U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part IV

by Judith Curry

A new thread for this discussion.

772 responses to “U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part IV

  1. Has the President done enough to keep us and the rest of the world safe?

    Which of the possible, really final 5 candidates, will do the better job, and where do events like in Brussels rate, is Climate Change a bigger threat?

    • Climate change isn’t even on the radar. The President apologizes to Middle Eastern countries, to Cuba, … he is a total international failure when it comes to foreign policy.

      Trump will do a much better job. At least he is able to identify the enemy. Even though it is so obvious, Obummer can’t bring himself to name the enemy.

      • jim2 said:

        Climate change isn’t even on the radar.

        This is why the scientist kings like Naomi Oreskes want to do away with democracy, because they obviously know what’s important, and the great unwashed do not.

      • There is a lot of evidence to indicate that people (1) people tend to discount risk stretched out over a long time horizon and, (2) people tend to underestimate risk.

        Evaluating the importance of climate change policy simply through a list of policy priorities fails to address the full context of climate change policy development and implementation. As much as “skeptics” call for a well-reasoned approach to climate change, with paying due diligence to uncertainties, they do climate change policy development and implementation a disservice when they make simplistic arguments such as those what over-emphasize the relevance of lists of policy priorities.

        It’s rather like when they talk about the economics of alternative energy pathways without taking on a full-cost accounting of negative and positive externalities of different energy pathways, respectively.

      • It’s rather like when they talk about the economics of alternative energy pathways without taking on a full-cost accounting of negative and positive externalities of different energy pathways, respectively.

        Except this gives license to come up with just about any number you want.
        How about fossil fuels powered 75% of modern society, how many billions of lives and trillions of dollar in value made the last 100-150 years?
        Obviously fossil fuels save more lives than they kill.

      • “There is a lot of evidence to indicate that people (1) people tend to discount risk stretched out over a long time horizon and, (2) people tend to underestimate risk.”

        so after 9-11 was the long term risk from refugee immigration ( or “emmissions” of terrorism from failed states ) discounted and underestimated?

        is the long term risk of Iran getting a nuke discounted and underestimated?

        The risk from north Korean?

        How about people who dont see a long term slippery slope of the loss of freedoms in this country.. are they discounting and underestimating?

        what about the risk of debt load?

        what about the risk of income inequality?

      • °°°°°Joshua said:

        There is a lot of evidence to indicate that people (1) people tend to discount risk stretched out over a long time horizon and, (2) people tend to underestimate risk.

        That’s why the great unwashed need scientist kings like Naomi Oreskes to be “the deciders” and to tell them what they ought to do.

        °°°°°Joshua said:

        As much as “skeptics” call for a well-reasoned approach to climate change…It’s rather like when they talk about the economics of alternative energy pathways without taking on a full-cost accounting of negative and positive externalities of different energy pathways, respectively.

        And you believe Team Green takes on “a full-cost accounting of negative and positive externalities of different energy pathways, respectively”?

        Lordy! Lordy!

        Would it be possible to find a more explicit declaration of one-eyed favoritism than that?

      • When you ask people if they want emissions reductions, the number has been consistently in the 70% range. They get it.

      • ==> Except this gives license to come up with just about any number you want.

        Perhaps, but what is the alternative?

        You can’t just wish away the realities of the given context. You should approach making decisions within that context (unless you want to distort the context in support of advocacy, which is what people do when they speak of the economic costs w/o addressing externalities). Isn’t that just “com[ing] up with just about any number you want?”

        The goal should be, IMO, to consider policy development in the full context, with an acceptance of the inherent limitations and a good faith effort to include explicit assessments of probabilities.

      • Steven –

        I don’t understand your point. Do you doubt my characterization of the evidence about how people evaluate risk?

      • micro –

        ==> How about fossil fuels powered 75% of modern society, how many billions of lives and trillions of dollar in value made the last 100-150 years?

        By what method did you distinguish the positive eternalities from fossil fuels from the positive externalities from education, political representation, access to healthcare (and specific health technologies such as antibiotics), access to democratic institutions, etc.?

