer, but it conveyed a point Clinton should make more often: Yes, many of the emails on her private server are now classified, but they were not at the time she sent or received them.

    Clinton might prefer to say “nothing was classified” and have the argument end right there. But that’s just not realistic. Forced to provide a more nuanced answer, she might have actually delivered an explanation that will satisfy some Fox News viewers who view her skeptically.”

    Well, no. Clinton’s answer was completely disingenuous, the Fox News dummy didn’t call her on it, and the Wapo interpretation of the exchange is completely disingenuous. They all know better and if they don’t they should be driving for uber or waiting tables, instead of being politicians or so-called journalists.

    Everybody who has ever had any kind of security clearance knows that someone with a rubber stamp is not looking over your shoulder to make sure you don’t write and send emails containing classified information without it being marked with a security classification. And there is no one watching over the people who send you emails.

    OK, the SOS future would-be granny POTUS declined to use her State Dept email account on the agencies secure server provided to protect classified email communications and set up a server that she controlled. Every freaking body knows she did this to avoid scrutiny, to hide her emails from FOIA and the Congress of the United States. She got away with this until a Federal Judge decided to enforce FOIA requests that had been stonewalled for years by the granny friendly Democrat State Dept.

    Now State was forced to go through the emails to prevent the release of classified/secret information that is, of course, exempt from FOIA. Are you following this? Now the authorities at State and the intel agencies get to look at the emails and see if any of them contain classified material. Well, only about 2 freaking thousand! Is it credible that ALL the stuff in those emails was bland OK stuff when the emails were created, but at some later date much of the information somehow got to be stuff that needs to be kept secret? No! freaking NO! It was stuff that should have been kept secret and properly secured when it was written down and communicated. Unfortunately for granny, the FBI is not fooled by her BS.

  13. The bankers have also singled out Trump for the daily sessions of Two Minutes Hate. This from American Banker:

    In almost any other election cycle, bankers would be celebrating the fact that a Republican candidate has emerged so far in front of the pack and would quickly fall in line behind him. But this has been anything but a normal election cycle, and there are a whole host of reasons that bankers will be at least as reluctant to embrace the outspoken businessman Donald Trump as the Republican establishment has been….

    When in doubt, Trump goes populist — and that would inevitably be bad for bankers.

    The Trouble with Trump for Bankers

  14. Just so depressed that conservatives angry after eight years of an egomaniacal incompetent in office have decided the solution is to elect an egomaniacal blowhard to replace him.

    I like Cruz best of what looks viable but the way he handled his Iowa victory (unending and unfocused evangelical-style preaching to the choir when he had a golden opportunity to sell the undecided voters on freedom, the constitution and doing away with the entrenched government corruption) shows me he’s tone deaf to the voters he needs to get over.

    • Don Monfort

      And he is not as clever and personable as the “egomaniacal blowhard”. Another drawback, he looks like a lizard.

      • Actually, I see a ferret.

      • If you think Trump is more clever than Cruz you are beyond help. If you decide your vote based on personal appearance then Bernie and Granny server must have no shot.

      • I agree with Don Monfort and the Cisco Kid. Cruz looks like a cross between a ferret and a lizard.

      • Trump is cleverly kicking Cruz’s buttocks up between his ears. Now that I think of it, lizards don’t have ears. I will defer to my learned pal cerescokid and go with weasel. I would vote for Ted, despite the fact that he looks like a weasel, but it is still a big problem for the ugly little rascal.

      • Cruz is just a Bible thumping Grandpa from the Munsters.

    • David Wojick

      Your vote has been counted.

  15. Mrs Bill Clinton all the way, next president hands down.

    • Don Monfort

      Poor granny. She’s already paying herself a Presidential-scale salary out of campaign funds. Probably glommed onto to some silverware and china, when she had lunch at the WH with Obamma.

      • Don Monfort

        FBI: Hands up! Mrs. Bill Clinton. All the way to the jailhouse.

      • I’ll have to try imaging the FBI will arrest people I don’t like. But first, I will imagine
        Lady Ga Ga has the hots for me.

      • Don’t worry. I am just kidding, little maxie okie. The FBI is just messing around. They had an extra 150 agents sitting around with too much time on their hands. This email stuff is just another nothing burger. Not even any molested bimbos involved, so far.

    • Could be. Seeing how Democratic voters seem to take to st00pid like binge eaters take to Krispy Kreme.

      They should be required to read the opinion piece from last weekend’s WSJ pointing out the numbers used for measuring economic equality. Simply put, progressive Democratic policies hurt the poor more often than conservative measures aimed at cutting taxes.

      • Hey! Leave Krispy Kreme out of this!!!

      • Under a Clinton Presidency the odds that the government develops new regulations limiting the number of donuts an individual can be sold, while instituting a “diabetes & obesity” tax will go up.

        That’s how progressives roll.

      • Only a sap would believe the WSJ.

        Krispy Kreme addicted couch potatoes lack the will power to get off their butts and do anything useful. I say tax those donuts.

      • “…..lack the will power to get off their butts and do anything useful”

        Otherwise known as the democratic base.

        But you can’t tax them, they’ve been trained to absorb taxpayer money.

      • Greg Cavanagh

        Lazy Krispy Kreme addicts are living off handouts from the government anyway. So taxing them is simply giving back to the government what the government gave out to them, only to give it back again…

      • You can’t fool me. I watched the last GOP convention, so I know what Republicans look like. I’ve never seen so much obesity in one place. It was Krispy Kreme stockholder’s dream.

      • You ever seen the line waiting for their Obama phones and food stamps, little maxie okie? Heavy.

      • Danny Thomas

        Not the “Obama phones” again. Reminder that that started under B. Clinton, extended under G. Bush as Safelink (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/) and continued since.

      • When did food stamps start?

      • Don Monfort

        I don’t give a –snip– when they started, dannie. They aren’t called Clinton-Bush phones for a reason. I gotta put you on the ignore list with the other monkeys. You are excruciatingly uninteresting.

      • Danny Thomas

        Maybe excruciatingly uninteresting, but at least I’m not playing politics with words like “Obama Phone” while not caring when/where it really originated (still a Dem if you’ll notice). If it’s your choice to ignore the facts along with ignoring me, that’s not on me Don. At least I show respect and provide the links. Just because others choose to call it something which it’s not makes it all the more interesting that you choose to do so with the correct information in hand.

        My point is the implementation and continuation shows me no clean hands.

      • Danny, thank you for the link. Don is right. You can buy donuts with food stamps. You also can buy candy and cookies, but not soap or beer and wine. I think there’s something wrong with that. Cleanliness is a part of good health. Beer and wine are more nutritious than candy. When Hillary is President I hope she makes this right.

      • Danny Thomas

        I take it you actually viewed the link and appreciate that.

        I’m not as invested in who it is who’s tasked with ‘making it right’ and not sure we’d align well on the definition of ‘right’, but actually having someone make the attempt would be appreciated by me.

  16. Links to discuss might include findings by Oxford University concerning the impact of climate change on worldwide food production to cause >500,000 extra deaths in 2050 (http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201601_Climate_food_production ) despite yearly increases in the global output of crops over the last half of the 20th century including fruits and vegetables.

  17. An aspect of this presidential election process that has received insufficient attention, IMO, concerns Clinton’s unsecured private email server while she was Sec. State. This was uncovered by the congressional Benghazi investigation. The physical server has been in the possession of the FBI since November 2015. In January 2016 the FBI told Congress (Benghazi committee IIRC) it was investigating possible national security crimes. Hillary’s defenses have been full of obfuscation and prevarication:
    1. Nothing marked confidential at the time. Fails for two reasons:
    a. One of the released state emails requests of a subordinate that confidential/secret be removed from a document before attaching to an email for Hillary to review.
    b. There are classes of information ‘born’ confidential/secret. One is intelligence gathering details. A Hillary email contained a then current high resolution US spy satellite image of North Korea’s nuclear complex. The other is back channel information between foreign government officials and our ambassadors. That is by executive order from 2002, in order to protect the confidences those back channels require. One of the released emails is the UK foreign minister discussing Afganistan strategy (surge) with the US ambassador to the UK.
    2. If transgressions, by staff since she just received, not sent. Wrong. WaPo disclosed on 3/05/16 that 104 of the now deemed classified emails were originated (sent) by Clinton.
    3. Three in-the-know Justice sources told Fox News that Comey decided in January to expand the investigation to include political corruption, specifically the externally compiled and corroborated pattern of favorable State treatment of foreign entities coincident with their making large contributions to the Clinton Foundation. A charitable Foundation that took in $120 million through ye2013, spending 15% on charitable works and 85% on itself (including $500K year to Chelsea for a couple of speeches). This only makes sense if the FBI was able to access the private emails not provided by Clinton to State, because the server was not wiped. The server company said it was not wiped. Last week another inside source confirmed to Bloomberg that indeed at least some of the private emails have been retrieved by the FBI.
    4. Any number of authorities (e.g NSC IG) say there is already enough publicly known evidence to indict her and her state staff on national security grounds. This view is greatly strengthened by Justice’s grant of immunity to Pagliano, the Clinton campaign and then State IT staffer who set up the private email system and server. Immunity grants ordinarily come after crimes have been determined, in order to avoid the 5th and compel testimony against co-defendants.
    5. A number of judges and former federal prosecutors say publicly (like on Fox evening News 1/11/16) that they know FBI director Comey well, he is fiercely independent, and is an upstanding straight shooter. Any effort by Lynch or Obama to stymie Comey recommended indictments would probably lead to his resignation with a full explanation why (specific speculation by N.J. Judge Napolitano on 1/14/16). The equivalent of the Watergate “Saturday Night Massacre” ties the administration’s hands. Perhaps that is why Obama has made no endorsement.

    I would expect there is enormous personal pressure on Comey to finish the FBI investigation before the Democratic convention. I think it possible a draft Biden movement might emerge if Sanders flounders. Hillary is anything but inevitable.

    • That is an excellent summary of what may turn into a scandal bigger than Watergate. My experience handling highly classified material tells me that she has very little chance of avoiding charges for violations of the espionage act. But I think you missed two points:

      1. The saying, “it is not the crime, it is the cover-up” applies here. There are many potential people possibly liable including personnel at DoS, the CGI, and maybe even DoJ (or higher).

      2. The FBI may very well be investigating a former POTUS. And, given his history, proving things like quid pro quo would be difficult at best.

      In any case, this is all so sensitive that the FBI will need to present a bulletproof case or risk badly damaging their reputation. I doubt that they will rush the investigation with an artificial deadline like the Democratic convention. But I wouldn’t be surprised if indictments came earlier.

    • “Immunity grants ordinarily come after crimes have been determined, in order to avoid the 5th and compel testimony against co-defendants.”

      Not really. It just means he got a good lawyer to protect himself from the chance somebody could find something to indict for.

      I think somebody once said you could find something to indict anybody.

      The Clinton people welcomed the fact that he agree to testify. This probably means the investigation is near an end which is what the Clinton campaign wants.

      • richardswarthout


        One Fox News contributor, Judge Napolitano, has said that a grant of immunity in this case had to come from a federal judge and indicated that a grand jury has already convened or is eminant. He also said that immunity would have only been granted after a special meeting in which the witness already revealed what he/she knows.


      • You mean the 9/11 truther Napolitano. The guy who blames Lincoln for the Civil War. The guy with the financial relationship with Donald Trump.

        Yeah, I would definitely believe him.

      • James, lets see your interpretation of the data, other than some warmunist false hope. I set out a time line, with witness statements, and plausible conclusions. You misinterpret immunity grants, and also Clinton’s ‘brave faces’ concerning those grants.
        Want to make a bet on this outcome. I am more than game. BIG bet. On?

      • Nothing will come of this. The FBI is housekeeping. A person from congress put a pointless turd in a box and left it on the FBI’s front steps, and now they have to clean it up. They’ll go through the motions, and then they will deep ISSA the entire thing. Just like they did with the IRS investigation: dinosaur-sized goose eggs.

        They have serious work to do; this is a complete waste of their time.

      • ” They have serious work to do; this is a complete waste of their time.”
        You must have never had a clearance, they are serious people.
        And what she did was criminal.

      • ==> I think somebody once said you could find something to indict anybody.

        Ham sandwich.

      • The FBI investigation was not prompted by Congress, dip–snip–. Nor the IG investigations. Classified info has been found where it ain’t supposed to be. The Congress did not determine that the emails have classified information. Try to freaking catch up on the basic facts, before shooting off your big mouth.

      • “The revelation that the Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staff member who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server is a likely indication that the investigation is nearing a conclusion, but should not be read as a sign that the leading Democratic presidential candidate is going to face criminal charges, legal experts said.”


      • The Wapo always puts the best face on a hilly-billy scandal, James. Read Catherine Herridge’s reporting. She has sources. So do I. Granny has got big problems. Anybody who knows about the issue can see this from publicly available information. Secret stuff transmitted by unsecure means and kept in places it don’t belong. Prima facie violation. Period.

    • ==> An aspect of this presidential election process that has received insufficient attention, IMO, concerns Clinton’s unsecured private email server while she was Sec. State.

      “Insufficient attention.”

      Too funny.

    • She answered this all again on the Fox News townhall yesterday. No emails were marked top secret when received or sent from her server. Emails often get marked top secret in retrospect when deciding what can be sent out in response to FOIA requests and at that stage more agencies get involved in the decision than the State Dept, so some of them may see something to restrict. From what she said, she still disagrees with any of those restrictions, but it is their choice at that stage.

      • The FBI doesn’t swallow BS spin, yimmy. You will find out sooner, rather than later.

      • The difference between Hillary and Petraeus is that Petraeus knew he had classified info and gave it out, while Hillary did not know it was going to be classified later, and didn’t give it out anyway.

      • Keep going with that classified later BS, yimmy. Oh, and she didn’t know. Not that it was her freaking JOB to know.

        Can you explain how 2000 different pieces of information become “classified later”? Wasn’t it because when a Federal Judge ordered the stonewallers to release the emails to FOIA requester somebody in authority finally got to see the emails and they said: “OMG! this is secret stuff and should have never have been broadcast on the internet and kept on an unsecure homebrew server. We have to get a huge FBI task force to investigate this incredibly negligent, at the least, breach of security.”

        Explain it, yimmy. Maybe a berry berry smart joker like you could help granny with her big problem. I can help you, if you are stuck on stoopid.

      • She didn’t even release anything. Nothing happened. It’s an investigation into nothing. Compare this to the pair of wikileaks of the DOD and State Depts which shows they have far worse security issues that actually did happen. It is nothing.

      • Jim D, perhaps you missed one specific point in my comment. There are two classes of information that are ‘born’ confidential. No decision or stamp required. The (now former) NSC IG publicly identified examples of both classes even in the early State department releases. That is an automatic national security violation. There is no “I did not know the rules” excuse for handling confidential US information. Hillary and her close associated staff are in what appears to be trouble. And every part of their spin has now been factually rebutted. When the WaPo chips in to help refute the spin, you can probably assume its serious trouble.

      • As I mentioned to Don, nothing was released, so nothing actually happened. Much worse things have been released by wikileaks with less congressional investigations. It is just politics here.

      • The gut feeling I am getting about Hillbilly’s server is that there are a lot more people and orgs in government that have private servers and do government business on them. I heard about one in the EPA to correspond with Enviro-notsee groups. So she will get a pass because other people do it, and I bet some will house classified info. Just my guess.

      • Colin Powell and some of Condi Rice’s staff, for example.

      • Danny Thomas

        That was in the dayz of carrier pigeons and hammers/stone/chisels.

      • You avoid answering any questions, yimmy. You are proven wrong on point after point, you just blithely move on to another obfuscation. Now it’s “nothing was released”, whatever that means. And some BS about wikileaks which is just a lame diversion. We are talking about the granny and her homebrew server case.

        Secret stuff that was supposed to be kept on State Dept. secure communications systems and in secure locations was transferred by some freaking body onto hilly-billy’s private homebrew server that was set up in hilly-billy’s house and attached to the public WWW so granny could thwart Congressional oversight and FOIA. That is illegal, period.

        Whether anything was “released” is a separate issue. We’ll hopefully find out what was exposed but it is assumed in cases of security breeches that somebody saw the stuff. It will never be proven that nobody hacked the server or read the thumb drive or found out stuff some other way. The secrets were exposed, period. Illegal.

        We know that granny both sent and received secret stuff over the WWW. That is illegal. So we have prima facie evidence of thousands of counts illegal acts.

        Then there is the copying of secret stuff to the thumb drive and removal and unsecure storage, the transfer of the server to another location where it was unsecure. The destruction of the original electronic record of the emails etc. etc. etc. Thousands more counts of illegality. And all you got to say about all that is BS. You are pathetic.

      • Nothing was released is the whole issue. I will stop at that. It is a waste of time.

      • You should have stopped a long time ago, yimmy. But we know about your character anyway, so you could not do your cred further damage.

        It is fun to watch you squirm and wriggle and lie. The granny should get you as her scheister for the case. Then she could appeal based on having had totally incompetent representation.

      • The EPA doesn’t deal with TOP SECRET COMPARTMENTALIZED national security information, jim2. They didn’t put 150 FBI agents on this case because everybody does it. It’s a big deal.

        The DOJ is run by Obama puppets, so they could decline to prosecute. Last resort, Obama could declare all the classified stuff unclassified. Pffft! Some legacy.

        The FBI and the intel community will raise hell and that will likely be the end of granny’s career. Unless, there are enough ends justify the means creeps out there like yimmy, who will vote for granny no matter what.

  18. Queen of Chaos is a book about Hillary Clinton by a leftist, Diane Johnstone. It does not deal with gossip or personal stuff, nor does it drift off subject to dwell more comfortably on right/Republican failings. The subject is Hillary Clinton and her foreign policy words and actions.

    All the present candidates are a worry on matters external (and which will inevitably involve close allies like Australia), but Hillary is more than a worry. She will not be Bill 2. She will be Hillary 1. The form she has already posted as First Lady and as Secretary of State is pretty clear.

    Clinton’s “smart power” is the most lethal cliche since “peace offensive”. Smart power entitles you to do anything because you’re smart and you’re you. Those smelly boys are all snips ‘n snails ‘n puppy dog tails and there’s no way they can do smart power. You have to be sugar+spice Hillary to do smart power (cackle, giggle).

    Eisenhower, at the end of his presidency, went out of his way to warn about the military/industrial complex (and less famously about the rise of scientific elites). Hillary is why. Seldom has such brutality been wed to such determination and incompetence at such a high level. She is a violent person with an over-arching sense of mission and no idea what the mission is. Look out.

    • Mosomoso

      I agree with much of what you wrote about Hilary, the idea that she could be President is as worrying as trump achieving that position, or indeed any of the candidates who have come to the fore at this time. However, what do you mean by ‘brutality?’


      • Tonyb, Serbs were bombed in Bosnia and in Serbia and no voice was louder (shouting genocide and the usual excuses) than Hillary Clinton’s.

        She was strident over Iraq (quite a walk back there) and strident over supporting the Kiev kleptocracy.

        But it is the Libya bombings and the (losing) attack on Syria that most show her brutality. The US could have looked at Iraq and Afghanistan and moderated, learned. Instead, Hillary used the Arab Spring to bomb for people who are sort of known to John McCain and who are sort of moderate. (This was what I meant by “unfocused”).

        So, after two decades, Albanian kleptocrats and a couple of kingdoms are pleased with Hillary and the US…but nobody else is.

        I know you need a “foundation” these days, and you need to take money from all sorts of dubious people. I know you need to fib and fudge in politics. I know the best will make mistakes.

        But it is the gratuitous cackling and joking over Gaddafi’s death that should be the strongest warning against this woman, even if you don’t take into account the disastrous outcome for North Africa (and now Europe, where Italy (!) is now talking of leading NATO into war in its old colony.)

      • climate reason asks:

        …what do you mean by ‘brutality?’

        Here’s another example of the brutality that Clinton is capable of:

        Mexico, John M. Ackerman wrote recently for Foreign Policy, “is not a functional democracy.” Instead, it’s a “repressive and corrupt” oligarchy propped up by a “blank check” from Washington.

        Since 2008, that blank check has come to over $2.5 billion appropriated in security aid through the Mérida Initiative, a drug war security assistance program funded by Washington….

        Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed aggressively to extend it, overseeing a drastic increase of the initiative that continues today.

        Much of this aid goes to U.S.-based security, information, and technology contracting firms, who make millions peddling everything from helicopter training to communications equipment to night-vision goggles, surveillance aircrafts, and satellites.

        This aid comes in addition to the direct sales of arms and other equipment to Mexico authorized by the State Department, as Christy Thorton pointed out in a 2014 New York Times op-ed. Those sales reached $1.2 billion in 2012 alone, the last full year of Clinton’s tenure. Indeed, as the Mérida Initiative has grown, Mexico has become one of the world’s biggest purchasers of U.S. military arms and equipment.

        But while sales have boomed for U.S.-based contractors, the situation in Mexico has badly deteriorated. The escalation of U.S. counter-drug assistance in the country has paralleled a drastic increase in violence, fueling a drug war that’s killed more than 100,000 people since 2006.


        So what’s worse? Clinton’s hypocrisy towards Mexico? Or Trumps’ more explicit hostility?

        As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once observed, “It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period…is not the glaring noisiness of the so-called bad people, but the appalling silence of the so-called good people.”

      • Some men feel threatened by Hillary’s kick-ass attitude. Not me. I like a strong woman.

      • Get a room, Max. There may be some weak stomachs about.