      • By what method did you distinguish the positive eternalities from fossil fuels from the positive externalities from education, political representation, access to healthcare (and specific health technologies such as antibiotics), access to democratic institutions, etc.?

        Made it up. But, without the portable mechanical work, gasoline engines allowed, society would have progressed much slower. More work would have to be done by humans, tasks would have taken longer, by a lot.

      • Joshua

        “I don’t understand your point. Do you doubt my characterization of the evidence about how people evaluate risk?”


        1. you didnt cite any evidence, so I cannot judge your characterization
        of it.
        2. you used the word “in general”, I have no clue what that means.

        3. I have no evidence that “Judging risk” is the same across all categories.
        For example, Take ebola. Some people appear to have overestimated the risk of allowing people into our country.. remember that debate? It very well be more complicated. For example, if the
        result is disasterous ( nuclear war ) some people may over estimate
        the risk. Whereas if the result is only painful– say tooth decay.. they
        very well may underestimate the risk.

        So, yes I doubt your characterization, meaning I suspend judgement.
        you havent made a case that can be judged

      • The cost of energy is built into everything from refrigerators to the electricity that runs them. It’s needed to clean and pump water through municipal supplies and to collect and process raw sewage. It is used to produce everything in medicine from doctors to drugs to hospitals. In short it is the lifeblood of civilization.

        What’s the long term risk associated with making energy more expensive through ill considered, not imminently necessary, ineffective regulations to reduce C02 emissions?

      • Glenn –

        ==> Would it be possible to find a more explicit declaration of one-eyed favoritism than that?

        One sure sign of a “skeptic” is when they make up arguments and put them in other people’s mouths.

        On top of which, whether or not “greens” make a realistic assessment of externallities doesn’t speak to whether or not “skeptics” do.

        So not only is your comment a strawman, it’s also a non-sequitur.

      • Josh,

        Pointing out where something ranks in the public’s opinion is not the same as arguing for that opinion to be the primary driver in determining policy.

        What it does suggest is that in a representative democracy, you have to pay attention to what the people think and want. Politicians and policy makers better make sure they have a convincing case when trying to implement policy which a majority of people might not agree to.

        To date all they have done is try to frighten people with scary stories.

        BTW – I seem to recall from a long time ago we had this discussion concerning risk assessment and it turned out you had zero experience doing it.

      • +100 Mosher

      • Jim D,

        When you ask people if they believe in world peace, the percentage is even higher.

        What you need to do next is ask if they are in favor of starting WWIII in order to achieve it.

        I’m pretty sure you are smart enough and informed enough to understanding how polling works.

      • timg56, and why do you suppose such a large majority want emissions reductions? Someone said above, ” in a representative democracy, you have to pay attention to what the people think and want. ” Except when you don’t agree, I suppose.

      • timg56 said:

        When you ask people if they believe in world peace, the percentage is even higher.

        What you need to do next is ask if they are in favor of starting WWIII in order to achieve it.

        I’m pretty sure you are smart enough and informed enough to understanding how polling works.

        I don’t think he does understand how polling works.

        If we look at willingness to pay (WTP) studies, the percentage of people willing to pay even some very small amount, like $5 per month, for AGW abatement has not been over 11% over the last 40 years. (Samuel J. Best and Benjamin Radcliff, Polling America)

      • Glenn, but the CPP is projected to reduce costs too, so it is win-win.

      • Jim D said: timg56, and why do you suppose such a large majority want emissions reductions?

        Because they have been falsely told that emissions reductions will solve the problem. You and I and everyone who has looked at the problem seriously knows that emissions reductions are only a small part of any solution, but the American public has not been informed of this fact.

        Why do you bring up this obvious red herring?

      • Jim D,

        “Why do you think the majority want emissions reductions?”

        First, as opluso points out, they see constant references to an apparently unending list of disasters that will descend on us if we don’t do something, along with the message “It’s CO2 dummies1”.