      • You could look up all her hypocrisies, lies and contradictions but her buddies at Twitter removed the #whichhillary from their trending list……one day before the big Twitter Hillary fundraiser.

        Change You Can Believe In!

      • Another gem from max:

        “Not me. I like a strong woman.”

        Translated: I love you mommy. Can I go out and play now?

      • timg56 raises the question of Hillary as a mother figure. George Washington was the first father of our country, so it would seem right to call Hillary our country’s first mother. I hope she paddles those naughty Republicans.

    • I think you are spot on mosomoso. It is one of the big reasons she scares me. She thinks she is smarter and better educated than most and therefore she should be entitled to make decisions for other people. Problem is she isn’t as smart as she thinks she is – perhaps only smart enough to recognize that most of the things she wants to enforce would never be willingly accepted by the majority of people, therefore she knows she needs the force of government behind her.

      • I think her husband, for all his failings, has a lot up top. Hillary is one of those people who walk into doors again and again but show exquisite cunning and inventiveness in explaining the black eyes. Again and again.

        Having read bits of Michelle Obama’s thesis, I won’t say Hillary is the thickest female to tread the White House…but smart she is not.

      • Dumb and Dumber fear Hillary’s IQ.

      • Don Monfort

        Yeah, granny is very clever. She managed to hide those emails from Congress and FOIA for years. Almost got away with it. Too bad that clown Blumenthal got hacked. I sure hope the army of FBI agents hasn’t really found the equivalent of the blue dress that undid big billy’s lies. “I did not –snip– that woman…..” wagging his crooked finger for emphasis. Oh, the humanity! I hope Joker Joe Biden is ready in the bullpen.

      • Certain of the scarf-in-summer set may believe Hillary is a grown-up Lisa Simpson, bright ‘n feisty gal with a kickbutt attitude, rather than a sinister Oprah-flavoured neo-con with the corpse count and policy disasters to prove it. They must have been somewhere else this last decade or two. Or maybe their heads are so deep in HuffPo-land that facts don’t stand a chance.

        Still, at this point, what difference does it make?

      • Don’t yer just long for some level headed-ness, not
        Rousseau, not Robespierre, not mad monk Rasputin?

    • Bernie would be my first choice, but he’s going to lose to Hilary, my second choice.

      If a Republican should win, I would prefer it not be Cruz.

      • Max shows up to provide the perfect example of the overarching characteristic of a Democrat I mentioned above.

      • One reason I want Hilary to win is so I can rub it in here at ClimateEtc.

      • That’s odd. I would prefer Bernie and Trump to be the nominees. Not that I like evil socialism, mind you, but because it would be great to let the people decide the direction of their country for once.

      • I see your point, but I don’t think Bernie is going to be nominated. It look like Trump against Clinton.

  19. Syrian refugees, a product of Obama do nothing policy and a complicit State Department. Do we expect any better from Hillary?

    • Danny Thomas


      Do we expect better of any?

    • RiHoo8 may think Obama incompetent for getting so few American soldiers killed.

      • Don Monfort

        You are really not very bright, maxie okie. Obama got a lot of our people killed in Afghanistan. Check the casualty numbers, after he took over and announced the timing of our pull out along with fairytale rules of engagement. Terrible waste of good people. Just a few weeks ago six dead. Administrative people out on foot patrol because not enough combat soldiers left behind to secure the base areas. Now you go ahead and make up some lame excuse for that. Blame it on Bush.

      • Under Bush about 4,400 American killed in Iraq, then about 600 more in Afghanistan, for a total of 5,000. Under Obama about 2,000 in Afghanistan. So Obama got 3,000 fewer Americans killed than Bush.

        So obviously Obama doesn’t measure up when it comes to getting Americans killed. He got fewer killed, and Obama haters hold it against him.

      • Don Monfort

        I knew you would pull that crap, maxie okie. The military under C in C Bush fought two wars and took over two countries run by some very bad actors, defeating a couple of fairly sizable armies. Those decisions and casualties belong to Bush.

        Obama wanted to be the leader and anything that went down after he took over is on him. Got that, dummy?

        Obama cut out of a largely pacified Iraq leaving a void and chaos death and destruction ensued. Now he has sent a few of our best men back there for face saving political expediency, so as not to look like he is doing nothing. He doesn’t mind losing a few to keep up appearances.

        Obama was in the process of doing the same type of bug out in Afghanistan but got slowed down again by political expediency.

        Bush military took Afghanistan with maximum force and minimum casualties. Obama is abandoning Afghanistan after giving really stoopid advance notice and imposing really stoopid restrictive rules of engagement on the dwindling forces there that have unnecessarily cost a lot of lives in the process of turning the country back over to the Taliban.

        Bush taking over and holding Afghanistan, enabling an elected government in the place of the thugs that had harbored the 9/11 terrorists-cost 600 killed. Obama bugging out and handing back to Taliban-cost 2,000 killed and more to come.

        I don’t have anything else for you. I won’t stoop to your under a rock level any more. Enjoy yourself trying to annoy the denizens. That’s all you are here for.

      • My numbers trump your words. My numbers are hard facts. Your words are just opinions.

      • max10k

        Let me spell it out for you: No Fly Zone

        Syria is what I was talking about.

        Think: off shore air power. Think: close support A10.

        There. I’ve said it. Surprisingly, others have said it a number of years ago.

      • There has been a lot of criticism of Obama’s Syrian policy from both sides.
        I think he is wary of military solutions that lack clear-cut favorable outcomes and favors erring on the side of diplomatic solutions. Maybe his critics are right about Syria, maybe not. History will tell. Currently, it looks like the cease fire in Syria is mostly holding up. We’ll see.

      • max1ok

        “I think he is wary of military solutions that lack clear-cut favorable outcomes and favors erring on the side of diplomatic solutions.”

        Helmuth von Moltke the Elder: “No battle plan survives the first enemy contact.”

        Obama was not fit to be Commander-in-Chief as he has demonstrated. He sought certitude where there can be none.

        He envisioned downsizing the military when America became the default world power after WW II. With that default to the US came responsibility and the obligation for even-handedness where appropriate and striking when conflagrations spread beyond borders. He had an opportunity in Syria, before the rise of Islamic State and introduction of Russian warplanes. There was plenty of time to alter judgements and make adaptive plans. His failure to do so reflects his being an ideologue and incapable for adaptation to new situations, data, facts, and a changing climate.

        For being so bright and Harvard educated, his understanding of history reflects his blindness to all other history that isn’t US slavery, even that he fails to deduce its 21st century significance.

        He was and still is a disaster of a US President. His Imperial Presidency will be his legacy.

      • “Obama was not fit to be Commander-in-Chief as he has demonstrated. He sought certitude where there can be none.”

        What a crock ! Obama may be the best ever, even better than Bill Clinton. It’s not surprising his successful leadership galls
        those who differ with him on policies or never wanted to see a Black president.

      • max1ok

        “It’s not surprising his successful leadership galls
        those who differ with him on policies or never wanted to see a Black president.”

        I am surprised at your assertion that Obama demonstrated successful leadership. He ruled by fiat and could not negotiated with the Congress.

        Reagan on the other hand famously stated that he would be satisfied with 80% of what he wanted rather than riding off over the cliff with his flag waving. (words to that effect).

        What Obama has implemented by fiat is subject to an equal and opposite fiat abandoning a policy. Undoing declaration policy can be problematic to be sure; yet, Obama has set in place for the future for others not negotiating with Congress and risking a herky-jerky impact on the bureaucracy which, more likely than not will make government activity as paralyzed as the current Congress/President legislative agendas.

        I really hope I am wrong; however, bad governance has a way of reaching its tentacles into the future in unpredictable ways; ricocheting through future good and bad legislation.

      • Negotiating with a “our way or the highway” Congress means accepting all or nearly all of what they want. Why do that?

        If you compare approval ratings of Obama and Congress, you will see Obama’s rating is much higher.

      • Can you provide an example of our President’s leadership?

        Do you even understand what leadership is? Here is a hint max, it isn’t issuing Executive Orders. It is about getting people to do things they often would not do otherwise. Our President would do well to visit the Infantry School. After all he is the Commander in Chief.

        He might notice a statue outside with the motto “Follow me”. And perhaps with coaching (and a teleprompter) he might comprehend what it means. Leadership is not telling people what to do and then standing back to see if it happens. It is not lecturing. Good leaders inspire people by setting an example to follow. They try not to tell people to do something they themselves can’t or won’t do. When ever possible they perform the same task as those they are leading and do it better than anyone else.

      • Danny Thomas

        That executive order thingy again? Based on that metric then Obama is more of a leader (due to having issued fewer EO’s) than Reagan, G. Bush, GHW Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Dwight, FDR, et al. Reagan fanatics might just argue with that not being the best metric.

        I’m not sure that’s an argument one should make.

        Beat on Obama all you wish, and even stretch things out like Don’s Obama Phone’s, but please find a better tool?

      • ” That executive order thingy again? ”
        Count is not an accurate metric of the impact the President has had on the legislation it is written against.
        I’d be surprised you didn’t already know they are an apples and oranges comparison.

      • Danny Thomas

        Respectfully, but quantity is one metric, and my suggestion to TimG to find a better tool still stands. Reagan 381 vs. Obama 226

        So let’s look at apples and apples vs. oranges in this first example.
        Examples from the revered Mr. Reagan (& Mr. Bush):
        “Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law.”

        and maybe even a bit more substantial and relating to the constitution as a relative comparison to Obama’s actions considered to be counter to same: (expansion of the NSA scope and powers, see commentary under the Impact heading) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

        Reagan was considered to have a good relationship with Congress and certainly his buddy Tip, but 381 as opposed to Obama’s 226 vs. a ‘do nothing’, you’re a ‘liar’, Boehner led house/congress. Reagan produced some 40% more.

      • “Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law.”

        Actually, iirc the deal was he did this, and Congress was to , build appropriate walls, and other fencing to stop illegals from entering the US. That never happened, and while I haven’t gone and looked I suspect we’d find every attempt was blocked by a far larger number of Democrats, than Republicans.

      • Danny Thomas


        I’m not quite sure how a physical barrier fits in to the comparison of reactions to Reagan/Bush’s amnesty programs as opposed to Obama’s but whatever the case, here’s a bit of info about more recent (post 9/11) actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier

        As far as ‘every attempt’ this political football has been in both hands and I suggest neither is incentivized to actually address the issue. I don’t blame one party. One can easily find evidence of hinderance from both, but one has to look.

      • Danny,
        You can see the three pillars that were signed into law.http://asu.news21.com/archive/2009/the_first_immigration_amnesty/
        I was mistaken, the deal was to double border patrol, best I can find. that did not happen, or happen for long.
        And you’re right, both take blame, But Harry Reid did not allow bills to be voted on if he didn’t like them, he’s to blame for a lot of the problems in the Senate, including immigration.

      • Danny Thomas

        There’s a long history dating back to about 1975. That’s +/- 40 years blame for which cannot be placed at the feet of a single party/administration. I think 1986 was the last major reform passed.

        Just a couple of tidbits for you: “The bill was a compromise based largely on three previous failed immigration reform bills…………..”The bill’s sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

        Then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_reform

        Finally: (killed in the Rep. led house after bipartisan…….shocking……….support in the senate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

        Not sure why you’re attempting to frame this as a problem caused by the democrats when republicans are just as much the reason. Plenty of blame to go around.

      • in response to micro6500:
        Danny, You can see the three pillars that were signed into law.http://asu.news21.com/archive/2009/the_first_immigration_amnesty/ I was mistaken, the deal was to double border patrol, best I can find. that did not happen, or happen for long. And you’re right, both take blame, But Harry Reid did not allow bills to be voted on if he didn’t like […]

        Danny Thomas commented on U.S. presidential discussion thread: Part II
        […]Not sure why you’re attempting to frame this as a problem caused by the democrats when republicans are just as much the reason. Plenty of blame to go around.


      • Danny Thomas


        It was me who suggested Harry Reid was the problem:”And you’re right, both take blame, But Harry Reid………..” I gave you links for a Reid (solely) sponsored approach. Who killed that? Then a bipartisan passed (under Reid) bill that the house would not bring up for discussion. That was the part I was responding to. No need for the duh.


      • timg56, you might have a point if Obama could Courts Marshall members of Congress for disobeying orders.

      • You can already sense what Presidential historians, and the public, are going to say. He’s going to be celebrated by all except completely forgettable partisan hacks. Obama widely liked all over the world, and Americans are going to luv them some Obama if the get 4 years King Trump Louis XII”.

      • John Carpenter

        It’s not all about how many died on your watch max. That metric takes a very narrow scope of the situation. The winner of war is not determined by body count in the end.

      • Don Monfort

        Obama is a –spimp–. And I have known a lot better.

      • David Springer

        I’m not sure what military or what country or when you served, TMG, but in 1974-1978 in the USMC upper ranks gave orders to lower ranks then expected those orders to be carried out without question or hesitation.

      • Truman – good commander in chief or bad? Became President in 1945. Lots of victory to celebrate. WW1 officer. The buck stopped on his desk.

      • Don Monfort

        It doesn’t work exactly the same way on the battlefield as it does in the mess kitchen, springy. If you want the fighting troops to get something done, ‘follow me’ works a lot better than ‘follow orders’.

      • Danny,

        It isn’t the numbers. It is the sum of what he has done. What legislation has he gotten passed into law? ACA is it and that was primarily due to Rahm Emanual, Reid and Pelosi.

        74 -79, same country as you served. Did they announce an award for biggest donkey’s butt or have you been drinking.

        PS – if I need a refresher on how the Corps views leadership I have a long list of people I can ask, starting with our son.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thank you for the modification. The EO argument (IMO) is weak and off point. However, the relationship with congress and vice versa is a reasonable issue. It is the job of the President to lead and the job of congress is to vet while protecting the purse strings. Again, IMO, there was failure in leadership on the part of both the President and Congress in this area.

        Numbers and content of EO’s is important, but please note that Obama, while he may be the most recent, is no where near the most prolific nor the most egregious. And certainly he’s fodder for the cannons (canons?) of the other side.

      • Don, the army is not a democracy. It’s not let’s take a vote on what to do or follow the leader if you like, it’s follow the leader or face the consequences.

      • It’s really comical, and somewhat sickening, that a little know-nothing professional –snit– disturber is trying to lecture me on how the Army works. Jesus save us from these –snip– holes.

      • Don, it’s not clear to me from your posts that you have served in our armed services. But I don’t read everything you write, and may have missed something.

      • David Springer

        Don Monfort | March 9, 2016 at 8:32 pm |

        “It doesn’t work exactly the same way on the battlefield as it does in the mess kitchen, springy. If you want the fighting troops to get something done, ‘follow me’ works a lot better than ‘follow orders’.”

        Yeah right. You ever see a flag officer leading a charge? The volume of dipsh*ttery that emerges from your piehole is unf*ckingbelievable.

      • David Springer


        Article 90: Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

        “Any person subject to this chapter who—

        (1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or

        (2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

        My emphasis. Any questions, girls?

      • David Springer

        Don Monfort | March 9, 2016 at 11:59 pm |
        It’s really comical, and somewhat sickening, that a little know-nothing professional –snit– disturber is trying to lecture me on how the Army works. Jesus save us from these –snip– holes.


        Someone needs to call you on your bullsh*t. Maxie is perfectly correct in this instance. In the military one doesn’t follows orders out of personal respect and admiration for the source. One obeys the rank not the person you insufferable twit.

      • It is not the flag officer’s job to lead the charge, springy. But if one of us had seen one do it, it would not have been you. The best flag officers would most likely have led men in battle. I could give you a list of the ones I know, but why bother.

        By the way, I thought that in the Marine Corps they called them ‘general officers’, as is done in the Army and Air Force. Actually, I know that’s true. Are you sure you weren’t in the Navy, springy? That would account for some of your oddities. Check your DD214.

      • It’s easy to follow orders when you are a cook, springy. Your life and the lives of the people you are responsible for are not at stake. I disobeyed orders numerous times. You have to think and act on the fly, little lizard. Improvisation. Survival. Or just getting a job done a better way. They don’t have to know exactly what you are doing way out there on your freaking own with your –snip– hanging out in the breeze.

        Sometimes you just have to ignore some really dumb –snip– passed along from some –snipping– clown sitting in a nice safe bunker way to the rear pushing pins around on a map.

        Sometimes you get a medal for disobeying orders, sometimes you get a court marshal.

        But you and maxie okie puke didn’t have to worry about any of that. That’s all I have for you monkeys on this subject.

      • Danny Thomas

        “It’s easy to follow orders when you are a cook, springy. Your life and the lives of the people you are responsible for are not at stake.”

        Have you tasted his cooking?

      • “courts martial” I should remember

      • Don, if you were an army cook you had a very important job. An army marches on its stomach.

      • David Springer

        Most Marine Corps traditions descend from the Navy not the Army you ignorant poseur-tool. The USMC symbol is an eagle, globe, and ANCHOR, Dummie Donnie.

        I attended schools on Navy bases and was doctored by Navy doctors. And I have a current military ID card in my wallet with an eagle, globe, and anchor on it so I’m pretty sure I don’t need to consult my DD-214 to remind myself of which branch of the service I was in.

        In furtherance of your much-needed ascent from the depths of belligerent ignorance:


        It applies to all officers in all branches of military who are permitted by rank to fly a flag marking their command post.

        Now you know. Or at the least, now you’ve been told.

      • You can go with a literal interpretation of an about.com definition but I was speaking from experience, springy. I don’t recall that Marine, Air Force or Army general officers were generally referred to as ‘flag officers’, but that Navy Admiral types were commonly referred to as ‘flag officers’ as they often commanded and rode around in ships with big flags. On the other hand, many would not have a command, in which case they would not be ‘flag officers’. My guess is you never met a ‘flag officer’. In any case, when referring to non-specific general officers in any branch of the service it would be improper to call them ‘flag officers’ as a lot of them don’t have a freaking flag, lizard. If you had worked in the Pentagon in some capacity, other than as a cook, you would know that.

        Whatever may be the details of military convention, your pointing out that ‘flag officers’ don’t actually go out and lead men on the battlefield is a point that is as trivial as it is absurd. You obviously don’t know anything about the battlefield, military leadership outside of a kitchen, which orders get followed and which don’t etc. etc. etc.

        Congratulations on having a military ID card with an anchor on it. When you say that you volunteered to be a Vietnam-era Marine, are you implying that you actually served in or near Vietnam? Technically up to May 7, 1975 was considered Vietnam-era for vet benefits purposes, but my guess is you could have still been in training by that date. No need to answer that, just curious. Carry on with your overwrought reptilian foolishness. Try not to be so freaking angry, little dude.

      • As I recall, Springer was an MP. Also, if he was in-country, he would mention it in every post. Also, he previously admitted to wearing a size 9 shoe. One can interpret his Banty Rooster act is an over-compensation for short fingers like the presumptive rethuglican stooge, teh Dronald

      • I don’t see how it would be possible for anyone but a partisan to come to the conclusion that the entrhoning of the imperial presidency has been anything but a bipartisan affair:

        The Obama years have brought America to the brink of transformation from constitutional republic into an empire ruled by secret deals promulgated by edicts. Civics classes used to teach: “Congress makes the laws, the president carries them out, judges decide controversies, and we citizens may be penalized only by a jury of our peers.”

        Nobody believes that anymore, because no part of it has been true for a long time. Barack Obama stopped pretending that it is. During the twentieth century’s second half, both parties and all branches of government made a mockery of the Constitution of 1789. Today’s effective constitution is: “The president can do whatever he wants so long as one-third of the Senate will sustain his vetoes and prevent his conviction upon impeachment.”

        Obama has been our first emperor….

        Today, nearly all the rules under which we live are made, executed, and adjudicated by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and countless boards and commissions. Congress no longer passes real laws. Instead, it passes broad grants of authority, the substance of the president’s bureaucracy decides in cooperation with interest groups….

        Nancy Pelosi’s remark that we would know Obamacare’s contents only after it passed was true, and applicable to nearly all modern legislation. The courts allow this, pretending that bureaucrats sitting with their chosen friends merely fill in details. Some details! Americans have learned that, as they say in DC, if you are not sitting at one of these tables of power, “you’re on the menu.”

        In recent years, Obama and the Democratic Party (with the Republican leadership’s constant collusion) have prevented Congress from voting to appropriate funds for individual programs and agencies. They have lumped all government functions into “continuing resolutions” or “omnibus bills.” This has moved the government’s decision-making into back rooms, shielding elected officials from popular scrutiny, relieving them of the responsibility for supporting or opposing what the government does. This has enabled Obama to make whatever deals have pleased him and his Republican cronies.

        This has moved the government’s decision-making into back rooms, relieving elected officials of responsibility….

        By contrast, the U.S. Constitution of 1789, as explained by James Madison, envisages a continuous mutual effort at persuasion among the American people’s many parts, to “refine and enlarge the public views” and to result in ”decisions based on the “cool and deliberate sense of the community.” For two centuries, the government’s main decisions have happened through open congressional proceedings and recorded votes. That’s the republic we used to have….

        America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites.

        This class’s fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate. The ruling class insists on driving down the throats of its opponents the agendas of each its constituencies and on injuring persons who stand in the way….

        The only possible chance of returning it to republicanism lies in not taking the next turn, and in not following one imperial ruler with another.


    • He envisioned downsizing the military when America became the default world power after WW II. …

      It is just very hard to know what this means, but Obama was born in 1961. By then a huge portion of the WW2 military had been mothballed, scrapped, sold off, decommissioned, etc. I would have to get out the books, but at the end of the WW2 there were 6 complete USMC divisions. My guess by 1961 is maybe two full, and bits and pieces of the other 4… a mere shadow of its WW2 strength.