        Secondly, you can’t lose sight of it being a poll question. That was the point of the world peace example. Who is going to answer with a negative to wanting world peace? In order to have a fuller, more nuanced understanding of what people think, you have to provide follow on questions. For example, “At what point would you reconsider support of emissions reduction policies once the cost impact was known?” 5 cents more on your monthly energy bill? $5 a month? $50 dollars a month in higher gasoline and energy costs? It is how people respond to additional information that gives you a better feeling for where they really stand. Global warming is one of those issues where most people would agree we should “do something”. Just so long as it doesn’t cost them anything.

    • Has the President done enough to keep us and the rest of the world safe?

      You present 5 questions in two sentences. Makes it difficult to respond succinctly.

      Keeping “the rest of the world safe” is an impossible task and not something contemplated by the US constitution. Not that that’s ever stopped presidents from stampeding the herd with noise about overseas “threats”.

      • Keeping “the rest of the world safe” is an impossible task and not something contemplated by the US constitution.

        When I was a teen (13-14), I protested Vietnam.

        I don’t see what we do in that light opluso (at least not anymore), it’s trying to keep the neighborhood from getting so bad it infects us.
        WWII had a tremendous cost in life. Wouldn’t it have been better to stop Hitler sooner? The US turned their backs to what was going on in Europe, until it got really bad, and we decided what was happening wasn’t in our best interest.
        The world is a lot smaller than it use to be, and now, you can go anywhere in a day or two, you don’t even to go anywhere to infect people.

        Should the US not at least try to make the world more peaceful?

      • Should the US not at least try to make the world more peaceful?

        If by “peaceful” you mean invading multiple countries around the world then I would have to say no.

        Much of the rest of the world is happy to have American mercenaries fight their battles. Another large group is eager to use our overseas actions to recruit the next wave of fanatical terrorists.

        Even stationing troops overseas in an effort to impose peace (or at least stability) has large risks. Consider that bin Laden’s primary criticism of America was that we stationed troops in his holy land and propped up the brutal Saudi dictators.

        Internationally, Obama at least has tried to follow the example of Bush 1 rather than Bush 2 when it comes to ground troop commitments. Yet Obama clearly inherited an untenable position from Bush 2 and, to paraphrase a scoundrel, you work with the international situation you actually have, rather than the situation you might wish to have.

        [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jPgljRvzQw&w=420&h=315%5D

        Unfortunately, the fault is not entirely Bush 2’s. A century of empire-building by American governments does not allow for a “do over”. Empires typically collapse because they over-extend. By any measure, America is over-extended. I just hope we fall gracefully.

      • Opluso:

        A century of empire-building by American governments does not allow for a “do over”.

        A do over only benefits one if they learned proper lessons. The basic facts of the world still demand compromise of the risk of foreign entanglement with the benefit of foreign influence to bolster geopolitical stature in the aims of improving trade and national security. I think over-doing could be called imperialism; under-doing it would be isolationism and getting it just right would be “keeping the world safe for democracy.”


        WWII had a tremendous cost in life. Wouldn’t it have been better to stop Hitler sooner?

        There is a growing body of evidence that Hitler and Mussolini had support of influential British and American elite. In letters between W.R. Hearst, Irenee DuPont, and Dwight Morrow (Sr. partner in JP Morgan) it is clear these men and other is the clan took an active hand in piloting the business and political affairs in Europe in the aims of preventing the spread of communism and preventing the possibilities of another Great War. If this is true it is entirely plausible that the very meddling done in order to prevent a war led to war as far back as the early 1920s. The pattern of blow-back and double-cross by propped up strong men that we saw throughout the Cold War may have started with the first fascist dictators.

        Or, was it just a coincidence that Roosevelt chose William J Donovan, the Rockefeller/Morgan/Dupont coordinator of foreign intelligence, to birth the US intelligence community as the first head of the Office of Coordinator of Intelligence, later to become the OSS, later to become the CIA? Donovan was recommended to FDR by Stuart Menzies, head of MI6, through Winston Churchill, who himself was not a stranger to early supporters of fascist, including Lady Astor’s “Clivedon Set” and the still late supporters like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

        High school history books may be as simplistic (wrong) about causes of WWII as the science texts are about climate.

      • Ron Graf:

        Thoughtful comments.