      • JCH

        It isn’t the size of the military, it is how it is used; i.e., judicious application of force. Prior to WWII, Russia had the largest army stationed along its Western Front and Germany rolled that army up like a Persian carpet.

        The original point I was making regards Syria today. Syria began an internal civil revolution and 5 years later multiple millions of Syrians are refugees, many, outside of their country. In the lead up to this mass migration, there was a chance for US participation in a No Fly Zone which would have reduced the effectiveness of the Syrian air force against rebel positions.

        However, the un-restrained air superiority of the Syrian loyalists slowly turned the tide particularly when Russian air power was applied.

        Game over.

        The US had aircraft carriers and various land based aircraft that could have enforced a No Fly Zone. The A-10 close ground support aircraft would have impacted the ground offensive. None of these military force components were used until way late in the war.

        I am not clairvoyant and could have predicted a different outcome than the one today. I do know that without an early air warfare involvement, there was no chance for the US to change the course of history. As it stands, our Commander-In-Chief let the war in Syria play out with Putin’s and Iran’s forces able to turn the tide on Syria’s Arab Spring.

        The slaughter of the remaining rebels is about to begin and woe be to those who come back to Syria from Western countries. There are words in Arabic for these people. None nice. And all a cause to be put to death.

        Have you ever seen the results of pigs stomping through a daffodil field in Spring?

      • RiH008,

        The more fundamental question, however, is this: Why should we involve ourselves in Syria’s civil war at all?

        Only the neocons see a clear reason for our involvement in Syria.

        But sadly, the only candidate amongst the current presidential hopeful who has articulated a willingness to take on the neocons is Donald Trump.

        Here one of the leading realists, John J. Mearsheimer, explains in “America Unhinged” how our rulership class, on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, has become so intoxicated with neoconservatism:

        Anyone paying even cursory attention to U.S. foreign policy in recent decades will recognize that Washington’s response to Egypt and Syria is part of a much bigger story.

        The story is this: America’s nationalsecurity elites act on the assumption that every nook and cranny of the globe is of great strategic significance and that there are threats to U.S. interests everywhere.


        Not surprisingly, they live in a constant state of fear.

        This fearful outlook is reflected in the comments of the chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, before Congress in February 2012: “I can’t impress upon you that in my personal military judgment, formed over thirty-eight years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime, right now.”

        In February 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that Americans “live in very complex and dangerous times,” and the following month Senator James Inhofe said, “I don’t remember a time in my life where the world has been more dangerous and the threats more diverse.” …

        This grim situation means the United States has a lot of social engineering to carry out, leaving it no choice but to pursue an interventionist foreign policy. In other words, it must pursue a policy of global domination if it hopes to make the world safe for America.

        This perspective is influential, widespread—and wrong. Contrary to the
        conventional wisdom, the United States is a remarkably secure country.

        No great power in world history comes close to enjoying the security it does today.


        What’s more, Egypt and Syria are not vital strategic interests. What happens in those countries is of little importance for American security….


        Nor is there a compelling moral case for intervening in either country.

        Equally important, the United States has little ability to rectify the problems in Egypt and Syria. If anything, intervention is likely to make a bad situation worse. Consider America’s dismal record in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya….


        Interfering in countries like Egypt and Syria and turning the world into one big battlefield has significant costs for the United States….

        America’s interventionist policies are the main cause of its terrorism problem….

        The economic costs are huge—especially the wars—and there are significant human costs as well….

        Probably the most serious cost of Washington’s interventionist policies is the growth of a national-security state that threatens to undermine the liberal-democratic values that lie at the heart of the American political system.


        Given these significant costs, and given that the United States has no vital interests at stake in Egypt and Syria, let alone the capacity for fixing the problems afflicting those countries, it should adopt a handsoff policy toward them.

        American leaders would do well to honor the principle of self-determination when dealing with Cairo and Damascus, and with many other countries around the world as well.



      • Glen Stehle

        ” America’s nationalsecurity elites act on the assumption that every nook and cranny of the globe is of great strategic significance and that there are threats to U.S. interests everywhere.”

        If one envisions America as a goliath with club in hand stumbling amongst the ruins of nations, then Mearshiemer is right.

        Yet my argument is that leadership involves recognizing opportunities to act as well as opportunities that have passed them by, leaving well enough alone. This of course takes focus and attentiveness to what is going around one’s self; i.e., situation awareness. Obama has none; stuck as he is in ideology, frozen in time and space, entirely reactive and then doing so badly.

        It seems to me that to evolve into Commander-in-Chief, one first has to be a second lieutenant who has some combat experience; i.e., leadership under fire. Alas, when the golden chalice has been handed to you through no effort of your own, you can do some amazing dumb things; again, as he has demonstrated.

        Fundamentally, he lacks: situational awareness. He has appointed people in authority and with whom he communicates, those who agree with him.

        Thus, he remains, clueless.

  20. Polls show rise in Obama’s popularity since December.


    Maybe it’s because the candidates make him look better and better.

    • Or people are developing a sense of happiness from the knowledge he will be gone shortly.

      • If Obama could run for President again, he would. There just aren’t enough racists and right-wing nutters out there to beat him.

      • Don Monfort

        You might be the most offensive character we have ever had around here, maxie okie. Beneath contempt. I gotta put you on the deep ignore list. You are pathetic.

      • I don’t see max as offensive. Just someone whose only role model was his retarded older brother.

        I sometimes think he’s here just to see what reaction he gets. But then he says something so over the top idiotic that it can’t possibly be an act.

      • Don, thank you. Being offensive to the demographic most represented here at ClimateEtc is one of my objectives, so I am pleased to hear you think I am effective. If it weren’t for me and a few others, you probably would find the place less stimulating.

      • David Springer

        You’re not offensive Max. A minor annoyance would be an overstatement. You’re like Johnson grass in a wild meadow. Sure everyone would rather the weeds be pretty flowers or berry bushes instead of useless ugly grasses but it’s not really harming anything.

      • David Springer

        Don Monfort | March 9, 2016 at 1:14 am |
        You might be the most offensive character we have ever had around here, maxie okie. Beneath contempt. I gotta put you on the deep ignore list. You are pathetic.


        Deep ignore list? Ok Dean Wormer, what’s next double secret probation?


        And the way you say it. Like you had the discipline or constitution to actually follow through. You can possible keep from responding unless it comes down to me getting you put on double secret moderation. ROFL

    • Let’s be frank. Obama is President due to one attribute and one attribute only:his voice. Clone him with precisely everything else save his voice and he never would have made it.
      If he had a voice like Johnny Mathis he would be doing gigs on Rush Street, crooning bars of “Chances Are” at the Palmer House and singing the National Anthem at Cubs games and Soldier Field.

      • You hit the target. Obama is a good looking man with a really nice voice. It’s a shame Hollywood didn’t snag him.

      • cerescokid | March 8, 2016 at 7:35 pm |
        Let’s be frank. Obama is President due to one attribute and one attribute only:his voice.

        Obama is President because he kicked GOP butt. Hillary can do the same. Republicans know she can, but figure if they can make up enough lies about her, there’s a chance she might not win the election. The problem with that is decent Americans like myself she what the Republicans are up to.

      • It depends on what the meaning of the word “decent” is.

      • Decent as in moral, honest, polite, kind, and non-judgmental. In other words, just the opposite of a mean, low down, hateful Hillary-hating skunk.

      • Max,

        The points are not exclusive. In other words your point has no meaning as a counterpoint to cerescokid’s.

      • It tells the Cisco Kid what I mean by “decent.”

      • David Springer

        That one attribute is racial heritage not voice. Anyone seriously thinks Obama would have got elected if he were a white first term Senator from Illinois must be smoking some of that Maui Wowie that Barry liked so much in high school.

  21. News Alert: Hillary Clinton says if elected there definitely will be a place in her cabinet for Marco Rubio.

  22. Danny Thomas

    Had to go back and re-look. Experienced some Deja Vu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

  23. Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) has some great thoughts on how Trump runs his debates.


    The one a friend linked to me that got me started.

    • Here is another highly enjoyable post from Adams:


      The video he refers to in the blog is actually located here:

      • That was excellent. Here is another one my daughter pointed me to from one of those internet video bloggers. Ignore the pop-teenage vibe, he has some interesting things to say:

      • agnostic2015,

        That’s an interesting theory, but in the end it failed to predict.

        It predicted that Trump would burn out and be brought down by the Republican establishment.

        That hasn’t happened.

        And in fact, as the attacks by the Republican establishment have become more strident and histrionic, Trump’s fortunes have only soared.

        I think the video makes some great observations, such as the fact that Trump is a master communicator. But it looks like a phenomenon like the formation of a candidate like Trump is far more complex than the highly reductionist theory would lead us to believe.

      • @Glenn Stehle

        Well I hope you are ultimately proven wrong. You guys can’t be serious about this bozo can you?

        This guy is waaaay beyond the pale. It’s getting pretty scary the stuff we are seeing.

      • agnostic2015,

        There’s a difference between what is, and what ought to be.

        One should not confuse the two.

        Nevertheless, many people never seem to be able to grasp the difference between an is and an ought, and labor under the delusion that an ought can always be made into an is.

      • What scares you, agnostic? Got any words? Specifics?

      • agnostic,

        I learned long ago one can pretty much ignore anything a politician on the campaign trail says. I also believe that once the winner reaches the WH, gets briefed in and sees what an enormous responsibility it is, they sober up.

        For me the biggest worry about a Trump presidency is not any of the stuff he’s getting criticized on. It is whether or not he will be able to get Congress to support anything he wants to do. Unlike his tv show, he can’t force the direction by simply firing members of Congress.

        That said, this specter is less scary than Hillary in the White House. Her vision of America is something from the depths of hell as far as I am concerned. I don’t need Nanny Hill (or Granny Hill as Don refers to her) trying to tell me how to do every little aspect of my life. I already have my wife for that and at least I know she cares. Whatever Hillary cares about certainly does not include you or me.

      • David Springer

        What bothers me about Trump is narcissism. I don’t believe he gives a damn about anything other than himself.

      • Good observation Springer.

        See the difference when you are sober. Or are you bipolar.

      • David Springer

        I’m not bipolar and I haven’t had a drink in over a month. Perhaps you are projecting. Or just trying and failing to be a clever little ass. Yes, I do believe it’s that second thing.

      • timg56:

        “It is whether or not he will be able to get Congress to support anything he wants to do. ”

        Read the adams blog posts. If you haven’t, you don’t know what Trump is doing, and how he is a master persuader.

        Trump has been in the business of taking people with different perspectives, and driving towards what he wants. He can’t sell anything unless you are willing to buy, for instance. Now, politicians are jaded, but Trump has what they want: votes. He will do very well in shaping the system. So long as the people want what he is selling, and so far, they do.

      • ” No Cruz supporter would prefer Clinton. ”

        Uh, I said the eGOP, as in establishment GOP. Cruz called Mitch McConnell a liar. Cruz is hated by the establishment GOP. Cruz supporters are quite anti establishment eGOP.

        eGOP wanted Jeb!. Then they tried Rubio. And finally, they turned to Mitt Romney, who established socialized medicine in MA, and who Obama deemed the architect of the ACA.

      • agnostic2015, I think you should read the Scott Adams blogs. You are missing the point. The point was that Donald owned that question, just like he has owned just about every question.

        If the eGOP doesn’t figure out how to derail Trump, and they are running out of options, he will win the R. nomination, and then he will turn on Hillary.

        It’s worth voting for Trump just to see that battle.

        On the one hand, you have a true blue Democrat liar banking on the press and identity politics (including her vagina) to carry the day in it’s a “her turn to be president” message. Tone deaf, and with lots of baggage. Oh, and she knows all the inside speak.

        On the other hand, you have a guy with as much baggage, but who connects with people, and is highly tuned to what people think and want. Not perhaps able to say who runs ali baba, but we will see how well that pans out in the debates.

        Who is going to win? The liar? Or the huckster? My bet is on the huckster.

    • timg56 expresses a fear of strong women. Sees Hillary as a disciplinary mommy or stern nun who will punish him for being naughty.

      That’s really messed up, but also funny.

      • max,

        quit pulling stuff out of your a$$. Making fun of the ridiculous crap you post has no bearing on what my opinions on women are. You talking about nuns says more about your possible thoughts and fantasies than anything I’ve said.

        Hillary has provided ample evidence throughout her career that she believes she is better suited for making decisions for people than they are. She also has demonstrated she is well aware that the majority of people would not willingly support much of what she thinks needs to be done. Which is why she chose a career in government. What you can’t convince people to do, you try to force them when you believe you know better.

        The fact polls show her barely beating out Trump if the election were tomorrow is better evidence for people worried about Trump than it is for believing they support Hillary.

      • You just expressed what your opinions on women are (mommy, nannie, etc). With Hillary as President, you can blame all your troubles on her, rather than take responsibility for your own failings. Sounds like a good deal for you. So vote for Hillary.

      • David Springer

        There’s an image I didn’t need.

  24. David Wojick

    I conjecture that just about every Republican is ABC (anybody but Clinton) so if Trump gets the nom he can count on them. If a lot of independents are “stick it to the man” types (Trump’s big constituency), which seems plausible, then he can win in November. It could be that easy.

    • Uh, the eGOP and the donorship are behaving as if they would prefer Hillary. Including threatening to run a 3rd party candidate, which would ensure Hillary.

      • David Wojick

        I do not see that. No Cruz supporter would prefer Clinton. A third party has not even been seriously threatened, much less emerged. Why would it? What are you reading? Sanders is more likely to spawn a third party than Cruz. The two party system gives Trump a real shot.

      • Cruz’s daddy fought along side Castro in the Cuban Revolution. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree,

      • David Springer

        It’s “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” numbnuts.

      • ” No Cruz supporter would prefer Clinton. ”

        Uh, I said the eGOP, as in establishment GOP. Cruz called Mitch McConnell a liar. Cruz is hated by the establishment GOP. Cruz supporters are quite anti establishment eGOP.

        eGOP wanted Jeb!. Then they tried Rubio. And finally, they turned to Mitt Romney, who established socialized medicine in MA, and who Obama deemed the architect of the ACA.

      • David Wojick

        I see no sign that the “eGOP” (your coined term, apparently) prefers Clinton to Trump or that they are considering a third party candidate.

      • So acorns do fall far the tree?

  25. Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

  26. “I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that.” ~Mitt Romney

    • Waggy, I went to graduate school with Mitt (3 year overlap), and then worked with him together a few years (2.5) before he disloyally bolted to Bain from BCG. Mitt stuff I personally experienced.
      BTW, the present Isreali Premier, Ben Nitay, was known by that alternate name during his same time in greater Boston. Over lapped him at HBS both his 2 MBA years due to my joint Harvard Law/Business program circumstances.
      Mitt projected to my small circle a year in advance (2011) that he could not win. Sadly, that projection was right. Ben Nitay projected even back then political leadership, which he has shown again and again leading Israel now (2016).
      Just a small personal perspective from deep in the trenches.

  27. Thank you for your invitation to embark on a cooperative northeast process to reduce the power plant pollution that is harming our climate. I concur that climate change is beginning to effect on our natural resources and that now is the time to take action toward climate protection… ~Mitt Romney

    Translation from Politisheesh to English: CO2 Bad! Me Good!

  28. Beta Blocker

    A historic opportunity is now developing which could put the United States back on track in its efforts to greatly reduce its carbon emissions while greatly expanding its reliance on wind, solar, and nuclear energy.

    The Republicans are likely to nominate a xenophobic narcissist playboy, Donald Trump, as their 2016 presidential candidate. It is a choice which will guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton in November, probably in a landslide vote of epic proportions.

    Unless the Federal Government takes bold action to greatly increase the price of all carbon fuels and to impose direct restrictions on their supply and availability; the US will not be doing what is necessary to move decisively away from fossil fuels and towards the renewables, wind and solar, and towards increased reliance on nuclear power.

    Even a Congress controlled by Democrats will not take this kind of bold action. However, President Obama and the EPA already have all the legal authority they need to greatly reduce America’s carbon emissions, and to do so without needing another new word of legislation from the US Congress.

    They have had this authority since 2010 when the EPA’s Section 202 Endangerment Finding for carbon was successfully defended in the courts. That Endangerment Finding has been on the books for five years and could have been used as the starting point for developing a broadly-applied carbon reduction framework operating under Sections 108, 111, and 202 of the Clean Air Act.

    There is still time for President Obama to act before he leaves office. This is how it can be done:

    1) The President issues an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency and directing that all agencies of the Executive Branch cooperate with the EPA in developing an across-the-board carbon reduction plan.

    2) The President petitions the EPA to issue a Section 108 Endangerment Finding for carbon pollution, using the previously published Section 202 finding as the model.

    3) Working under Section 108 provisions, the EPA sets a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution, taking into account the fact that CO2 is a well-mixed gas on a worldwide scale.

    4) The EPA develops a broad-scope carbon pollution reduction plan operating under Sections 108, 111, and 202 of the Clean Air Act, a plan which applies to all of America’s carbon emission sources and which fairly and equitably distributes the burdens of regulatory compliance across all classes of carbon emitters.

    5) The EPA’s regulatory framework imposes direct limitations on America’s carbon emissions, and it includes a corresponding system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.

    6) The EPA works with the state governments to enforce the carbon reduction plan, and creates a strong incentive for gaining the cooperation of the state governments by assigning all revenues collected from carbon pollution fines to the states.

    When it comes to initiating truly serious action against America’s carbon emissions, President Obama and the EPA Administrator have been sitting on their hands for half a decade. For the last five years, they’ve had all the authority they need to enforce strict across-the-board reductions in America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants. But they haven’t used their authority.

    As soon as the election results are announced, President Obama should take advantage of the voter’s clear mandate by declaring a carbon pollution emergency, which is the first step of the six step strategy outlined above. He will thus have initiated the process of creating a truly comprehensive and effective carbon reduction plan for the United States while at the same time setting a bell-weather example for other nations to follow.

    That action, if he decides to take it, will start the crucial work of building the kind of regulatory foundation that Hillary Clinton can use both to greatly reduce America’s carbon emissions and also to place much greater emphasis on the production of wind, solar, and nuclear energy.

    • This crap is exactly why people will elect Trump. To kill this insane BS.

      • Cruz would be much more effective in developing a rational energy policy and getting rid of the crap. So would Kasich.

      • Yep. Cruz and Rubio are unelectable.

      • Rubio is getting hammered in Michigan. Apparently, Kasich took away moderates from him.

      • “Cruz would be much more effective in developing a rational energy policy and getting rid of the crap. So would Kasich.”

        I like Cruz. But, he will not win the general for two reasons: legal questions over his eligibility (even if he is eligible), and because he is too socially conservative. I know Trump is radical, but the current path looks so bad it’s hard to imagine it getting worse.

        Kasich isn’t winning any states, so he isn’t worth considering.

      • Donald Trump is a New York Republican. He’s not going to kill anything. They’re basically liberals who were bred during a closet interlude at a cocktail party at the finest country club. They are Republicans because they think only people who were bred during a closet interlude at a cocktail party at the finest country club are fit to lead. It’s that king thing from Europe, the closet interlude blood thing.. fine breeding.

        Look at the gold in King Trump Louis’s condo:


    • Rejoice! The EPA will double your energy bill for nothing gained!

    • So, what energy source exactly would you use to power the machinery used to mine the raw materials needed to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels, transport them, manufacture them, maintain them, back them up, tear them down and dispose of them when they are retired? The concrete and rebar base of a single turbine is over 1000 tons, or, 2,000,000 pounds. EROEI for wind turbines is likely net negative given many factors, one being that they must draw energy from the grid to maintain temperature and blade integrity when the wind does not blow.

      It is blind ideological st00pidity like your post that helps explain why this country is in such trouble. Green “solutions” are not even possible without fossile fuels, so legislate them away so we can reirr to dung and wood burning stoves.

      • Beta Blocker

        Barnes, the president has committed the United States to reducing our carbon emissions 28% by 2025, 32% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have stated their commitment to those targets.

        It is impossible to reach those targets without a substantial commitment to nuclear power. But an expansion of nuclear power cannot be achieved in this country unless the Federal Government puts a stiff price on carbon, thus eliminating competition from natural gas.

        I’ve worked nuclear construction and operations for more than three decades; I know from my own experience what drives its high capital costs; and I regard claims that the high capital costs of the large 1200 Megawatt nuclear plants can be reduced substantially through deregulation of the nuclear construction industry as being completely ludicrous.

        Left to their own devices, America’s power marketers will move strongly towards natural gas; and so powering the grid with a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear rather than natural gas is strictly a public policy decision.

        Advocates of the renewables claim they can cover most of America’s energy needs with wind and solar, and that they can do it at a cost which is less than either nuclear or natural gas. I think these claims are likewise ludicrous, but the politicians who determine public policy in some regions of the country have their ear, particularly those politicians who set public policy in California and in the US Northeast.

        By about 2025, if not sooner, nuclear power will have been eliminated from the energy portfolios of California and the US Northeast. If the politicians of those two regions decide to reject gas-fired generation as an option, and if environmental activists in the US Northeast succeed in blocking construction of the new transmission capacity needed to gain access to Canadian hydro power, then the renewables advocates will have the golden opportunity they need to prove they are right and the skeptics are wrong.

        In any case, the EPA currently has all the authority it needs to regulate all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants. But the EPA has not pursued that path, it has not used its full legal authority in reducing America’s carbon emissions. The EPA and the Obama Administration have chosen instead to push the Clean Power Plan, a plan which is guaranteed to fail — almost designed to fail, in fact.

        The election of Hillary Clinton as our president is now a virtual certainty. If America’s environmental activists truly believe that carbon emissions are a dire threat to the planet, they must hold Hillary Clinton’s feet to the fire once she assumes office and demand that she use the full legal authority of the Federal Government in forcing a substantial reduction in America’s carbon footprint.

      • Beta,

        Obama didn’t “commit” the US to anything. He can’t.

      • Beta Blocker

        timg56: “Beta, Obama didn’t “commit” the US to anything. He can’t.”

        Of course he can, rhetorically, at least. Which, for those who believe that carbon emissions represent a serious danger to the planet, ought to be rightly taken as a firm commitment on his part to do all that he can legally and constitutionally do as President and Chief Executive to greatly reduce America’s carbon footprint.

        What is at issue here is that those who should be most aggressive in pushing President Obama and Gina McCarthy to walk the talk on climate change are not holding either the President or the EPA Administrator to account for not doing all that can be legally and constitutionally done to greatly reduce America’s carbon emissions.

        Where is Bill McKibben? Where is Bernie Sanders? Where is Hillary Clinton? Where are Senators Markey and Whitehouse? Where is Representative Grijalva? Where are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Governor Brown? Where are the Sierra Club lawyers, the NRDC lawyers, and the Children’s Trust lawyers?

        Why aren’t they all standing together at a climate action rally on the steps of the Capitol Building demanding that President Obama and EPA Administrator McCarthy use the Clean Air Act to its maximum possible effectiveness in forcing across the board reductions in all of America’s carbon emissions?

      • Beta,

        Here is the key term in your response: “rhetorically”. In other words, trying to spin a subject which you know you don’t have a leg to stand on. (By “you” I’m referring to anyone employing the technique, not you specifically.)

        And the part about “ought to be rightly taken as a firm commitment” is more meaningless commentary. What people might believe about carbon emissions has no bearing on what a President can commit to. That is determined by law. Even if a majority of our citizens demanded action, the President can’t do something which he lacks the power under the Constitution to do. He would first have to change the law.

        “to do all that he can legally and constitutionally do as President ” Which I pointed out is not want you are arguing for. You are arguing for him doping something he cannot do legally and constitutionally. Which is make commitments to foreign governments that have the force of law.

        As to whether Obama and the EPA are not doing all they can, I’d point to the recent SC ruling staying implementation of the CPP as evidence they are trying hard enough so as to have pushed the limits of what they are legally entitled to do.

      • Beta – I agree with the need to move toward nuclear – it is simply a common sense approach to solving much of our future energy requirement – regardless of peak oil or the claim that we need to reduce carbon emissions (which is absolutely idiotic given that if you want a greener planer, you want more co2, not less – it’s not pollution, it’s the gas of life). My real issue with your approach is the top down, ram it down our throats, especially when the consequences are far more likely to be quite negative, and more especially when you consider that nuclear is the least viable alternative from a political – not engineering or practical – standpoint, and that green energy advocates will insist on the completely non-viable alternatives of wind and solar. Maybe it’s not the approach you prefer, but it’s the approach stated, and if taken, I think would be catastrophic.

        Anyway, thank you for your considerate response. My sense is that we may be in more agreement than not.

      • Beta Blocker

        timg56: “As to whether Obama and the EPA are not doing all they can, I’d point to the recent SC ruling staying implementation of the CPP as evidence they are trying hard enough so as to have pushed the limits of what they are legally entitled to do.”

        The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Clean Air Act can be used to legally and constitutionally regulate America’s carbon emissions. It did so in 2010 when it upheld the EPA’s Section 202 Endangerment Finding for carbon.

        Now, if the EPA had been truly serious about using the Clean Air Act to regulate America’s carbon emissions, it should then have moved forward with publishing a Section 108 Endangerment Finding for carbon and with setting a NAAQS for carbon, thus broadening the scope of its carbon reduction efforts to cover most all of America’s carbon emission sources. What the EPA did instead was to spend several years developing and publishing the Clean Power Plan.

        Carbon emissions are everywhere ubiquitous in the American economy. If one is intending to use the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions in a fashion which is fair and equitable to all those affected by carbon regulation, the CAA must be applied across the board to all classes of carbon emitters, meaning that everyone who emits carbon for any personal or commercial economic purpose must become a direct participant in America’s carbon reduction efforts.

        Carbon regulation under the Clean Air Act is by necessity an all or nothing thing. Legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan don’t claim the EPA doesn’t have the legal authority needed to regulate carbon. The challenges rightly claim that the CPP does not apply the Clean Air Act in accordance with the intent of the law or in ways which are consistent with past practice.

        The CPP unfairly assigns responsibility for America’s major carbon reduction efforts to just one industry, the coal industry. It has the collateral impact of reversing long-standing national energy policy without taking account of the many adverse impacts affecting past investment decisions. It places burdens on the state governments which go far beyond carbon regulation into the enforcement a substantially revised, nationally-dictated energy policy.

        The way the CPP has been structured and implemented guarantees that it will fail. It will fail to achieve the President’s carbon reduction targets because it doesn’t cover the bulk of America’s carbon emission sources. It will likely fail in the courts because it applies the Clean Air Act in ways which are not consistent with the intent of the law and which are not consistent with past practice. The CPP is a piece of gesture politics intended to appease environmental activist groups while at the same time not placing too many near-term compliance burdens on the general public at large, burdens which would force the average person to begin making serious lifestyle changes in the service of carbon footprint reduction.

        The six step strategy outlined above recognizes that if the Clean Air Act is to be used in forcing a substantial reduction in America’s carbon footprint, it must be applied fairly and equitably to all classes of carbon emitters, not just to the coal industry.

        The six step strategy would set carbon reduction goals in accordance with President Obama’s stated targets, but would allow the individual states to decide how they would go about achieving compliance. The individual state governments would be free to choose what mix among the options of wind, solar, nuclear, and energy conservation measures they would be relying upon to reach their target goals. Imposing a series of carbon pollution fines managed and enforced by the state governments, fines which are the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon, would be the cornerstone feature of the strategy.

        What would happen if the six step strategy were to be adopted?

        First, the incentive for state governments to participate in the plan would be almost irresistible. It is conceivable that after a period of two decades or so, carbon pollution fines would represent the bulk of the revenues state governments collect to support their operations. Money is power, and the flow of money into the states from carbon pollution fines would represent a major shift of power away from the Federal Government into the state governments.

        Second, the impact on the public debate over climate change would be huge. Once it became clear that serious sacrifices on the part of the American public were necessary to achieve the Federal Government’s carbon reduction targets, the debate over the validity of today’s climate science would reach critical mass — something which will never happen as long as the American public is not being asked to make serious personal and economic sacrifices in the service of greatly reducing America’s carbon footprint.

  29. Sounds like Illinois politics: 47% + 97% = 144% of the vote!

  30. If it isnt Trump in 2016 it will be Hillary.
    Four more years of placating BLM, to the point of anarchy, shoving ‘white privilege’ down our throats, government setting wages via diversity calculations, continued hemmoraging to multinational corporate con artists and the you can guarantee the neocons will be gone for eternity and that a far right candidate will win 2020. How far right depends on how bad things get. I wouldnt rule out facism at that point, the people are primed for it. At that point the paranoid anti fascist left may actually become their own self fulfilling prophecy.

    • I love the thought of being lectured by Liberals in the morning. I used to start my day with Corn Flakes. Now it’s just with Flakes.

    • Nothing terrifies liberal fascists more than people who are free to make choices for themselves.

      • Wagathon,

        You mention “liberal fascists.”

        There’s not been near enough attention paid to the autocratic and anti-democratic tendencies which exist on the left.

        Many, and especially those with the most Hitleresque and Stalinesque tendencies themselves, have pointed an accusing finger at Trump, comparing him to Hitler. But Sanders, equally dangerous to our republic and its democratic institutions, has gotten a free ride.

        Trump responds to Hitler comparison

        It’s as if right-wing tyrants like Hitler are monsters, but left-wing tyrants like Stalin are OK.

        Of course there’s nothing new about the left’s inability to subject itself to any serious soul searching or self examination:

        It is a bitter pill for some on the left to swallow that what Stalin did in the name of apparently laudable goals was horrific.

        The left must face up to Stalin’s evil

        So despite the sugar coating, the climatariat is every bit as scary as Trump is.

        Take, for instance, the statements by Sanders cited by Turbulent Eddie above:

        Sanders: Climate Change “Absolutely” Remains The Greatest Threat To National Security ( Crazy )

        Sanders: Endangers The World, And Republicans Refuse To Acknowledge It ( Crazy )

        Polls consistently show, however, that at least two-thirds of Americans reject Sanders’ conclusions.

        But here’s the rub: the climatariat takes the people’s rejection of its sure “scientific” truths as a sign that democracy has failed, and therefore that democracy must be done away with. It all harkens back to the old “we will force them to be free” meme, first formulated by Johann Gottlieb Fichte in the 18th century.

        Take this, for instance, from an interview with Naomi Oreskes:

        CURWOOD: One of the key parts of your novel is the notion that democracy fails and fails miserably. Why did you pick that theme?


        ORESKES: But we also wanted to bring out this ironic point that if things really start to go bad, it’s going to be the authoritarian countries that are more in a position to take control of the economy and relocate people, deal with food shortages and food riots. So we wanted to bring out that point: that if you really care about democracy, you want to be doing everything your power to stop climate change because disruptive climate change will not be friendly to liberal democracies….

        China has actually made massive investments in solar energy, in fourth-generation nuclear power. There’s a lot of talk in China about a carbon tax, so China’s this complicated country where both good and bad things are happening at the same time. So in the optimistic scenario, the good side of what’s happening in China, the carbon tax, the mass investment in solar power—those would be the places that prevail.

        Oreskes’ philosophy is similar to the “we must destroy the village to save it” philosophy which evolved during the Vietnam War, reformulated to “We must destroy democracy to save it.”

        I could go on. There’s much more.

        But one should be able to get the idea: The climatariat is no friend to democracy. Its autocratic and anti-democratic political philosophy poses a threat to our republic and its democratic institutions.

      • Danny Thomas


        Based on that chart there appears to be a ‘hiatus’ in concern that GW is happening/will happen all while the increase in the concern levels that GW will pose a serious threat to way of life. (Comparison to GW/CO2?)

        How did Gallop frame the ‘serious threat’? Was it physical changes to climate or policy changes?

      • Or, just read the nonsense posted by Beta Blocker above. About as fascist and totalitarian as you can imagine.

      • Its Puritanism at heart. The American pragmatic tradition went wanky and started viewing democracy as their little mind control experiment.
        The anti-facist paranoids didn’t help.
        The result is a nanny state of epic proportions!

      • Danny Thomas,

        Oreskes and the co-author (Erik Conway) of their apocalyptic prophecy, The Collapse of Western Civilization, have moved beyond the denial stage.

        They’ve given up on the dream of bringing about radical social and political change through mass mobilization and electoral politics.

        In Collapse, for instance, they write:

        Indeed, the most startling aspect of this story is just how much these people knew, and how unable they were to act upon what they knew. Knowledge did not translate into power.

        So one of the recipes for consolidating power — a populist strongman rising to power through mass mobilization and electoral politics — is not an option. As an alternative Oreskes and Conway turn to the communist model, which explains their love affair with China’s authoritarian, non-democratic regime.

        In the communist model the totalitarians come to power not by popular mandate of the people and electoral politics, but by a mass minority seizing control of the bureaucracy and the state’s other instruments of violence. Only then can the totalitarians implement their “scientific management,” as Stalin called it, and begin “a wave of repression that almost immediately outdid czarist repression by an order of magnitude,” as Jonathan Schell describes it. In The Unconquerable World Schell explains how the communists’ rose to power in Russia and the aftermath:

        Tomas Masaryk wrote in his work on the revolution, in direct contradiction of Sukhanov, “The October revolution was anything but a popular mass movement. That revolution was the act of leaders working from above and behind the scenes.”….

        In sorting out these contradictory claims, the most important data are probably the results of the national elections to the Constituent Assembly. They permit two conclusions: first, that in the country at large the Bolsheviks were a minority, commanding only 25 percent of the overall popular vote, and, second, that in Petersberg and Moscow — the two primary scenes of the revolution — they enjoyed a majority….

        This pattern of minority mass support amid majority rejection of indifference, I suggest, is an important factor in explaining the paradox that a nonviolent revolutionary overthrow was followed by an act of revolutionary foundation that depended on violence beyond all historical precedent….

        The overthrow in Petersburg could be nonviolent, just as Trotsky said, because the Party enjoyed wide and deep mass support on that particular urban stage. The consolidation of the regime was violent because such support was absent in Russia at large, and therefore could be imosed only by force….

        If by “democratic” we mean obedient to the will of the majority, then the Bolshevik mass minority was not democratic.

      • Danny Thomas


        Well thanks for that, but not sure how that answer my question about how Gallop framed their poll questions.

        Oreskes? Meh.

      • Wags,

        Particularly when those people own guns.

        Though these days I recommend they follow Springer’s example and add reloading equipment to their collection.

  31. Neither Rubio nor Cruz can win. They dont promise reverse racism and, almost inconceivably, they actually have less charisma than chinese dictator suit Hillary.

    • David Wojick

      Clinton has lots of charisma, which is why only Trump can beat her, dark magic against dark magic. Issues have nothing to do with it. I realize the issue pundits cannot accept this, but it is charisma all the way down. Obama set the stage, let the play begin.

      • The neocons are done. They had their chance; their sordid leftist/evangelical facist warmongering history is exposed for the world to see.
        Trump is a phenomenon; he has the prestige the others lack. We know him and have known him for decades. He is no saint, but he is one of us (speaking for mainstream American’s), one of the 1980’s crew.
        Hillary will get, of course, the self hating/Western hating social justice crew, the ones who despise their own civilization, despite it being the one liberal civilization the world has ever seen.

        Not sure how to call the Hillary/Trump thing.

  32. Looks like Trump is dominating Michigan and Mississippi. Florida will be interesting. Rubio and Kasich should both drop out. It would probably end up helping Cruz, but right now they are just muddying the waters.

    • David Springer

      In a contested primary their delegates become bargaining chips. Trump will offer them a sweet deal. Maybe even all the Trump Steak they can eat for the rest of their lives. That would work for me!

  33. An egregious flaw in the Constitution as amended has become apparent. An unintended consequence of term limit (amendment XXII) is a president, in second term, has no political motivation to attend to the freedom and prosperity of the electorate because the only remedy available is impeachment, which requires concurrence of 67 senators and may not be doable. This can be corrected by amendment to the Constitution providing for recall in the second term. (Nineteen states provide for recall of state officials.)

  34. In Sweden Trump is misunderstood. As a result of media campaigning.

  35. • Donald Trump won some outstanding victories on Tuesday night, solidifying his lead. He saw off two competitors while humiliating a third.

    • From Nevada to Michigan and from Massachusetts to Mississippi, The Donald is the only candidate with a national following that translates into victories that are as consistent as they are deep. He is on track to be nominee.

    • The evolving narrative of “Trump can be beaten” is getting a little tired.


    Sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.

    Daniel Yankelovich saw this coming back in 1991 in Coming to Public Judgment:

    The danger, rather, lies in the eroding ability of the American public to participate in the political decisions that affect their lives….

    When formulating important national policies, it would never even occur to most policy makers to consult average citizens….

    Often without realizing it, they impose their personal values on the country because they fail to distinguish their own value judgments from their technical expertise…..

    In recent years my work has made me conscious of the enormity of the gap that separates the public from the experts….

    Although this struggle between experts and public has become adversarial, there can be no such thing as the “victory” of one side over the other. If the experts overreach themselves and further usurp the public’s legitimate role, we will have the formal trappings of democracy without the substance, and everyone will suffer.

    If the public dominates and pushers the experts out of the picture altogether, we will have demagoguery or disaster or both.

    A better balance of power and influence is needed, with each side performing its function in sympathy and support of the other….

    If the experts grow too bold, the electorate will express itself in populist fury and launch another episode of native know-nothingness. In political life, abuse breeds abuse, and if the problem is permitted to fester, the backlash is likely to prove worse than the disease.

    Yankelovich predicted that back in 1991, and now it’s coming true.

    So the scientists and other technocrats sowed the wind, and now the American people must reap the Sanders/Trump whirlwind.


    • The author of the CNN article opines that

      Perhaps the real significance of Tuesday is what it means for the winner-takes-all bonanza scheduled for March 15. Establishment hopes have been pinned on beating Trump in Ohio and Florida. Neither proposition now looks so sure.

      If Trump wins both contests, or even just one, then the GOP has got to find some way of reconciling itself both to the man and the people who have voted for him. A conspiracy to steal the nomination from such a popular candidate will be interpreted as an anti-democratic coup.

      It looks like the chances of the GOP establishment stopping Trump in Florida are highly unlikely, and in Ohio polls show Trump on the move as well.


      Nationally, all the vicious attacks on Trump by the Republican establishment show to have had little effect on his popularity:


    • He’s the perfect republican candidate, which is why he’s winning. Regal. King Trump Louis 12″. Just look at his gilded marble columns:


      • Danny Thomas

        Perfect Republican candidate? “Donald Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But–”

        Scott Pelley: Universal health care.”


      • Well, for decades Republicans fought universal commie healthcare like it was the spawn of the devil csars. This forced people who wanted a solution to look at private-government hybrids like hillarycare and romneycare and obamacare. Once Obamacare became law, lots of Republicans started warming up to the spawn of the devil – it is a lot cheaper.

        King Trump Louis XII” is hard.. ly the first.

      • David Springer

        I just enrolled in veteran’s health care. Very pleased with it so far. My doctor on the first visit spent an uninterrupted hour with me and the technician another half hour. That’s more than my private GP has spent with me in the past 10 years in two dozen office visits. And the VA out-patient clinic is 10 minutes closer to home.

        The money I save over my former private plan is equal to the mortgage payment on a second home I’m buying a mile down the street. Got a 0% down VA Home Loan for the new house too.

        If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

  36. The inescapable conclusion – to deletion without reply – of my message to the AGU President requesting permission to meet openly in public with members of AGU and NAS to receive and openly respond to experimental evidence the Sun is the pulsar remnant of a supernova that made our elements and birthed the solar system 5 Ga ago, . . .


    . . . is the AGU and NAS (National Academy of Sciences) have taken control of US policy on geo-engineering of planet Earth, . . .

    . . . as former President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address to the nation in January 1961.

  37. John Vonderlin

    Is Donald Trump the Anti-Christ?? (Sorry Obama, YOU’RE FIRED!! There’s a New Devil in town.) Read this and weep oh ye of too much faith.
    “ And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
    And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
     And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without.
      Not convinced? How about the name Donald: From the Gaelic name Domhnall which means “ruler of the world”, composed of the old Celtic elements dumno “world” and val “rule”.  
      Still not convinced? How about trump? To trump is to outrank or defeat someone or something, often in a highly public way.  How much more proof do you need, seeing a 666 tattoo on his stubby hand’s compatriot? Ask Christy, I’m sure he’d know.

  38. The technocrats control the politicians. If the technocrats wanted a border wall, the Redimowits and Dimowits would be crawling all over each other to get it built.

    From the article:

    Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday signed on to a brief submitted to the Supreme Court urging the justices to support President Obama’s executive actions that temporarily protect some undocumented immigrants from deportation and gives them the ability to legally work in the United States.


  39. A couple of more articles that go beyond the self-serving “Trump and the people who vote for him are evil Republicans” and “I am such a wonderful and decent Democrat” meme:

    “Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here’s why

    From the following article one can glean why Trump’s stand against free trade and neoliberalism poses such a threat to Mexico, and it has nothing to do with racism and/or immigration:

    Mexico auto exports forecast to hit record in 2015


    Donald Trump Is Alienating Neoconservatives—and Antiwar Democrats Should Worry

    • Here are the charges Trump will level against Hillary, although he won’t use these words.

      Hillary will not have that easy of a time fending off the charges, mainly because they’re so obviously true.

      What’s the difference between Hillary and an establishment Republican? Substantively, nothing.


  40. catweazle666

    Watching this circus from across he Pond, one thing strikes me as obvious, and yet most of you Cousins haven’t grasped it yet.

    Trump’s supporters – and they appear to be coming from the ranks of both the Republican and the Democrat ex-supporters – aren’t about to vote for him for what he IS, they’re going to vote for him for what he ISN’T- and that is a professional politician.

    Because just like the LibLabCon party in the UK, people are sick of being forced to choose between functionally identical parties that on all substantive issues, you can’t get a cigarette paper between.

    EVERYBODY is sick to death of professional politicians with all that that entails and it shows – not just in the USA either.

    • Amen to that. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between most dems and republicans – they simply want to hold onto power, or just the gravy train that the current political system offers those fortunate enough – or more accurately, corrupt enough – to stay in office.

      Here is a simple lesson on who NOT to vote for.


      • Danny Thomas

        Catweazle666 & Barnes,
        So wish for the time I can stand up and pound the table FOR a candidate instead of a process of elimination. Even Don and his megaphone seem mostly to be in protest of others (unless I’m reading him wrong).

  41. From the article:

    “J’accuse Donald Trump”

    Watching the candidacy of Donald Trump, I am continually struck by his resemblance to a man who came to power in a far-off land nearly 85 years ago, a historical epic that I had naively hoped was well buried in the past.