        Many Americans have a naive view of our actions around the world (you do not appear to be one of them). Yet even if one assumes we truly are trying to “make the world safe for democracy” there can be unintended consequences, as you suggest. It is ahistorical, IMO, to assume that “democracy” is the goal of American policy. Heck, our leaders don’t even like democracy at home.

        Obviously, short of becoming the next North Korea, America will continue to be involved in events around the world. You suggest a “three bears” type test (too imperialist, too isolationist, and just right) for appropriate strategies. Yet a big problem with any international strategy is that every other country/leader on the planet also has a strategy for manipulating events. Too often, when we move beyond moral and minor economic support, we end up hopelessly entangled in someone else’s dispute.

        Foreign leaders are no less clever than American politicians at turning innocent or even noble intentions into a rabble-rousing casus belli. Since a picture is worth 1000 words, consider this map:


        Allowing ourselves to be suckered into separating squabbling tribes in the Middle East is a fool’s errand. Just read the Bible — they’ve been at it for several thousand years. There is ZERO chance they will stop just because an American president is willing to sacrifice our lives and treasure to the cause. There is also zero chance that the current crop of presidential candidates could come up with a better solution than simply to give up and withdraw from the region.

        America has been at war (or undertaken unilateral military actions) almost every year since 1776. For several decades after WWII we justified every action as necessary to prevent the spread of communism. Now every action is necessary to prevent the spread of terrorism. Alert the Patent Office: America has invented the perpetual motion military machine.

        I agree with you that most history books leave out critical details that would reveal the true (or at least the unpleasant, additional) motivations for American militarism. Yet the same is true of most newspaper, TV and radio stories about America’s current adventures overseas.

        They apparently agree with Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” and believe that we can’t handle the truth. I agree with the dirty hippies (and Donald Trump?): Support the Troops by bringing them home.

      • There is also zero chance that the current crop of presidential candidates could come up with a better solution than simply to give up and withdraw from the region

        We had at least a temporary better solution with the “surge”, and then Obama left and it all fell apart.
        How has leaving them alone the last handful of years worked out for Belgium?

      • We had at least a temporary better solution with the “surge”, and then Obama left and it all fell apart.

        I respectfully disagree. The surge was only useful in creating temporary space for a face-saving American withdrawal. We had lost the longer war before the first boots hit the ground.

        Dubya’s crack team of military experts also screwed up the initial occupation and that is how we got the first waves of guerrilla attacks and, ultimately, ISIS.

        How has leaving them alone the last handful of years worked out for Belgium?

        If we had not invaded the wrong country for the wrong reasons there never would have been an ISIS. Not. Obama’s. Fault.

      • The surge was only useful in creating temporary space for a face-saving American withdrawal.

        Maybe they were waiting for the planned withdrawal(what idiots announce when they are leaving in a situation like this anyways), maybe there was some stability.

        Dubya’s crack team of military experts also screwed up the initial occupation and that is how we got the first waves of guerrilla attacks and, ultimately, ISIS.

        Rummy thought there would be a better response to a small “footprint” right after the government collapsed, that was a mistake, they just took to long to fix it.

        How has leaving them alone the last handful of years worked out for Belgium?
        If we had not invaded the wrong country for the wrong reasons there never would have been an ISIS. Not. Obama’s. Fault.

        I disagree, Saddam was no long an acceptable risk (IMO), but we did misjudge the first part of the execution, and took far to long correct, and then Obama left a huge power vacuum.

      • We are currently too close to the tree to see all the fruit. The more time passes the more we will see mistakes were made getting in, while we were there and how we pulled out. There were also moments of military awesomeness.

        We still have the best fighting force in the world bar none.

        If we don’t get a handle on public safety, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Couple poor public safety w another economic bubble bust and they’ll be alot of crying for mamma in the civilized world.

        Above all things the free world needs an excellent crisis leader because the tea leaves say that’s what we a going to need.

      • micro6500:

        My reply is in moderation. Must not be able to mention certain groups without approval.

      • “Keeping “the rest of the world safe” is an impossible task and not something contemplated by the US constitution.”

        No but I don’t think the constitution contemplated the United States becoming one of only two global military superpowers and the leading financial super power from 1960 to the present where only the US was there and capable of stopping the world from being taken over by communist expansionism after WWII.