    Consider the following:

    — Adolf Hitler held gigantic rallies, where he inspired millions with rousing speeches. Donald Trump holds gigantic rallies, where he inspires millions with rousing speeches.

    — Adolf Hitler talked about making his country great again. Donald Trump talks about making his country great again.

    — Adolf Hitler promised military victories. Donald Trump promises military victories.

    — Adolf Hitler had a loyal and overweight henchman, Hermann Goering. Donald Trump has a loyal and overweight henchman, Chris Christie.

    — Adolf Hitler blamed a specific group of immigrants for all the nation’s problems (Ed: Jews weren’t immigrants — Close enough!). Donald Trump blames a specific group of immigrants for all the nation’s problems.

    — Adolf Hitler vowed to build a wall (Ed: Wait a minute — when did Hitler talk about a wall? Shhhh! Nevermind!) Donald Trump vows to build a wall.


    • jim2,

      It is true that Hitler was a right-wing populist strongman (in Latin America they call them caudillos) who rode to power through mass mobilization of the working class.

      It is also true that Hitler would later betray the working class to the oligarchs, the symbolic moment being the Night of the Long Knives when he had Ernst Röhm murdered:

      Industrialists such as Albert Voegler, Gustav Krupp, Alfried Krupp, Fritz Thyssen and Emile Kirdorf, who had provided the funds for the Nazi victory, were unhappy with Röhm’s socialistic views on the economy and his claims that the real revolution had still to take place. Walther Funk reported that Hjalmar Schacht and his friends in big business were worried that the Nazis might begin “radical economic experiments”.

      However, it is also worthwhile to remember that Hitler and other fascist leaders were a creation of the oligarchs and enjoyed their very enthusiastic support, both inside and outside Germany, from the very get-go. As George Orwell noted of the British oligarchs in “England Your England,”

      After years of aggression and massacres, they had grasped only one fact, that Hitler and Mussolini were hostile to Communism. Therefore, it was argued, they must be friendly to the British dividend-drawer. Hence the truly frightening spectacle of Conservative M.P.s wildly cheering the news that British ships, bringing food to the Spanish Republican government, had been bombed by Italian aeroplanes.

      Can it be said that Trump enjoys the unbridled support of the world’s plutocrats the way Hitler did?

      I think not. Quite the contrary, it seems like the world’s plutocrats greatly fear Trump. Could the reason for this fear and enmity be what Machiavelli spoke of in The Prince:

      The man who becomes prince through the help of the nobles will find it more difficult to remain in power than the man who becomes prince through the help of the people, for the former will be surrounded by men who will presume to be his equals. As a consequence, he will not be able to command them or control them as he would like.

      But the prince who comes to power through the support of the people will stand alone, and there will be few or none at all near him who will not be disposed to obey him. Besides, it is impossible to satisfy the nobles fairly without injuring others, whereas it is indeed possible to do so with respect to the people, for their wishes have more right, since they seek to avoid oppression while the nobles seek to oppress. It should also be noted that a prince can never be secure against a hostile populace because it is numerous, whereas he can be secure against the nobles because they are few….

      Thus one who becomes prince with the help of the people will have to preserve their good will — an easy matter, since they only ask that he avoid oppressing them….

      I will conclude by saying only that the good will of the people is vital to a prince, otherwise he will be helpless in times of adversity.

      • jim2,

        According to Hannah Arendt, Hitler would eventually betray the oligarchs too. But this wouldn’t come until much later in Hitler’s political career:

        [T]he German bourgeoisie staked everything on the Hitler movement and aspired to rule with the help of the mob, but then it turned out to be too late. The bourgeoisie succeeded in destroying the nation-state but won a Pyrrhic victory; the mob proved quite capable of taking care of politics by itself and liquidated the bourgeoisie along with all other classes and institutions.

        — HANNAH ARENDT, The Origins of Totalitarianism

        After this, plutocrats world over would of course turn on Hitler.

        But if we are going to make historical comparisons, and being hated by the plutocrats is the criteria, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be just as apt a comparison for Trump as what Hitler is. This becomes doubly true when we consider that both Roosevelt and Trump are blue bloods, both accused of having betrayed their own class.

        [Roosevelt] set out to champion the less fortunate, to denounce such financiers and big business as stood in his way; and as their opposition to him hardened, so also did his opposition to them….

        Yet the lengths to which some of them went in their opposition, and the extent to which this opposition became concentrated, among a great many of them, into a direct and flaming hatred of Roosevelt himself, constituted one of the memorable curiosities of the nineteen-thirties….

        [T]hings were reduced, in the minds of thousands of America’s “best people,” to the simple proposition that Franklin D. Roosevelt was intent upon becoming a dictator at their expense; yet in reducing so much to so little these people performed one of the most majestic feats of simplification in all American history.

        This hatred of Roosevelt was strong, though far from unanimous, among the well-to-do in all sections of the country. It was strongest and most nearly unanimous among the very rich and in those favored suburbs and resorts where people of means were best insulated against uncomfortable facts and unorthodox opinions….

        Often it was a form of conscious self-indulgence in the emotional satisfaction of blaming a personal scapegoat for everything that went wrong… To find a scapegoat is to be spared, for the moment, any necessity for further examination of the facts or for further thought.

        Yet to the extent that it stopped factual inquiry and thought, the Roosevelt-hating was costly, not only to recovery, but to the haters themselves. Because as a group (there were many exceptions) the well-to-do regarded the presence of Roosevelt in the White House as a sufficient explanation for all that was amiss and as a sufficient excuse for not taking a more active part in new investment, they inevitably lost prestige among the less fortunate.

        For the rich and powerful could maintain their prestige only by giving the general public what it wanted. It wanted prosperity, economic expansion. It had always been ready to forgive all manner of deficiencies in the Henry Fords who actually produced the goods, whether or not they made millions in the process.

        But it was not disposed to sympathize unduly with people who failed to produce the goods, no matter how heart-rending their explanations for their failure. Roosevelt-hating thrust the owners and managers of business into inaction — into trying to resist the tide of affairs, to set back the clock.

        It made them conservatives in the sense that they were trying to hold on to old things, whereas before 1929 they had been, in their own way, innovators, bringers of new things. It made them, as a group, sterile. And they were soon to learn that sterility does not stir public applause.

        — FREDERICK LEWIS ALLEN, Since Yesterday

  42. From the article:

    Thursday, March 10
    Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary FOX News Trump 43, Rubio 20, Cruz 16, Kasich 10 Trump +23
    Ohio Republican Presidential Primary FOX News Trump 29, Kasich 34, Cruz 19, Rubio 7 Kasich +5
    Wednesday, March 9
    Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary CNN/ORC Trump 40, Rubio 24, Cruz 19, Kasich 5 Trump +16
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary UNF Trump 36, Rubio 24, Cruz 16, Kasich 9 Trump +12
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary Quinnipiac Trump 45, Rubio 22, Cruz 18, Kasich 8 Trump +23


  43. Marco … So Low! Marco … So Low!

  44. From the article:

    Fox News host Megyn Kelly gave Donald Trump some rare praise during Tuesday night’s election coverage, saying that part of the GOP frontrunner’s appeal was that his speeches are a “breath of fresh air.”


  45. From the Department of What You Know Just Ain’t So.

    NBC/WSJ national poll of likely voters – Trump 30, Cruz 27. with Rubio and Kasich still in..

    NBC/WaPo national poll of registered voters – Trump 34, Cruz 25, with Rubio an Kasich still in. But in a head to head match up, Cruz 54, Trump 41.

    Cruz 54, Trump 41, nationally, among registered voters, head to head.

    I wonder if anyone here has even heard of these polls.

    Shhhh, if we don’t talk about it, maybe nobody will notice.

    Until tomorrow night’s debate.

    • This from the fella whose expert analysis said that the polls had it all wrong before the previous election because they had Obama ahead, when in reality, Obama outperformed those polls.

    • Would. Could. Should.

      I’ve always preferred to live in the world of what is, as opposed to the world of would, could, should.

      Nevertheless, Rubio and Kasich are under a great deal of pressure from the GOP establishment to drop out, giving Cruz a clear shot at Trump.

      But even if the Republicrat establishment is successful at keeping Trump and Sanders at bay, do you believe this will put an end to the insurgency?

      Do you really believe the insurgency will go away, as if by magic, without its causes being dealt with?

    • You should bet the farm on those polls, Gary. Cruz is your man, ain’t he? The for real bed-rock Bible thumping genuine certified conservative, who will never win a national election.

      • David Springer

        Uh huh. Good. ‘Dis the bible. 70% of the US population are Christians and 25% are evangelical Christians.

        This is why Trump has yet to get a majority vote in a primary in any of the 20 states that have held elections so far. He further dissed hispanics and blacks, which are 30% of the population.

        One might get away with that in Republican primaries because the Republican party is largely bereft of blacks and hispanics. It’s rife with white evangelicals though which explains why Cruz is garnering enough votes to run a close second and spoiling Trump getting a majority of delegates.

      • David Springer

        And by the way…

        Go Cruz! Go Kasich! Go Rubio!

        Spoil that sh*t. Spoil it good.

      • How is Trump doing with the so-called evangelicals, lizard? I hear not bad at all.

        I am not a Christian but I am pro-Christian. I don’t have any problem with a country guided by basic Judeo-Christian values. Bible thumpers who vote for a guy or gal because that person is the one most vigorously waving the Bible around are low-information voters.

    • Hypothetical questions have been criticized for producing hypothetical answers.

      — SAMUEL J. BEST and BENJAMIN RADCLIFF, Polling America

  46. “How Trump and Sanders tapped America’s economic rage

    Finally, somebody is listening.

    Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders might be poles apart in their politics and temperament, but they are voicing visceral feelings of economic disenfranchisement and alienation among pessimistic voters who feel they’ve been ignored for years.

    The billionaire and the democratic socialist are in different ways speaking for vast populations of Americans who feel threatened by globalization, who question the benefits of “free trade” that political leaders have peddled for decades and who believe distant elites control the economy in ways detrimental to their lives and prospects.

    It is turning out to be a potent electoral brew — which has lifted insurgent candidates like Trump and Sanders throughout the 2016 cycle and challenged foes like Hillary Clinton and establishment Republicans who have found it tougher to reconcile the grass-roots anger.

    The cocktail of economic anxiety was clearly evident in the backstory of Trump’s triumphs in Michigan and Mississippi and Sanders’ surprise win in the Democratic primary in Michigan on Tuesday night.

    “Michigan has been stripped. You look at those empty factories all over the place, and nobody hits that message better than me,” Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday.

    The two men are not just playing on pre-occupations of those who see themselves as victims of the globalization and technological change that have scythed through the blue-collar economy. Seven years after the Great Recession erupted, wage growth is stagnant and under employment is rife. Structural economic issues that dogged the middle class even before 2008 have also been left to fester.

    It doesn’t matter that gas prices are at rock bottom, the unemployment rate is at its lowest point for eight years and Wall Street, despite a rocky several months, is up 40% over five years. College costs more, basic living standards are more expensive and good-paying jobs seem more precarious than ever. Many people are still asking: “When will the recovery reach me?”


    Sanders takes on the neoliberals and the pay-to-play US political system. However, he leaves the neocons untouched.

    Trump takes on all three: the neoliberals, the US’s pay-to-play political system, and the neocons.

    On cultural and environmental politics, they stake out opposite ends of the political spectrum.

    The article concludes:

    And Trump’s seizure of the economic zeitgeist points to an eventual general election strategy. His prospects of capturing the White House, given his low standing among minority voters, would depend on driving a massive turnout among white, lower-middle-class voters to expand Republican hopes in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Illinois. That is just the audience that is most likely to be wooed by his tough-talking economic nationalism.

    I’m not entirely convinced, however, that winning a chunk of Mexican-American support is a lost cause for Trump. He will of course have to offer them something concrete, something material, and make it sufficiently believable to win them over.

    In Mexican Americans, The Ambivalent Minority, Peter Skerry has a chapter titled “The State of Mexican-American Opinion.” He concludes that a great many Mexican-Americans, a much higher percentage than what is found amongst blacks, prioritize “concrete material benefits” over the identity politics of “Chicano activists who carry issues to extremes in pursuit of highly abstract notions of equality, justice, or perhaps revolutionary transformation.”

    Nevertheless, Mexican-American and Hispanic leaders have done a good job of prioritizing identity politics over pocketbook issues. Can Trump realign the public opinion of Mexican-Americans?

    • Nevertheless, Mexican-American and Hispanic leaders have done a good job of prioritizing identity politics over pocketbook issues. Can Trump realign the public opinion of Mexican-Americans?

      I’m reminded of something from The Jacksonian Tradition by Walter Russell Mead (From The National Interest No. 58, Winter 1999/2000)

      Most progressive, right thinking intellectuals in mid-century America believed that the future of American populism lay in a social democratic movement based on urban immigrants. Social activists like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger consciously sought to use cultural forms like folk songs to ease the transition from the old individualistic folk world to the collective new one that they believed was the wave of the future; they celebrated unions and other strange, European ideas in down home country twangs so that, in the bitter words of Hiram Evans, “There is a steady flood of alien ideas being spread over the country, always carefully disguised as American.”

      What came next surprised almost everyone. The tables turned, and Evans’ Americans “americanized” the immigrants rather than the other way around. In what is still a largely unheralded triumph of the melting pot, Northern immigrants gradually assimilated the values of Jacksonian individualism. Each generation of new Americans was less “social” and more individualistic than the preceding one. American Catholics, once among the world’s most orthodox, remained Catholic in religious allegiance but were increasingly individualistic in terms of psychology and behavior (“I respect the Pope, but I have to follow my own conscience”). Ties to the countries of emigration steadily weakened, and the tendency to marry outside the group strengthened.

      Outwardly, most immigrant groups completed an apparent assimilation to American material culture within a couple of generations of their arrival. A second type of assimilation—an inward assimilation to and adaptation of the core cultural and psychological structure of the native population—took longer, but as third, fourth and fifth-generation immigrant families were exposed to the economic and social realities of American life, they were increasingly “americanized” on the inside as well as without.

      It’s worth remembering that the immigrants Trump is most interested in keeping out (or at least can be interpreted that way) are the gangsters and other criminals who prey on that same immigrant population.

      And as for the “Mexican-American and Hispanic leaders”, who declared them “leaders” anyway? Oh, right, the MSM. The same MSM who’s totally anti-Trump.

  47. New Fox News poll.

    John Kasich has taken a small lead in Ohio while Donald Trump remains dominant in Florida, according to new Fox News polls released Wednesday.

    The Ohio governor is leading Trump in his home state, 34%-29%, according to one of the polls, with a strong bump from Republicans who overwhelmingly approve of his job performance there.

    But in Florida, Trump has more than double the support of home-state Sen. Marco Rubio, 43%-20%, according to another poll. The broad support for Trump in Florida is driven by a feeling that voters have been “betrayed” by their party — a sentiment consistent with most exit polling from previous Republican contests.


  48. “Why Americans are so angry in 2016”

    The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, many say, is a reflection of the anger in America today.

    In numerous polls, voters say America’s economy is their No. 1 issue. They believe the middle class is dying, trade is killing U.S. jobs and that their kids won’t have a chance to get ahead….

    “The American worker is being left behind,” says David Workman Sr. He’s “almost 70” and a registered Republican, but he says he’ll vote for Sanders. If Sanders doesn’t make it to November, he’ll support Trump.




    • An average of the polls shows a much tighter race.

      My own personal self-interest would undoubtedly be best served by a Clinton presidency, as the current social, economic and political order hasn’t treated me too shabbily.

      But I was born into the working class, so still have a warm place for it in my heart. It pains me greatly to see the way people like Clinton have completely gutted it on behalf of their rich friends.

      So I’d love to see a Clinton vs. Trump matchup.


  49. “Ted Cruz’s challenge: uniting Republicans against Trump”

    [W]ith the critical states of Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina voting next Tuesday, there’s a new sense of urgency in his campaign to get Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio out of the way and create a two-man race.

    “If you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee, if you don’t want to hand the general election on a silver platter to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, then I ask you to join us,” Cruz said at a rally Wednesday in Florida….

    But GOP strategists, leaders and donors continue to express deep reservations about throwing their support behind the Texas senator….

    Katie Packer, a GOP operative leading the anti-Trump super PAC called Our Principles PAC, said her group’s primary goal is to deny Trump the 1,237 delegates needed to win the GOP nomination outright. An important part of that strategy, she said, is ensuring that Rubio and Kasich win their home states next week.

    “Our best chance of stopping Trump is that he doesn’t win Ohio and he doesn’t win Florida, and we happen to have two very strong, favorite-son candidates that are in the race,” Packer said of Kasich and Rubio. “So why would we want either of them to not be in it next Tuesday?”


  50. Hating on Trump

    [T]here is something nevertheless extraordinary in the level of venom and sheer hatred that is being spewed at random about a potential Trump administration. It is not uncommon to read or hear that Trump is seeking to overturn the Constitution of the United States and establish a dictatorship that will promote his allegedly warped views of what must be done to correct America’s domestic and foreign policies, suggesting that our form of government is so fragile that it can be subverted by one man.

    The anger directed against Trump is unique, one might note, as it also includes demands to somehow overturn the popular will expressed in primaries and caucuses to obtain a candidate that is more in tune with what the Republican establishment is seeking to promote as the “national consensus.” That Trump is voicing an overwhelming American middle class perspective on the evils of mass illegal immigration matters not a whit to the Mandarins whose only concerns on that issue center on the availability of a supply of cheap labor to clean their McMansions and swimming pools.

    The anti-Trump effort is being well funded, has included notable defections to the Democratic Party, has led to lists of Republican politicians who will not accept a Trump nomination or support a President Trump, and has even produced calls for a third party neo-Republican entity to run against him….

    [T]alk radio extremist Glenn Beck has tweeted that if he had a knife and were able to get close to Trump he would have to keep on stabbing him.


  51. Camille Paglia has changed her mind about the Donald:

    Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women. As for a debasement of the presidency by Trump’s slanging matches about pen!s size, that sorry process was initiated by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who chatted about his underwear on TV, let Hollywood pals jump up and down on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and played lewd cigar games with an intern in the White House offices.

    Primary voters nationwide are clearly responding to Trump’s brand of classic can-do American moxie. There has been a sense of weary paralysis in our increasingly Byzantine and monstrously wasteful government bureaucracies. Putting a bottom-line businessman with executive experience into the White House has probably been long overdue. If Mitt Romney had boldly talked business more (and chosen a woman VP), he would have won the last election. Although the rampant Hitler and Mussolini analogies to Trump are wildly exaggerated–he has no organized fascist brigades at his beck and call—there is reason for worry about his impatient authoritarian tendencies. We have had more than enough of Obama’s constitutionally questionable executive orders. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s mastery of a hyper-personalized art of the deal will work in the sluggish, murky, incestuously intertwined power realms of Washington.


    • Camille Paglia is the wisest and most pragmatic and honest living lefty, since the death of Christopher Hitchins. And she is just as good and interesting a writer as was Hitchins. Especially when she is right, as she is in this piece.

    • ==> Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor…

      What’s up with this whole “fearless candor” stuff, anyway? Does anyone really think that “candor” is an accurate description for Trump? He 180s constantly on all sorts of issues. What are his true opinions. How would anyone know? When is he really being open and honest? When he’s describing the yooooodge parts of his anatomy?

      It’s rather like those who say that he is “authentic.”

      Here’s my take. For people who are obnoxious, who like name-calling and insults, who think that insulting someone is how to construct an argument, who think that fear-mongering is a valid policy stance, Trump seems authentic because when they stifle their own obnoxiousness and name-calling, they are stifling their authentic opinions.

  52. Trump has made some astonishing statements in the past. Yesterday, I happened to listen to the Glenn Beck show (not something I listen to that often) and he played back tapes of what Trump had actually said in the past and the statements were amazing for a Republican candidate. (Some of the crazy statements made by Beck recently can be ignored because he was playing what Trump actually said.) Obviously, I am paraphrasing by memory what Trump said, but my memory can be vetted by others.

    1. About 4 or 5 years ago, he stated that not only was Hillary Clinton a bright person, she was a really good, nice person. (Anyone familiar with emailgate and her commodities trading knows that, objectively, she is a lowlife.) Also, her failed policies in Iraq and Libya show bad judgment.

    2. He stated that he was a New Yorker and supported partial birth abortion.

    3. He stated that former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson was a good appointment. (Jackson has stated that the science behind climate change was settled and created a fictitious Richard Windsor email account)

    I would add that unlimited illegal entrance into the US is a big issue for me and that I believe Trump made a colossal mistake by ascribing excessive criminality to Mexican illegal entrants. All he has done is energize Hispanics. (See conservative Linda Chavez’s comments about this issue.) What a smart person would have done was say that I respect and like Mexican people but that we cannot have unlimited and illegal entrance into the US and that immigration laws have to be enforced. I support strong enforcement of illegal immigration laws, but Trump has practically hindered strong enforcement.


    • Somebody should playback some of Glenny Beck’s greatest hits. Whoooo! His discussions with God would be interesting.

      Trump has said a lot of outrageous things. Mostly it has worked for him. Pointing out the crimes of illegal immigrants has worked very well. They aren’t supposed to be here committing mayhem. Just last week I was driving my son to school and we ran into police roadblocks. Found out it was a fatal hit and run with the runner abandoning his vehicle. My first thought was illegal alien, on his way back to Mexico. They caught this one. Then we got the illegal felon previously deported, who was “accidentally” back on the street, and just killed five people in MO. Happens almost every day. It would be interesting to know how Trump bringing up the problem could be hindering enforcement.

      From here on out, I think you can expect Trump to be more circumspect. He didn’t get where he has gotten without being capable of rational and intelligent discourse. Here is an example of the calm measured presentation you can expect to see more and more of as the stakes get higher and the rousing junkyard dog act is no longer serviceable:

    • Looks like little Glenn gave it his best fair and balanced shot. It would be interesting to hear playback of Glenny’s greatest hits. Maybe some of his discussions with God.

      Trump has said a lot of outrageous things. However, pointing out the problem of illegal immigrants committing mayhem has worked for him. We see it happening way too often. I was driving my son to school last week and we were stopped by a police roadblock. Fatal hit and run. I looked into the news and the report was that the runner had abandoned unregistered car. I jumped to the logical conclusion; illegal alien heading for the border. Voluntary repatriation. They caught him. Then we just got the illegal in MO who had been deported, was back again, caught again and “accidentally” released. Wiped out 5 people with an AK-47. Unlikely that was a legally owned firearm. People are tired of this crap.

      Going forward I am pretty sure you will see The Donald tone it down as the stakes get higher, the game gets more serious and the rousing junkyard dog routine is no longer serviceable. He didn’t get where he has gotten without being able to engage in rational, intelligent discourse. Something like this:


      It would be interesting to know how Trump could have hindered immigration enforcement. Seems to me he has pushed a lot of people towards being stronger on enforcement.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lix-ajZ4Sk

      Bernie Sanders. 2016! Bernie Sanders. 2016!
      Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders.
      Venezuela! Venezuela!
      Bernie Sanders! Bernie Sanders!
      700% inflation!

      Bernie Sanders. 2016! Bernie Sanders. 2016!
      Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders.
      Cut oil production! Cut oil production!
      Bernie Sanders! Bernie Sanders!
      Stock up on toilet paper!

  53. The political genius half of the hilly-billy team is campaigning in Ohio. They used to call him the secret weapon:


    Don’t know why he needs the microphone. I have had more people than that show up at my house for my famous tapas parties. They should get me to cater the hilly-billy events. Put me on the Supreme Court.

  54. I heard some comments from the AG today that indicated that activities of climate change skeptics have been referred to the FBI.


    I’d comment on this, but words fail me.

    • Ha Ha, looks like reading fails you too. Not climate deniers, some oil companies.

  55. catweazle666

    superchillskeptic: “I heard some comments from the AG today that indicated that activities of climate change skeptics have been referred to the FBI.”

    I hope they do try it.

    It will blow the lid off the whole can of poisonous worms.

    Just imagine getting Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Karl et al into a proper court being interrogated by a team of well-briefed lawyers permitted to demand full disclosure and with expert witnesses for the defence such as Judy Curry, Steve MacIntyre , Richard Lindzen and Nils-Axel Mörner.


    I’d pay good money to watch that!

    Shades of the late, much-missed Michael Crichton’s excellent work ‘State of Fear‘.

    Unfortunately, I suspect someone who actually knows what the outcome is likely to be will warn them off.

  56. David Springer

    Trump won the debate tonight. He was like a different person.

    I wanted to slap Cruz for mis-characterizing things that Trump had said. I was literally swearing at the TV. The Donald kept his cool.

    I think he’s going to close the deal with the party on Tuesday and start going after Hillary.

  57. David Springer

    I think the strongest point Trump made is “I know the system”. Paraphrased “I bought politicians on the right and on the left through campaign contributions. Big ones. I used all the legal means at my disposal to get business done. Just because I know how to play the game doesn’t mean I approve of the rules.”

    My sentiments exactly.

    He went on to say that he hadn’t accepted any campaign money from anyone and therefore he doesn’t owe anyone any political favors – unlike everyone else on the stage with him.

    Very strong point. I’m sold.

      • From the link:

        “There’s a sucker born every minute” is a phrase most likely spoken by David Hannum, in criticism of both P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid 19th century, and his customers. The phrase is often credited to Barnum himself. It means “People are foolish, and will always be fools.”

        This sort of arrogant, pompous, and condescending attitude toward the great unwashed gained prominence during the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties.

        But during the Great Depression it rapidly lost popularity amongst the beautiful people and the cultured class.

        As Frederick Lewis Allen explains in Since Yesterday, many in attendance “at a litterary party in New York” by the middle of the depression were

        passionately ready to join hands, in proletarian comradeship, with the factory hand or sharecropper whom a few years before he had scorned as a member of Mencken’s “booboisie”….

        How completely the focus of public attention had become political, economic, and social, and how fully the rebelliousness of the rebellious had turned into these channels, may be suggested by the fact that H. L. Mencken, whose American Mercury magazine had been the darling of the young intellecutals of the ‘twenties, lost ground as it became evident that Mr. Mencken, though liberal in matters of literature and morals, was a tory in matters of politics and economics — until by 1933, when he resigned his editorship, the new highbrows were dismissing him airly as a back number…. They had turned to fresh woods and pastures new.

      • Glenn: It’s aimed at everybody, e.g. part of the human condition. It’s arrogant and pompous not to have this attitude. Go look up the seven deadly sins and maybe you’ll understand the cliche that you can’t cheat an honest man.

    • I like the way he owns his past and isn’t afraid to change his mind. He just seems real.

    • Should we elect people who know drug- dealing, terrorism, and immigrant smuggling based on personal experience also?

      • David Springer

        We did. President. Twice. I refer of course to Obama who is an admitted pothead (Choom Club) , pals around with terrorists (Alinsky), and had an aunt from Kenya in the US illegally (Zeituni Onyango ).

        Thanks for asking.

      • David Springer

        Actually that’s Choom Gang not Choom Club. Mibad.


      • David Springer

        Note our “black” president in a white gang. ROFL

        The irony, it burns!

        The first black man in the oval office might be Ben Carson if Trump taps him for VP. I think Carson’s life experience would add immense value to the ticket. David approves.

      • Looking past whether your characterization is accurate…so your argument is that we since we did it in the case of Obama, considering those attributes as qualifying criteria, we should therefore do it again?

        Funny, ’cause I would consider those life experiences to be more along the lines of exclusion criteria. I guess that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla, eh?

      • David Springer

        No. The actions you mentioned (smuggling illegal immigrants, drug dealing, terrorism) are criminal acts. Buying votes in Washington is not. Classic apples and oranges. Try again.

      • No need.

        It’s clear. Where you see experience with (legally) bribing politicians to self-advantage as a qualifying criterion, I see it as an exclusion criterion.

        Vanilla and chocolate.

    • Danny Thomas

      Just about my favorite of The Donald’s talking points “He went on to say that he hadn’t accepted any campaign money from anyone and therefore he doesn’t owe anyone any political favors – unlike everyone else on the stage with him.” So much carp. He wants things (or says he does) and in order to get them will require ‘political favors’ in order to ‘make the deal’.

      Contract: “an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.”

      He’s selling folks. He’s using a different tact to get to the same goal. Some car dealers will negotiate price, some will sell only for a fixed price. Same goal.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        He’s selling folks.

        I’m not sure that’s an extraordinary insight, in light of this:

        Obama Wins! … Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year
        At ANA Gathering, Marketing Pros and Agency Bigs Tap Barack Over Apple, Zappos

        Just weeks before he demonstrates whether his campaign’s blend of grass-roots appeal and big media-budget know-how has converted the American electorate, Sen. Barack Obama has shown he’s already won over the nation’s brand builders.

        He’s been named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008.Mr. Obama won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered here at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference.

        Mr. Obama won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered here at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference. He edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. The rest of the shortlist, selected by Ad Age’s editorial staff, was rounded out by megabrand Nike, turnaround story Coors….


        That’s just one of the many marketing awards Obama won. For the full list, Google “Obama campaign wins marketing award.”

        What is extraoridinary, however, is that Trump has been able to do what he’s done on a shoestring budget. Obama spent hundreds of millions of dollars to do what Trump has done on a pittance.

      • Danny Thomas

        No argument except to state that sometimes one must state the obvious (He’s selling folks) as others may not see.

        Politicians of most ilks are salespeople. The question is what are they selling. Other than Trumps website, his words mean nothing (not much different from Obama). Actions do. Obama has a track record one can scour. So does Trump. They’re just in two different worlds. And I won’t debate that Trump is a more efficient salesperson.

        But that he’s not beholding (or won’t be) to others in order to perform the duties of the office of the President is farcical. Unless of course, The Donald imposes his will via fiat in the form of EO’s (against which so many across the political debate rail).

      • Danny,

        For me Trump is an unknown. He also appears uncontrollable.

        Clinton is a known commodity. She is also controlled.

        Clinton will deliver more of the same. Trump? Who knows.

        As I said up thread, the status quo hasn’t treated me too badly. So why should I risk going with Trump?

        If I were in the position of most Americans, however, I wouldn’t be so sanguine. Trump would look a whole lot better, a possible change from the status quo. At least change is what Trump is selling, and a great many people obviously believe him.

        Will he deliver? Who knows.

        Nevertheless, I find what Trump has accomplished intriguing, and to be honest, extraoridinary. I believe in giving credit where credit’s due.

      • David Springer

        Of course Trump as president will be trading to make deals. The key difference between him and past presidents is he’ll be making bribes not taking them.

      • Danny Thomas

        Oh. That’s so much better.

        “Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.”

    • David, did you forget everything you said about week ago concerning Trump?

  58. Regarding climate, Rubio was priceless. The Miami mayor has legitimate local concerns, and Rubio just dismisses it all as climate always changes, and we can’t do anything about it even if it was us, so basically he is saying good luck with that. Kasich was much more sensible on this issue. He doesn’t fall for the economic fearmongering around renewables and energy efficiency.

    • Rubio was indeed priceless.

      But Kate Sheppard, the author of the HuffPo article, is equally as priceless.

      Rubio, like all the presidential candidates with the lone exception of Trump, belongs to the neocon church. And as Sheppard points out, Rubio articulated one of the underlying tenets of this faith during the debate:

      ‘Americans can do anything.’ Americans can do anything. There is no problem we cannot solve if we embrace all of the principles that made us great.”

      Full spectrum dominance? Global hegemony? One world government, with the US ensconsced upon the thone? No problem, according to the neocons.

      And sure, Rubio, like all true believers, is guilty of compartamentalized thinking.

      But instead of challenging Rubio’s fantastic neocon ideology, Sheppard instead uses it to justify her own ideology — radical environmentalism — equally as fantastic as neoconservatism.

      Sheppard appropriately notes that Rubio, in a rare moment of clear thinking, correctly states that there are limits to US power:

      “I have long supported mitigation efforts, but as far as a law that we can pass in Washington to change the weather, there’s no such thing,” he said.

      “On the contrary, there are laws they want to us pass that would be devastating for our economy,” he insisted, citing the Obama administration’s regulations on power plant emissions.

      The laws would do “zero” for the environment, Rubio said, because “China and India will still be polluting at historic levels.”

      “There’s no law we could pass that would have an impact on that,” he said. “America is not a planet. It’s a country.”

      But instead of using this to attack Rubio’s neoconservatism, Sheppard instead uses it to bolster her own delusional doctrine. To wit:

      To recap, in response to a legitimate concern about climate impacts in the state he represents, made by a Republican mayor who has endorsed him, Rubio said…nothing could be done to affect it anyway.

      Several minutes later, Rubio unironically related a story about his grandfather, who was born in 1899 “before there were airplanes in the sky” but was alive to see a man walk on the moon.

      “You know what he said when he saw that?” said Rubio. “He said, ‘Americans can do anything.’ Americans can do anything. There is no problem we cannot solve if we embrace all of the principles that made us great.”

      No problem, that is, except climate change.

      After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the neocons pushed the realists out of prominence in US foreign policymaking.

      But the Serenity Prayer, written in 1934 by one of the seminal figures of realism, during another trying time for the United States, still rings true:

      God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
      Courage to change the things I can,
      And wisdom to know the difference.

      — REINHOLD NIEBUHR, The Serentiy Prayer

      • An even more pessimistic doctrine than realism is the mechanical determinism embraced by some atheists, like Bertrand Russell. It rejects entirely the pelagianism — the unbridled idealism and romanticism — proselytized by neocons and radical environmentlists.

        Here, for example, is Bertrand Russell:

        Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

        Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way;

        for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day;

        disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built;

        undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life;

        proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.

        — BERTRAND RUSSELL, A Free Man’s Worship

        Another adherent to the doctrine of mechanical determinism was the comedian George Carlson.

        George Carlin on Global Warming

      • David Springer

        Rubio was exactly right on “climate change”. There is zero political and practical possibility that CO2 emission will be reduced enough to make any significant difference. The US could reduce emissions to zero and it still wouldn’t do any good unless the rest of the world were to follow suit. The US won’t do that unless there’s a more economical alternative. So the smart thing to do is R&D seeking more economical alternatives that would be deployed globally because it’s a cheaper source of energy.

      • David Springer

        It must have sucked to be Bertrand Russell.

      • There’s a good post here on the spectrum

        mechanical determinism –> realism –> pelagianism (idealism and romanticism)

        “Gaius Publius: The Goal of the Neo-Liberal Consensus Is to Manage the Decline”

        I anticipate that readers will debate whether decline is inevitable. My short answer is that with the caliber of leadership we have in the US and abroad, it’s hard to see how we escape it. And we may be too far along a bad trajectory to change course in a big enough way.

        But Jospeh Tainter, in his classic study, he Collapse of Complex Societies, had to concede that some societies were able to pull themselves out of a downward path, yet offered no guidance as to why they were different, save that their ruling classes acted to ward it off. Tainter was likely unwilling to examine these cases because he was dogmatic about the cause of collapse: it was the rising cost of complexity, in particular, the increasing cost of energy. He rejected culture as a cause of decline. Yet even if he is correct about how energy needs drive complex societies towards their own demise, that does not obviate the idea that better leadership and/or better social values can enable civilizations to adapt rather than fail.

        And let us also not forget that the “things are going to get worse for you” story also conveniently diverts attention from the degree of rent extraction and looting that is taking place. US corporate profit share of GDP has been at record levels, depending on how you compute if, of 10% of 12% of GDP, when no less than Warren Buffett deemed a profit share of over 6% of GDP as unsustainably high as of the early 2000s. That higher profit share is the direct result of workers getting a far lower share of GDP growth than in any post-war expansion. So the increased hardships that ordinary people face is not inevitable, but is to a significant degree due to the ruling classes taking vastly more than their historical share out of greed and short-sightedness.


      • The logical continuation of the …but China and India argument is to support strong international agreements, but we see no such thing from Rubio. Instead his answer to a mayor with legitimate local concerns and a realistic view of the cause is basically “whatever”. “Climate is always changing” is a cop-out that refusing to acknowledge what is happening now in places like Florida.

    • JimD

      Maybe Rubio looked at the NOAA Key West SLR data showing 9″ rise last 100 years. And he might have looked at multiple studies showing SLR back to the 1700s. And perhaps he consulted with local geologists about the real problem of excessive abstraction of groundwater out of the Biscayne aquifer and resultant acceleration of subsidence. Would he have been aware of some projections that any actions taken to reduce CO2 now would only affect temperatures in a negligible way?

      Could he have been way ahead of you?

      • Could he have been way ahead of you?

        Uh, no.

      • David Springer

        Uh, yes.

      • Here’s an opportunity for the CE Wolfpack to show how they are intellectually superior and more knowledgeable (just like Rubio) than everyone else.

        The following is a statement by Dr. Molina who is a winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ozone depletion (which Dr. Fred Singer and probably most of the CE Wolfpack still believes is hogwash) and Dr. Ramanathan (Scripps):

        “If we reduce our emissions of methane 50%, black carbon 90% and fully replace HFCs by 2030, then we’ll cut in half projected global warming over the next 35 years.”

        Wolfpack UNITE! Ban together, attack, and devour Dr. Molina’s statement (showing us 1 gazillion references where a Nobel prize winner is a clown, a Liberal Socialist, and clearly wrong). Especially looking forward to Mr. Don Monfort’s and Wagathon’s technical expertise to shine.

        Oh by the way Wolfpack — show some spine and also attack Dr. Curry who has spoken favorably numerous times on Fast Mitigation (smog, black carbon, methane, HFCs).

      • Danny Thomas

        Wondering if one would truly expect to achieve some level of ‘common ground’ with an approach such as this?

      • Danny — with the CE Wolfpack, there can never be any common ground. The Wolfpack keeps CE from being a Gold Standard in blog dialogue among different opinions.

      • Danny Thomas

        Respectfully disagree. While it’s clear there are differing political views, there are areas of agreement w/r/t science (along with extreme positions). But it’s clear that the approaches of contributors affects the communication.

        The climate discussion is manyfold so one would expect areas of disagreement. Only suggesting, presuming one’s stated goal is the actual goal, is to build from the foundation of commonality and work outward from there.

        It’s obvious this comment is intended to incite which is counter to the goal of reaching and discussing common ground.


      • Danny, you are suffering under this wrong-headed idea that common ground is desirable. In some cases, it is not desirable. Climate change is one of those areas where it is NOT desirable. Political gridlock on the issue is acceptable to me, although I would rather the government get out of it altogether.

      • Danny Thomas

        Stephen put out a statement a while back expressing regret due to a lack of common ground so my reference was towards that. But I agree that there are areas in the climate debate that benefit from commonality due to ‘unintended consequences’ if nothing else. Yours is a black and white statement regarding a topic of many more than 50 shades of grey. As J****** suggested, I guess that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla. One of us indeed is wrong-headed, but the question is who?

      • Political gridlock on the issue is acceptable to me,

        I have come to believe gridlock (at times) is Congress functioning as designed.

      • Stephen

        Wolf pack? How many CE denizens do you think belongs to this ‘wolfpack’. Is it large and aggressive enough to warrant the epithet you have given it?’


      • Stephen,
        Take a breath.

        Wide diversity of opinions here at /CE. Lots of discussions and few of the ad homin attacks of flat earth society and denier insults. Some argue with your position but mostly good humor.

        I enjoy Turb Eddy and tonyb and others who provide inifo and data.

        Nothing like the extreme complaints of through the rascals in jail or prosecute with RICO.


      • Stephen Segrest despairs that political correctness hasn’t gagged everyone here.

      • the little boy who cried: wolfpack! wolfpack! bwahaahaaahahh!

        whinging –snipper–snipping– putz

      • Rubio looked either uninformed or misinformed. He needs to read up like the mayor of Miami clearly has. His response was the best he could do to give a non-answer to that mayor, but it was smoke and mirrors to anyone who can see through it.

      • David Springer

        Nope. Rubio’s response was perfect. Even if it turns out that humans are causing catastrophic climate change the policy actions of the United States make no significant difference in the eventual outcome.

      • Not unless you also support strong international agreements, Springer.

      • “If we reduce our emissions of methane 50%, black carbon 90% and fully replace HFCs by 2030, then we’ll cut in half projected global warming over the next 35 years.”

        So what? How much difference will that really make?

        Seems to me that approach is an even better excuse for some sort of world-wide nit-picking regulatory bureaucracy than controlling CO2 emissions. A great thing for fans of EU-style world government.

        OTOH, if it could be done via persuasion and local/national regulation, it probably wouldn’t cause much harm. Black carbon is a definite local problem, and much of the methane problem comes from leaks in natural gas systems that could be profitable to plug.

        But it’s hard to see much climate-related benefit, even if the cost is pretty low.

  59. The knives are out, and the establishment has rolled out its panzers and Luftwaffe.

    It’s one last blitzkreig to bring down Trump.

    Out of his league” glared the headline in massive bold letters on this morning’s CNN.com. CNN.com is US’s largest web news outlet.

    It’s prima facie evidence of how the MSM (mainstream media) doesn’t report the news, but invents the news. Just like with the climatariat, the distinguishing line between fact and opinion has all but disappeared.

    We’ll see Tuesday how well it plays in Peoria. The problem the establishment and its institutions (e.g., MSM, NOAA, IPCC, etc.) have is that they are so mired in their own credibility and legitimacy crisis that the media onslaught may not work.


    • Yep, this is the Redimowit Establishment’s Battle of the Bulge. Only, we’re not all that surprised. Sore losers, they’ll be.

    • I’ve responded here to your comment about the Merida Initiative so it would get flagged for you.

      Illegal drugs are no doubt a scourge on society. But at the end of the day, I value my freedom over the problems caused by drugs. Because of that, I say remove laws that make making, selling, and using drugs illegal. Regulate and tax the activity, sure.

      Illegal drugs have done as much as terrorism to make the US a police state. People will get and use drugs no matter what. Making them legal would get rid of a violence ridden black market and do more to bring down Mexican drug gangs than anything else.

      So, I agree with you, negate the Merida Initiative and go further, legalize drugs.

  60. From the article:

    Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women.


  61. From the article:

    Friday, March 11
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary WTSP/Mason-Dixon Trump 36, Rubio 30, Cruz 17, Kasich 8 Trump +6
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary Florida Times-Union Trump 43, Rubio 24, Cruz 21, Kasich 10 Trump +19
    Florida Republican Presidential Primary Trafalgar Group (R) Trump 42, Rubio 23, Cruz 21, Kasich 11 Trump +19


  62. Looks like I got lucky and this primary thing is unfolding pretty much like I said it would. Which one of the inconsequential little know-nothing clowns here said I didn’t have a clue, because Nate Silver said Trump didn’t have a chance? Hold up your little hand, clownboy.