        With great power comes great responsibility. Check out the charitable giving of Michael Dell and Bill Gates for instance. Philanthropy is supposed to come with the territory. Voluntary of course which is what serves to separate the good from the bad.

        On the other hand we have Donald Trump who is arguably the least charitable billionaire on the planet.


        If what you want is to become the least charitable nation on the planet then Trump is surely your guy. Welcome to him. Just don’t try branding him with the Grand Old Party whose roots go back to Abraham Lincoln. That’s a travesty. A high jacking of a private political party by outsiders who suddenly discovered anyone can cast a ballot under party rules in most of the states. What they don’t seem to realize is that those ballots are a straw polls only. Trump has no legal right whatsoever to be nominated even if he got 100% of the straw votes. If he did he’d be threatening to sue the crap out of everyone in sight because that’s how he operates. That’s how greedy narcissist bullies always operate. He incensed that he can’t sue detractors because he’s a public political figure where the rules are different.

      • micro6500:

        We will just have to disagree on Iraq and the broader Middle East. I would answer the following questions before concluding that America has been pursuing the right policies in Iraq, let alone the rest of the Middle East.

        Was Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator with expansionistic plans in the Persian Gulf? Yes.

        Was he a threat to the bogus regime in Kuwait? Yes. Was he a potential threat to the terrorism exporting House of Saud? Probably.

        Was Iraq involved in the planning or execution of the attack on 9-11? No. Of the 19 hijackers on 9-11, how many were Saudi citizens? 15.

        A little further back in time, did the US support Saddam’s invasion of Iran that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands? Yes. Did the CIA provide the Iraqis with intelligence to make Iraq’s poison gas attacks (aka, weapons of mass destruction and an international war crime) more effective? Yes.

        Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell lie in the lead up to Iraq Invasion #2? Yes. Did they fail to launch the hunt for weapons of mass destruction immediately after the fall of Baghdad? Correct. Did they fail to secure Iraqi weapons depots, allowing vast amounts to be taken by irregulars left on the streets? Absolutely true.

        Is any of the above Obama’s fault? Your turn to answer.

      • We will just have to disagree on Iraq and the broader Middle East. I would answer the following questions before concluding that America has been pursuing the right policies in Iraq, let alone the rest of the Middle East.
        Was Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator with expansionistic plans in the Persian Gulf? Yes.
        Was he a threat to the bogus regime in Kuwait? Yes. Was he a potential threat to the terrorism exporting House of Saud? Probably.
        Was Iraq involved in the planning or execution of the attack on 9-11? No. Of the 19 hijackers on 9-11, how many were Saudi citizens? 15.

        While I don’t disagree with this, I’ll add the box we’d put Saddam in( sanctions, no fly zone, etc) were losing support and falling apart. He was a disaster waiting to infect the whole area, and his sons were worse.

        A little further back in time, did the US support Saddam’s invasion of Iran that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands? Yes. Did the CIA provide the Iraqis with intelligence to make Iraq’s poison gas attacks (aka, weapons of mass destruction and an international war crime) more effective? Yes.

        Yep, we let our two enemies kill each other, encouraged our 2 enemies to kill each other, turns out that was probably a bad idea. The question what would it look like now if we hadn’t done that.

        Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell lie in the lead up to Iraq Invasion #2? Yes.

        This I disagree with, everyone thought he was working on WMD’s, including his Generals and his enemies.

        Did they fail to launch the hunt for weapons of mass destruction immediately after the fall of Baghdad? Correct. Did they fail to secure Iraqi weapons depots, allowing vast amounts to be taken by irregulars left on the streets? Absolutely true.

        Rummy did not want to come off as occupiers, he used fewer troops, which with what we know now wasn’t enough. He was likely trying to address the various backbiting he was getting from the oil for blood crowd, which history showed wasn’t his plan. Maybe it should have been, but…

        Is any of the above Obama’s fault? Your turn to answer

        Obama created a power vacuum by rushing his withdraw, turned a mess into a disaster, one that we are paying for right now, and will have to pay for again before it’s through.