    I wonder if I will also get lucky on my assessment of granny hilly-billy’s little national security problem. Hey, maybe I actually know something.

    • David Springer

      He’s not the nominee yet. And he hasn’t become president yet either.

      Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn. Did you predict Obama was going to win? Twice?

      Here’s the deal though. If you’re right about Trump getting nominated I hope to hell I’m wrong about him losing the general election. No one will be happier at me being wrong than me. That’s because I’m not an insecure ass-clown like you.

    • My little lizard stalker needs help. Try buying bigger shoes and stuffing them with newspaper so the don’t fall off, little lizard.

  63. In the latter part of the article, the author states Trump is wrong about China devaluing the Yuan. But it depends on the time frame. Over 10 years, China HAS devalued the Yuan. But in the recent past, has moved it up a bit. From the article:

    “People say [Trump] would start a trade war. Well, no matter what The Donald does he can’t start a trade war because we’re already in a trade war with China. But only they are waging it,” Chang told CNBC. “The question is how do we end it on terms not only advantageous to the United States but also to the international community.”

    In a “Squawk Box” interview, Chang said tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. might have to be on the table. “All choices are really bad.”

    “China is [also] stealing intellectual property from the United States,” he said, pointing to the 2013 IP Commission Report. “The dimension of that is somewhere maybe $200 billion to $300 billion a year. That is a war in a sense.”

    In a CNBC interview Thursday, Trump called Beijing “the grandmaster of all” when it comes to currency manipulation and free trade cheating. Trump also told “Squawk Box” that global currency devaluation efforts are hurting the U.S. and costing American jobs.


    • China has been steadily robbing us blind. Not allowing the yuan to appreciate is the same as devaluing it. Oppression keeps Chinese workers compliant and labor costs low. Pollution control expense is not a cost that most Chinese producers have to worry much about. State sanctioned theft of IP is way more than is estimated. State run enterprises are highly subsidized and still operate at a continuing loss, non-state companies are paid tons of bonus money for exporting product, all sorts of unjustifiable regulations stop a lot of goods from being imported etc. etc. etc. Plain and simple, piratical mercantilism is China’s trade policy.

      • David Springer

        Yet we don’t complain about low prices in Walmart with merchandise labels “Made in China” on them much.

        The expression “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” comes to mind.

      • I’m OK with the low prices at Walmart. But a better balance between jobs here and cheap goods would be good for US workers. No denying it’s a tough problem.

      • Some might even say we’re exploiting China not the other way around. I’m okay with that though. Little Chinese kids in sweatshops making sneakers for Nike that US street hoodlums will kill over is what keeps the kiddies in China off the streets instead of selling drugs, guns, and having gang wars. Maybe we should try some of China’s techniques here.

      • Some might even say we’re exploiting China not the other way around.

        Sure. Put import blocks in place so manufacturers can’t use cheap Chinese (or other Asian) labor to make the stuff, it won’t be American labor making it. It’ll be American robots.

        Good for the robotics industry, though.

      • 1. Does this mean we are selling more to Mexico than they to us?

        2. Does it take into account maquiladoras?

      • Jim2
        No it means the opposite. Yes it includes maquiladoras

      • The two charts are apparently about different metrics, jim. The first seems to show total imports and exports for Mexico. The second shows U.S. has trade deficit with Mexico. Here are the latest numbers:


      • jim2,

        Rob answered your questions correctly.

        The important question, however, is “Why did US ‘leaders’ willfully destroy US productive might?”

        Here’s one theory from a couple of researchers from PIMCO which I like because, as I’m sure you’ve noticed by now, I don’t like US militarism and neoconservatism:

        All parties that have embraced the conventions of BWII have had good short-term reasons for doing so.

        The U.S. has acceded to this arrangement because it has served to boost U.S. asset prices and lower risk spreads, thereby helping to facilitate America’s “guns AND butter” foreign policy. In the absence of its Asian creditors acting as “dollar sub-underwriter of last resort,” it is hard to envisage a chronic debtor country like the U.S. mounting successive wars with little financial strain and an absence of tax increases….

        And there is little political appetite for tax increases to fund the military option…

        The U.S. has been perfectly happy to accede to the current state of affairs in spite of the immense economic damage it has inflicted on its domestic manufacturing sector (and the concomitant evisceration of its middle class) because it has provided the country with a cheap form of war finance, a particularly important consideration as it has gradually militarised its energy policy….

        This spending helps sustain the national economy and represents, essentially, a major jobs program.

        However, it is beginning to crowd out the civilian economy, causing stagnation in income levels.

        It also contributes to the haemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs to other countries.

        On 1 May 2007, the Centre for Economic and Policy Research released a series of estimates on “the economic impact of the Iraq war and higher military spending.” Its figures show, among other things, that, after an initial demand stimulus, the effect of a significant rise in military spending (as we’ve experienced in recent years) turns negative around the sixth year.

        The report concludes: “Most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment.”


      • Danny Thomas

        You might find this of interest. It’s lengthy: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

      • jim2,

        Some more statistics you might find interesting.

        • Of the 7.7 million cars and light trucks sold in the US in 2015, it looks like about 2.0 million, or 26%, were made in Mexico

        • 70% of the 2.9 million cars and light trucks made in Mexico in 2015 were sold in the United States

        • With the new car and light truck plants now under construction in Mexico, production, according to the AMIA, is projected to reach 5 million vehicles by 2020

        • Mexican labor comes at a low price. Mexican autoworkers make an average of 20 percent of what their U.S. counterparts do, according to Luis Lozano, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Mexico City. (That was in February 2015, when the exchange rate was 14.9 pesos to the USD. Today the exchange rate is 17.7, so the Mexican autoworker currently probably makes only about 17% of what a US worker makes)

        • I just bought a new vehicle here in Mexico, a 2016 Honda HRV made about 40 miles from where I live in Celaya, Guanajuato. The out-the-door cost was $15,900. That very same vehicle in Texas would have cost me $21.600, out-the-door including sales taxes. So the exact same vehicle costs 36% more in the United States than it does here in Mexico.



      • Sounds like instead of Fox berating Trump, Fox should be berated by everyone for the Medieval conditions in Mexico.

      • David Springer

        The automobile manufacturing going on in Mexico is exactly what Trump plans to leverage into a deal to force Mexico to secure the border at their cost. Manufacturing jobs and economic growth that the US gave Mexico through NAFTA can be taken away if they don’t cooperate. Like duh. Trump is right about the lousy trade deals made by previous administrations Democrat and Republican alike. That giant sucking sound that Ross Perot said would result from NAFTA was exactly right. And we can’t even get Mexico to secure the border we so graciously and charitably opened up to free trade.

      • jim2, David Springer,

        NAFTA unleashed rivers of free money, raining down from the sky, on the very rich on both sides of the Rio Grande.

        US workers have suffered under NAFTA. But they haven’t suffered anything like Mexican workers.

        Here’s a graph which shows the plight of the averager manufacturing worker in Mexico since NAFTA took effect in 1994.


        In 1994 a Mexican manufacturing worker could buy 1.3 basic baskets of goods (BBG) with a day’s pay.

        In 2013 a Mexican manufacturing worker could buy only .55 of a BBG with a day’s pay.

        That’s a loss of 58% in purchasing power for a day’s pay in the 19 years between 1994 and 2013.

        American workers haven’t experienced anything like that.

        American consumers, however, are not the ones benefiting from the low wages in Mexico. It is the transnational corporations — Volkswagen, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, etc. — who are benefitting. That Honda I can buy here for $15,900 you still have to pay $21,600. Honda pockets the difference in extra profit.

        Here’s how the Jus Semper Global Alliance explains it:

        In this way, the huge differential in labour costs is added to the profit margin, keeping the part (the surplus value) that should have provided the worker with an equivalent standard of living to that enjoyed by the same workers in the North.

        This surplus value from the labour factor is the part rightfully belonging to workers, and that they should have received from inception, as their fair share of the income resulting from the economic activity.


        Trump threatens the economic interests of the very wealthy on both sides of the Rio Grande. That’s the reason that Mexican politicians, who don’t represent the Mexican people but the Mexican plutocrats, have closed ranks with the plutocrats in the United States to try to bring down Trump.

      • Nabisco closes US plant and moves it to Mexico


      • There’s a reason Mexico has people like this.

        Not as many as China, but one can get the picture as to what is happening in countries like Mexico and China.



  64. From the article:

    Democrats in Pennsylvania are jumping ship more than Republicans in a primary season where the state could play a crucial role in deciding the GOP presidential nominee.

    In the first two months of 2016, nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats switched their affiliation to the Republican party, compared to 24,000 Republicans who became registered Democrats, records from the Pennsylvania Department of State show.


  65. From the article:

    MIAMI, Florida — At Thursday night’s Republican debate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
    , John Kasich, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
    all parroted talking points about trade that do not seem to match their prior legislative records and statements on the critical issue.

    While Donald Trump has articulated his vociferous opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda in practically every GOP debate, tonight marked the first debate in which all of the other candidates were asked about their previous support for trade globalism. Breitbart News reported extensively on debate moderators’ prior failure to cover the issue in previous debates.


  66. Little granny is going to need a lot of high-priced scheisters.


    The FBI is on granny like sink on –snip–.

    • Actually, that ‘s a mixed metaphor, or something. It’s stink on –snip–. They are also going to hit her with the kitchen sink, throw the book at her, ton of bricks etc. etc. etc.

  67. From the article:

    ANIMAS — Several hundred ranchers gathered at a small-town high school in the Bootheel on Thursday to rally against what they described as a broken border.

    Also present were members and representatives of New Mexico’s congressional delegation and officials from public security agencies, including the Border Patrol, Army, National Guard and sheriffs. More than 600 people showed up at a school auditorium in Animas, population 237.

    Ranchers here have been steaming over the reported kidnapping of a ranch hand in December, when drug runners allegedly hijacked the man’s vehicle, loaded it with narcotics and drove him to Arizona. He came home “roughed up,” his employer Tricia Elbrock said, but he survived the ordeal.

    Concerns about border security have simmered for years for those who live among the region’s sprawling ranches and rugged mountain ranges. Sometimes, fears boil over, such as after the unsolved 2010 murder of southern Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, who was found shot dead on his property, or after the recent reported kidnapping.


    • Danny Thomas

      For discussion let’s state that it’s a given that border security must be improved. How? These folks say more agents, on horses, near the border (not inland) and increased technology. No mention of a wall, and that won’t work in water anyway.
      Border patrol staffing has just about doubled since Bush (and due to efforts during his administration).

      Then this was up for consideration: “It would also make the border more secure by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also advances talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013 (Passed by Senate 63-32, but not even considered by the House for political reasons).

      CBO stated: “Combining those figures would lead to a net savings of about $135 billion over the 2014-2023 period from enacting S. 744.” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44397

      • The remediation scenario you mention is only one approach among many. The presentation of this scenario is not proof it is impossible to secure the border. I’m not sure why you even wasted the time to do it.

        Myself, I have empathy with the US residents living along the border. For that and other good reasons, it must be secured.

      • Danny Thomas

        No more empathy than I, I assure you. I’m from Texas.

        But interestingly, I find that some sanction or even prefer political gridlock (much like was experienced w/r/t the above referenced immigration reform). And according to the CBO the reform would have had positive impacts on the deficit.

        Interesting. How does one go about securing a border while insuring political gridlock?

      • Danny Thomas

        Shoot. Forgot to re ask my question. How?

      • In statistics, one would classify securing the border and political gridlock as independent variables.

      • Danny Thomas

        And in real life (not statistics), one might classify the gridlock leading to inaction on immigration issues leading to not increasing border patrol staffing by 40,000 while reducing budget deficits by $135B over 10 years less than effective.

        I see again a sidestepping of the How question. We have an agreement (you & I) that securing the border needs doing. A comprehensive plan was proposed, passed via bipartisan vote in one chamber, and ignored in the other all while blame for inaction is placed at the feet of a third (Obama).

        The only other plan being suggested is a wall under which a simple tunnel defeats, or over which a toy can fly.

        40,000 Border Patrol agents might just have done wonders. Statistically speaking.

      • Since I’m not the President with the resources of the nation behind him, I’ll pass on the How. We sent a man to the Moon ferchrissakes, we can secure the border, surely.

      • Danny Thomas : One way to progress on securing the border.

        I believe that reducing the desire to come to the US is an important element of securing the border. What I would propose is that employers of illegal entrants be assessed a fine (really enforced) for hiring illegal entrants and that the illegal entrants would then be liable to the employer for the payment of the fine. This proposal would substantially reduce the financial incentive to come to the US. Also, for those illegal entrants who do exceptionally well (and who would benefit the US) they can essentially pay to stay. My proposal would avoid the often heart wrenching deportations of basically good people who have ignored American immigration law that in the past was only half-heartenly enforced and which is not being enforced at all now.

        I would add that the US is so severe in running down the financial accounts of Americans living outside of the US that many are renouncing their citizenship. If that is the case, it shouldn’t be that difficult to devise financial penalties that would result in the substantial lessening of those illegally coming to the US and would also result in the departure of many illegal entrants.


      • Danny Thomas

        No disagreement. It’s worth an attempt. No one has had meaningful impact since about 1975. My last job required I prove my citizenship so why shouldn’t others?

        Getting Congress to address immigration is challenging: “But few within the GOP expect any kind of immigration debate in the Senate in the foreseeable future. The issue has been relegated to the back burner as Republicans instead focus on the budget, trade deals and, possibly, tax reform.
        “At this point, we have a lot of other issues to do,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who authored stand-alone legislation to block Obama’s immigration directives. “I’m very happy the Department of Homeland Security is funded, and I think the issue of the president’s overreach with his executive order of last November is probably going to end up being decided by the courts. And that’s not a bad option.”


        The complaining is that Obama is ‘ruling via fiat’ (EO’s) yet when congress looks at the issue they defer to the courts to respond to action actually being taken (right or wrong action) in lieu of actually acting themselves.

        The EO’s action: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-action

      • Kind of bizarre, jd. There are already sanctions for employers:



        Enforcement of all the immigration laws is obviously a problem. Getting illegal aliens to pay the fines back to employers sounds really goofy. How would you expect them to do that, even if they were so inclined? I would suggest that you are wasting your time trying to think up ways to reduce illegal immigration. You are not cut out for it.

        The way to secure the border is by any means necessary short of alligators, minefields, shoot on sight and stuff like that. We could start by employing our very capable military. The border area is a good place for training. Roaming units and observation posts on hilltops and ridge lines aided by air surveillance of SEAL teams, Army Rangers, 82 Airborne Division , 10th Mountain Division, some of the light recon units of the armored divisions, mechanized infantry etc. etc. etc. could spot the folks crossing the border and scare the crap out of them until the border patrol guys came along to deal with the sorting out, the paper work and escorting the lawbreaking interlopers back over our border. In other words, no more –snipping– around with invaders.

      • Danny Thomas

        You’re correct. Alligators won’t work anyway: “Alligators have been spotted in the lower Rio Grande since the first half of the 20th century. Because people cross the river into Texas, Mexican authorities place alligator warning signs at various places along the river. There have been no fatal gator attacks, or serious injuries, reported in Texas.” http://www.themonitor.com/life/vidaoutdoors/tex-mex-gators-valley-has-been-home-to-alligators-for/article_62f9005c-21ee-11e5-9690-3f767ade890b.html

        The rest of your plan sounds worth implementation. And 40,000 more B.P. agents wouldn’t hurt either.

      • David Springer

        Dummie Donnie those penalties for hiring illegals are slaps on the wrist. The worst is a class B misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are difficult to prosecute as they require an eyewitness. Government prosecutors don’t tend to waste time on minor offenses.

        Make hiring an illegal a felony if you’re serious about giving enforcement a try. Duh.

      • David Springer

        Dummie Donnie those penalties for hiring illegals are slaps on the wrist. The worst, for pattern hiring (whatever comprises proof of that), is a class B misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are difficult to prosecute as they require an eyewitness. Government prosecutors don’t tend to waste time on minor offenses.

        Make hiring an illegal a fel0ny if you’re serious about giving enforcement a try. Duh.

      • David Springer

        Dummie Donnie gives us an article saying, among other things, US employers were fined a [gasp] total of $10 million last year for hiring illegals. The show pony of the report is HerbCo International which was fined $1 million (the corporation not the several executives who were found guilty of class B misdemeanors and given a year probation).

        The thing of it is that HerbCo has $52M/year in annual revenue and employs nearly 500 people. Even a million dollar fine one year for doing this for god only knows how many years still amounts to a slap on the wrist in light of annual revenue. They can just roll it into the cost of doing business.

        Make the penalties against individuals into fel0nies and see if that doesn’t make a difference.

      • You really got a bad case of donnyitis, lizardboy. I didn’t say the fines were effective. JD, said there should be fines and I pointed out that there are already fines. And I suggested more vigorous measures. Doesn’t “by any means necessary” have any meaning for you, you dumb little –snip–? You are so envious of me, and a lot of others here, that you can’t –snipping– see straight. You should get some professional help. Find someone who specializes in the out of whack reptilian mind. You are one angry little dude. Check yourself, lizard. Sheeesh!

      • Also, lizardboy, if you had read from the first link you would have seen that it’s a criminal offense punishable by up to 6 mo jail term for the first offense. Most employers wouldn’t want to go through that as an avoidable cost of doing business. Dumb little –snip–.

      • Also, lizardboy, if you had read from the first link you would have seen that it’s an offense punishable by up to 6 mo jail term for the first offense. Most employers wouldn’t want to go through that as an avoidable cost of doing business. Dumb little –snip–.

      • David Springer

        Dummie Donnie… I said the worst offense was a class B misdemeanor. Maybe you could be not so dumb if you’d look up the maximum punishment for class B misdemeanors. You might also consider what’s the minimum punishment and what criteria judges use to determine where to set the punishment between the minimum and maximum. I’ll even give you three chances to say the punishment increases for repeat violations starting out with the minimum for a first offense. Sometimes the depth of your ignorance surprises even me and I’m not easily surprised due to being so nearly omniscient.


        Sentences for Fel0nies and Misdemeanors

        If a defendant does not qualify for probation, they can be sentenced to county jail time. Fel0ny sentences are served in state institutions, whereas misdemeanors are usually served in a local county facility. The maximums and minimums for Class A, B, and C misdemeanors are different in every state. However, Class A misdemeanors receive the highest sentence, generally up to one year in county jail. Class B misdemeanors are punished between 90-180 days in county jail. Class C misdemeanors receive the least amount of time, usually 30 days or less.

        Any questions, dopey, aside from “How can Springer be right so f*cking much of the time?”

      • David Springer

        Dummie Donnie what part of Class B misdemeanor did you not understand?


        Sentences for Fel0nies and Misdemeanors

        If a defendant does not qualify for probation, they can be sentenced to county jail time. Fel0ny sentences are served in state institutions, whereas misdemeanors are usually served in a local county facility. The maximums and minimums for Class A, B, and C misdemeanors are different in every state. However, Class A misdemeanors receive the highest sentence, generally up to one year in county jail. Class B misdemeanors are punished between 90-180 days in county jail. Class C misdemeanors receive the least amount of time, usually 30 days or less.

      • Automobile executive Henry Ford spent an evening at the White House trying to convince Hoover to veto the bill, calling it “an economic stupidity.”
        It’s populist isolationism. It’s saying we can’t hack free trade. Freedom either. Freedom doesn’t come from walls and seem to be the antithesis of walls. The Berlin Wall wasn’t about freedom. It was about the Cold War. Let me tell you, Mexico is not the Soviet Union. Look at that man from Austria’s Atlantic Wall built during WWII. That worked well. A wall is a symbol of impending defeat. We cannot co-exist with Mexico. Really? How many divisions does Mexico have? Picking on some little country in our own backyard. We are squabbling with Mexico and making them our scapegoat. We have already lost. Let’s build a monument to our defeat.

      • I said the worst punishment was a Class B misdemeanor. If you weren’t so close to being illiterate you’d know those carry a maximum punishment of six months in county lockup. If you weren’t so belligerently unaware of how ignorant you are you’d have looked it up. I invented the internet so dummies like you could learn freely, easily, and quickly. Some people just prefer being stupid I guess.

      • Danny Thomas,

        It seems possible that between 40 and 50 percent of all illegal immigrants in the US arrived legally by air, and simply stayed.

        Obviously the US could solve this problem easily, and create jobs at the same time.

        Every foreigner entering the US should have a US Government official minder accompanying them at all times. Every foreigner would have a RFID chip temporarily inserted under the skin on arrival, which would cause the minder’s alarm device to warn if the mindee moved out of range. Squads of heavily armed militia would be summoned to take the offender down, employing lethal force, if necessary.

        Just imagine the benefits! Extra revenue for transport, hotels, tourist attractions and all the rest! Where the foreigner goes, so goes the minder (at Government expense, of course).

        I believe countries such as North Korea have a somewhat similar approach, and few people overstay their visit as a result.

        I can provide similar awesome solutions (for a small fee) to other seemingly intractable problems.

        Or, for a slightly larger fee, I could take on the job of POTUS. Like at least one Presidential contender, not actually being born in the US doesn’t appear to be an impediment.

        If you find the prospect of an ex President’s wife, or the Trumpkin, at all unsettling, I can be bought if the price is right. I support bribery, corruption, lying, political machinations, hypocrisy, sexual deviation and immorality of all types, and burying my snout in the public trough to the maximum extent possible. No ordinary politician could possibly compare with me. They are far too upright and honest – aren’t they?


      • Danny Thomas

        Honorable Mr. Flynn,
        Well, first I hear that those who were not legally born in this country (no matter the documentation) are indeed currently serving in the top office as President so apparently that’s no hurdle as you suggested.

        So do you have references? Thank you for your interest. As it’s understood based on internet searches, the position pays $400,000/year plus includes lodging and transportation services. Upon completion, a pension is available.

      • Don Monfort | March 11, 2016 at 6:25 pm |

        “Kind of bizarre, jd. There are already sanctions for employers:”

        Don, I know that. However, there are no financial penalties for illegal entrance placed on the entrants and I also mentioned that as part of my plan. I would make the entrants financially liable and give employers incentives to recoup from the entrants. With a little bit of creativity, there are any number of ways you could impose penalties on illegal entrants and make it much less profitable to be in the US. This in conjunction with other, not necessarily draconian, enforcement activities could be politically doable as well as effective.


      • How are they supposed to make financial restitution if you don’t allow them earn any money? Think harder. You can’t draw blood from a turnip.

      • Can you explain why building a wall on our side of our border is picking on Mexico? Do we owe it to Mexico to absorb millions and millions of their citizens who enter our country without our permission in violation of our laws? Would they put up with the reverse? Do you know how they treat people from Central and South America and elsewhere who enter Mexico illegally? Do you think that it is a good thing that our manufacturing capacity is disappearing to other countries and at the same time our manufacturing jobs are going away we are providing jobs, education, healthcare, jail cells etc. to millions of legal and illegal immigrants? How long do you think this crap can go on?

      • You are not making sense, jd. Think about some more. I have seen you comment wisely on a lot of issues. I know you can do better.

      • In a very general sense, building a wall is going to prevent Mexicans from packing turkeys in Minnesota and picking the Nations crops. Produce grown the United States is often picked by hand. These low wage jobs are often filled by Mexicans. So their citizens would be prevented by some of our citizens who have an issue, from earning some money. A boycott of low wage Mexican labor. Telling GM they can’t build cars in Mexico or can’t import them. A trade boycott. At the same time trade is opening up with Cuba. We are finally getting over Castro after more than 50 years. We want peace, we want trade. Manufacturing capacity is transferring to more efficient places. Governments can not create only transfer. They can prevent voluntary transfers of manufacturing capacity and still not create it. Societal costs are an issue that can be looked with or without Mexicans. We could argue that we need to reduce free stuff because it’s bringing in too many Mexicans. Every reason we use against the poor works here too. Meanwhile in Redneck western Minnesota, we are producing low cost food. Trying to maintain our small towns. Thank you Mexico.

      • Danny Thomas

        My ‘belief’ is that the immigration issues is not being faced head on by our politicians for economic reasons. Actual in the (literal?) field studies have shown our lack of desire to perform many of the tasks which immigrants find as part of ‘a better life’ here. Their willingness to do so leads to reduced costs to producers and therefore lower costs to consumers. To address this head on would lead to politicians being forced to accept those higher costs and likely blamed for them. There is effectively a disincentive to address the issue lacking a military like attack on our land. This is borne out by our knowledge of the drug trade and societal costs which are knowns being allowed to continue under BAU.
        Our country has been built on the backs of immigrants, and continues to be run on them. There. I said it out loud. Much as you’ve stated, I perceive.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Thank you for your interest. $400,000 per annum is chicken feed. I believe at least one contender for POTUS gets more than that for talking to a room full of Wall St employees, twice. Apparently her base rate is $225,000 per speech.

        I’d need to work hard to extract that much for that little. I haven’t had Goldman Sachs offering me anything, so far. Ms Clinton must be a fount of financial wisdom to get those offers. I’m sure that becoming POTUS would severely limit her income. Maybe she’ll make it up somehow.

        I believe some people are under the misapprehension that one has to be born in the US to run for President. This doesn’t seem to be true, and even though I was not born in the US, I could legally run – for a suitable untraceable consideration, of course.

        The following gives a reasonable summary of the situation –

        “The problem is that in modern parlance, naturalization has come to be understood not as the legislatively conferred citizenship but as a process of acquiring citizenship. Cruz, McCain and George Romney did not have to go through any process to acquire their citizenship; Congress conferred that citizenship automatically by statute. These are not the only examples, however, of automatic naturalization by statute without any process or request. For example, United States citizenship was statutory conferred on all Native Americans living within the United States by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, even though some tribes actually objected, then as now.”

        Oh well. It looks as though the US public prefers candidates who pretend to honesty and moral unrighteousness rather than such as myself, who not only admit to dishonesty and moral slackness, but would work themselves into the ground to promote it. After all, honesty is supposed to be the best policy, isn’t it?

        My policy is obviously the best, as I am completely honest about my avarice and complete lack of moral boundaries!

        Have a nice weekend.


      • OK Ragnar, open borders and allegedly free trade is allowing us to exploit cheap Mexican labor, which is good for us and good for them. And soon we can start exploiting those poor saps in Cuba by shipping the rest of our manufacturing jobs down there. As long as we keep borrowing trillion$ to finance the balance of payments deficits and the spending on handouts to our unemployed and underemployed locals, the economic ball will keep rolling. What could possibly go wrong?

      • Springer: “How are they supposed to make financial restitution if you don’t allow them earn any money? Think harder. You can’t draw blood from a turnip.”

        The idea is not to get financial restitution but to make it financially unprofitable (in varied creative ways) for all but the very most successful to stay. Currently, it makes financial sense for illegal entrants to come even if (under previous administrations) they were deported. Ideas should be focused on financial penalties to discourage illegal entrants from coming in the first place and to make it financially untenable for those illegally here to stay. The US govt. has draconian regulations on American citizens living abroad. There are many ways that creative and effective financial penalties can be used to stem the illegal entrant problem. Ways could also be devised to raise the cost of necessary services or goods in such a way to strongly combat the violation of US immigration laws.


      • What creative penalties are you talking about, jd? so far you only gave us this:

        “What I would propose is that employers of illegal entrants be assessed a fine (really enforced) for hiring illegal entrants and that the illegal entrants would then be liable to the employer for the payment of the fine. This proposal would substantially reduce the financial incentive to come to the US.”

        No, the illegals wouldn’t pay anything but they will move on and get work elsewhere. A lot of the work is under the radar. Off the books. Underground. They are illegal. They commit all sorts of offenses and just change their names and move on, until apprehended deported, come back again, rinse and repeat. Tell us how they are going to be deterred by financial penalties, or please talk about something on which you are not clueless. You have a lot of interesting things you can discuss.

      • at the same time our manufacturing jobs are going away we are providing jobs, education, healthcare, jail cells etc. to millions of legal and illegal immigrants?

        I think overall illegal immigration is having a net negative impact on this consier if you consider those things plus the impact on the wages in low skill labor markets, But there are benefits to businesses and consumers in terms of having a ready source of cheap labor (and some portion of that labor is actually needed). So I don’t think it our even close to our most serious problem in terms of impacts. On the other hand, the problem does need a solution and I don’t think deporting millions of people and or building a wall is going to do it. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a bipartisan agreement available that will satisfy both parties

      • Dear Dummie Donnie,

        Building a wall on our side of the border deprives public and private property owners access to the Rio Grande river. In some cases because of terrain the wall must be built a mile back from the actual border.

        Threaten to pull out of NAFTA all day long but don’t take land and water access away from innocent Americans that’s been theirs since the Mexican-American war.


        Yer buddy,

      • Dear Dummie Donnie,

        My home was built with a lot of illegal labor back in the days when the border was more porous (before 9/11). I knew where the regular workers lived and the general contractor who employed them. They would commute here about 3 – 6 months at a time to work. They shared a single cabin, dormitory style, men-only, and shared a car as well. Occasionally one would be caught and sent back to Mexico. He’d be back in two weeks. They all had families who remained in Mexico and sent most of their wages home. They put in an honest day’s work for an honest day’s wage. Back then it was $8/hr cash or $10/hr for one that speaks English. There is a street corner in Austin where day laborers show up who can be hired on the spot. No one asks questions.

        That system has been working fine in Austin for a very long time. I have no experience elsewhere. If you and your paranoid friends insist on screwing it up don’t do it by depriving even more Americans of their rights with a fence, dipsh*t. It’s bad enough you phucking pussies with your comb-overs and imported European wives are trying to stick your white beaks between mutually consenting adults entering into contract labor agreements. The fascism is breathtaking already. Force Mexico to do what you need via trade sanctions. There’s a lot of sentiment, a majority I’m sure, that would just as soon secede from the Union in Texas. If we were our own nation we’d be the 11th largest national economy in the world. We already have our own electrical grid independent from the rest of the country. The only one like it in fact. Three grids in the US: eastern, western, and Texican. The US can’t afford to lose either the state nor its good graces. Tell The Donald to deal with that sh*t.

        Yer pal,

      • You have gone off the deep end, little lizard. I didn’t know that cooks could get PTSD. You need to go to the VA and get help, before you get your little dainty self hurt. Of course you being a little size 9 chicken–snip– –snipper–snipper very likely cools your jets when you are in the presence of grown men. You are really pathetic.

      • Yes Don Monfort, the test of what’s good is, that some here want to hire them and they want to be hired to work. I don’t think all of them think they are exploited. To say so is to repeat a tired left talking point. I know we don’t do much well anymore. We are pretty good at food production though. Bill Holm in ‘Not Quite American’ asked if we had these rich lands because of our virtue or our luck? He suggested bringing 5 million Chinese to the Loon State and that they would be industrious and prosper. Cuba will not be packing a lot of turkeys, they don’t do well in the heat and it costs too much to ship them there. So rather we can ship the Cubans to Minnesota and then ship the processed food to Cuba or better yet save on the shipping and just allow ½ of the Cubans to move here. A Republican weakness has been how Hispanics vote. These alleged capitalists could follow through with immigration reform, or continue this trade war within the U.S. By that I mean, denying employers lower cost labor. Trump will win on his stance on this for awhile. There’s sufficient frustration with the economy and other things for a not insignificant portion of the population to go along with what he says. But in the end, it will not pan out economically. I am not happy about the trillions of dollars owed by our government. Trump may be the one to do something about that. Few others from the establishment have been able to resist borrowing. It occurs to me, that if we don’t have lower cost labor, it just makes sense manufacturing will move to where it is. So it would help what’s left here stay here by bringing in lower cost labor.

  68. “You Won’t Believe How They Rigged Ohio Against Trump: “Intentionally Confusing Ballot”

    We all know the elite are on the warpath against Donald Trump, with everyone from pundits, to major world leaders, to the Pope speaking out against him.

    Regardless, Trump has received a groundswell of support from the rank and file American, winning state primaries left and right. Ohio’s primary is coming up on March 15, and it’s a big one because it’s a “winner takes all” state.

    Well now it’s being alleged that Ohio’s GOP has intentionally set up a confusing ballot in a bid to try to make sure Donald Trump does not win.

    • I wouldn’t put it ’em past to cheat against Trump.

    • I went to the Ohio web site where you can look at the ballots. This video is correct, the Republican ballot has the two sections with the same nominees listed. Politicians suck.

    • David Springer

      Please explain how this ballot favors one candidate over another. It’s confusing but I don’t see how it is biased.

      • Perhaps the experienced voters have seen these ballots before, while the inexperienced ones (like cross-over Democrats or first-timers) will be confused.

      • David Springer

        So what if they’re confused. How will it steer their choice towards one candidate over another? Answer the question.

      • If they vote for Trump in the first section and don’t vote on the second, or vote for someone else, Trump loses votes.

      • Yes but if they vote for any of the other candidates in one section and not the other it deprives that candidate of a vote.

        You still failed to describe how this ballot is biased for or against anyone in particular.

        Of course I knew you would fail right from the git go. It’s obvious this is a confusing ballot but it doesn’t discriminate against any particular candidate. You didn’t stop to think this through but instead are letting a knee jerk (the word knee is optional) reaction steer your thinking. Paranoia will destroy ya.

        Man up and admit the error of your way, Jimmy the Duece.

      • I never claimed it discriminates against any one candidate. Read harder.

      • But now that I think about it, it would discriminate against whoever the front-runner is. That’s because that person will be voted for the most times. If mistakes due to confusion occur at random, the front-runner would suffer the most loss of delegates. So there.

      • To be more,clear, Trump claims a lot of his supporters are first-time Republican voters, so that is why it follows that a confusing ballot discriminates against him more, assuming it was equally confusing in the past. If it wasn’t, there will be equal confusion for all, perhaps more so the people who don’t read or comprehend the small print.

  69. Danny Thomas

    “While Trump repeatedly claims he is self-funding his campaign, he has already collected $7.5 million in contributions through the end of January. His website features “Donate” buttons that go to a page that asks for contributions up to $2,700, the maximum legal limit allowed for individuals. ”

    Just so we’re clear.

  70. David Springer

    The three things you can’t give a Trump rally protester in Chicago:

    1. a black eye
    2. a fat lip
    3. a job

  71. “… presidential primaries continue to heat up.”

    On a lighter note, that would certainly contribute to global warming.

    About the Ohio ballot thing: the ‘elite’ (aka ‘those in power’) are trying to get Trump out of the way. On the other side, the Democratic elite (aka ‘those in power’) are trying to get Sanders’ delegates uncounted. Hillary has picked up a ;lot of superdelegates, despite Sanders’ showing in the primaries.

    Neither side wants to listen to the People (who usually get it wrong anyway).

    • David Springer

      How does the Ohio ballot discriminate against any one candidate? I don’t get it. Identical lists of candidates appear in both sections. The ballot is confusing but it doesn’t discriminate.

  72. The Dimowits are running scared. They are too stupid to know it, but this action against Trump will only make him stronger. This will create sympathy for him among fair minded people. Hopefully, the left-wing-nuts screwed themselves.

    From the article:

    Obama buddy and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was seen protesting Donald Trump in Chicago today.

    Thousands of leftwing protesters were expected today to protest Donald Trump at the University of Chicago Illinois campus.
    5,000-7,000 people were already inside the pavilion at 5 PM Central. Thousands more were still in a line that stretched several blocks.


    More NFO:


  73. John Vonderlin

    This is some good stuff. A gaggle of Angry Old White Men couldn’t do better. Dr. Curry was a genius to drain all the usual suspect’s vitriol into this thread, cleaning up the science-related threads considerably.
    All you Trumpers might want to consider this apocalyptic vision: After the monumental wall with its multiple layers of razor wire and East German style minefields is built; after the eleven million illegal men, women and children are deported from the huge camps we will concentrate them in before sending them south in boxcars, and after an economic sledgehammer is smashed into the collapsing Mexican economy by making them pay for all of this, am I going to have to watch all my Hispanic brothers all the time to make sure they aren’t strapped up as suicide bombers? Led by their newly -risen spiritual leader, Macho Venganza, will they will arm themselves with the easily-accessible, massive amounts of ordinance available here in the Good Ole Red, White and Blue, and repay us with 10 San Bernadinos a day? I don’t know, but I’m practicing my Spanish, just in case it comes to that. I figure my California tan, a Trump button with cuernos del diablo drawn on it and an accent-free “No Soy Gringo,” might just get me out of a hostage situation.

    • My wife is a Mexican-American. Third generation. Her large extended family is mostly Republican and Catholic in that order. Nearly all the men have served in the US military. My father-in-law was a sergeant in the US Marines as was I. My brother-in-law is a former Navy Seal. An uncle-in-law is a former border patrol agent. They are the hardest working most honest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. They don’t like illegals either and refer to them as “wets”. Misbehaving wets prejudice people against Mexican-Americans who play by the rules and do as much as anyone, more than most actually, to support the USA. It’s a shame. Y’all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Bunch of white pussies afraid of the darkness of your own shadows looking for a whipping boy to transfer your own weaknesses onto. Prosecute the bad guys. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

      • David,

        Did you see this PBS special? If not, I highly recommend it. It used to be available on the internet, but I think PBS took it down and one now has to buy the DVD.


        It is superb. Absolutely superb.


        One of the subtexts of the film is a subject which David Montejano speaks of in Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986:

        Social conflict and national crises provided the necessary impulse for the decline of old race arrangements.

        World War II, in particular, initiated dramatic changes on the domestic front. The need for soldiers and workers, and for positive international relations with Latin America, meant that the counterproductive and embarrassing customs of Jim Cros had to be shelved at least for the duration of the emergency.

        In more lasting terms, the war created a generation of Mexican American veterans, prepared to press for their rights, and privileges.

        The cracks in the segregated order proved irreparable.

        The cracks did not ruputure, however, until blacks in the South and Mexican Americans in the Southwest mobilized to present a sharp challenge from below in the 1960s.

      • Trump is talking about illegals, not Latinos in general or people here legally. I’m not sure what you are referring to, David, but it isn’t Trump.

    • So John… your fear that failing to kowtow to an illegal minority of non-citizens cause you to roll over for them?

      So noted. Vonderlin is a German name. Your ancestors on that side of the family aren’t generally known for rolling over in fear of minorities but rather are famous for institutional genocide instead. Your maternal side must be French, right?

      • John Vonderlin

        Mr. Springer,
        Interesting word kowtow. I would have thought you’d use a purer American term like “knuckle under.” Though I had planned to retire in Mexico before my wife died of cancer, having grown to love the Mexican people in my many travels there, I am a strong supporter of immigration controls. Strong, but sensible, something Mr. Trump rarely demonstrates in his often fact free opinions.
        Proffering an apocalyptic vision for consideration if his plans were carried out was my way of reminding people that the legal/illegal community is highly intertwined, with many families having elements of both. Any rash or cruel policies not taking that fact into consideration may birth a violent resistance movement in the U.S. I think the Law of Unintended Consequences is likely to come into play, especially when scapegoating is employed. The drug cartels have already shown an ISIS-like propensity for beheading and the popularity of narcocorridos in the northern states demonstrates a strong folklorish connection to the people. Angry, disaffected young men are the cannon fodder for the Islamic extremist movement. Why would it be any different in this case?
        I’m not sure about your point about my heritage; but my mother’s surname was Ingraham, from the Nottingham area of England, famous for Robinhood. Unfortunately, or so I’ve been told, it was the evil Duke of North, Robinhood’s protagonist and the oppressor of the people, that we are related to.

      • I don’t have a problem with a wall on the Mexico side of the border except for it won’t work unless it’s like the Inner German border.

        On the eastern side, it was made one of the world’s most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed GDR guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British and US guards and soldiers.

    • John Vonderlin,

      Those of us who live in Mexico, and are married to Mexican nationals, and are knowlegeable about Mexican politics know that Hillary has quite a love affair going on with these guys.


      Obama loves them too, and sent his vice president to Mexico a couple of weeks ago for a love fest.


      So sure, if Trump carries through with his rhetoric, it won’t be good for the Mexican oligarchs. Nor will it be good for their partners in crime in the United States, who the Republican/Democratic establishment represents. (Or do you suffer under the delusion that the Republican/Democratic establishment cares about working people on either side of the border?)

      But for the everyday Mexican on the street? It’s not at all clear to me that Trump’s policies will be all that bad.

      • Just as a note of interest, I always assumed that Bush’s Mexican wife was the scion of one of the Mexican gazillionaire families, and that the marriage was more of a corporate merger than a true romance.


        But my friends tell me I was mistaken. She was a poor girl from the Mexican state of Guanajuato.

        I suppose Bush met her on his travels, fell in love, and that was that.

        Trumps dragging Bush’s wife into the campaign and in the manner he did was not appropriate.

        “Trump se lanza contra esposa de Jeb Bush; él responde diplomáticamente”

      • Glenn, do you live in the American section on the coast? What is your take on how to “fix” the Mexican government? Corruption is the main reason I object to foreign aid. It just goes to the corrupt establishment. Kind of like in the US.

      • jim2,

        I don’t have any silver bullets.

        If the United States would stop interfering in the internal politics of Mexico on the behalf of transnational corporations, however, that would be a good start.

      • Or fast gunrunning to the furious and violent, all in aid of framing 2nd Amendment narrative. Victims predominantly south of the torn down never built wall. Bitter, the clinging fingers in the rubble.

      • That’s interesting. What specifically does the US do on behalf of international corps?

      • jim2,

        Here’s a recent specific example:

        Originally stored on a private server, with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton’s State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex’s (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies.

        And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create.

        The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere….

        One thing appears certain: those who laid the groundwork for energy reforms in Mexico have created a perfect climate to profit from the fruits of their labor.


        Polls show the energy “reform” was highly unpopular with the Mexican people. It was shoved down the Mexican people’s throats by Clinton working behind the scenes with Mexico’s government, which is extremely corrupt and authoritarian. A poll conducted by Pew Research shows 57% of Mexicans opposed the reforms.


        Speaking in more general terms, there’s this recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine:

        Hillary Clinton defends the status quo, grounded in a vicious cycle of complicities between economic and political elites on both sides of the border….

        Those who seek to replace Obama at the White House would be well advised to look beyond the networks of corporate elites and Washington “foreign-policy experts” who today control the bilateral agenda. Instead, they should reach out to and listen to Mexico’s powerful and dynamic civil society, which is increasingly losing patience with the country’s simulated democracy and defective public institutions.


      • Glenn – I remember reading about Mexico allowing foreign companies to work in the oilfields. My first thought was that this means more oil for Mexico and more money. But of course, the low price of crude has taken a toll on Mexican income and production so far has not improved.


        You mentioned in one of your comments that Hitler’s party was right-wing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Socialist is even part of the name of the party. If you don’t believe it, take a look at the 25 points of that party