      • What do executive foreign policy actions have in common with legislative actions? They both are subject to the law of unintended consequences.

        Thus presidents should recognize geopolitics and world economics are incomprehensibly complex and intermingled systems that require constant attention, strategy and restraint, with the later only occasionally being overtaken by prudence and necessity — appreciating that all actions have costs.

        Opluso, my foreign policy philosophy would be less The Three Bears and more managing with finesse. A president needs to recognize the nature of the systems and dynamics in order to optimize outcomes, playing the poker/chess game dealing with, competing with and leading the world. Reagan failed to understand the complexities of Lebanon and Central America but was nonetheless a successful president by understanding the Soviet Union and from his toughness, integrity and patience. He also understood that America’s economy thrives on free enterprise, not on redistribution. (The later happens naturally if you set the rules correctly.)

        George W.’s biggest mistake was getting talked into nation building with the good and brave souls in the US military. Patience and smart execution could have revealed Saddam’s WMD bluff and at the same time allowed the degrading of his missile program while he lay under the duress of US troops massed on the border and flying overhead.

        After invasion, Rummy’s little footprint strategy caused anarchy then Iranian and foreign jihadists influence to flow in. The surge corrected the foreign jihadists problem but not the corrupting influence of Iran mixed with a lack of a constitution, and ample checks and balances.

        Nation building by military means has a pitifully high cost to efficacy ratio. It’s better done slowly with patience and prudence, facilitating opportunities for trade and support to democratic values. Still having Iraq be a democratic Arab country even for a few years catalyzed the “Arab springs.” Some are succeeding, some are not. Whether Arabs countries were ready for Western democracy is still an open question.

      • Amazing how hindsight is always so clear, innit?

      • Amazing how hindsight is always so clear, innit?

        Except that all of this was pointed out before we invaded Iraq. The neocons were all about taking over the Middle East and magically erasing both history and the current realities on the ground.

        This was not even a close call. Biggest mistake since Viet Nam. Too bad we didn’t have a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission after Bush2 left office.

        Obama created a power vacuum by rushing his withdraw…

        If micro6500 wants to blame someone for pulling out of Iraq, it should be Bush since he signed the Status of Forces Agreement that required the withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011. Which is exactly what Obama did.

      • And just to keep all of this relevant to the topic, I would point out that Clinton has no effing clue of what to do in the Middle East other than continue current policies and hope that good intentions bloom in the desert next Spring.

      • Opluso – which do you believe is easier for a US president: fixing the middle east or making it worse? Which do you believe is the more likely outcome if tiny hand Trump tries to fix it?

      • The difference of Middle East policy between any of the three remaining GOP candidates would be minuscule. They would likely appoint from the same pool of foreign service personnel from which advice would come. The main difference is who could be a successful world leader in uniting international coalitions to actually make the policy succeed. My guess would be that Trump might be met with some skepticism or resentment at first due to his ego and reputation. If he produced results that resistance would evaporate and foreign leaders would fall in an cooperate, the exact opposite pattern seen from Obama’s leadership influence. I think Hillary would be another Obama.

      • ==> My guess would be that Trump might be met with some skepticism or resentment at first due to his ego and reputation.

        It’s fascinating to watch the near total lack of accountability on behalf of Trump.

        How about, he would be met with resistance because of his inane approach to policy?

      • which do you believe is easier for a US president: fixing the middle east or making it worse?

        There is no way to fix the ME. Even continuing to bomb the bad guys (or at least the subset that we’ve decided to kill) is not making it better in the long run — we’re only killing tomorrow’s terrorist who is quickly replaced by next week’s clone.

        We have no control and precious little influence over the societies that breed new terrorists. There are far more terrorists on the loose today than when we first attacked Afghanistan in 2001.

        Our best (IMO, only) hope is to reduce the reasons that make Americans targets. Yes, you have to maintain a high security profile in the process but if we don’t change the course of this floundering neocon vessel we will all go down with the ship.

        Many Americans seem to believe Islamic terrorists are crazy. Yet consider how your standard issue redneck would respond to a land invasion of America. Or constant drone-delivered assassination of their kin? The next president will probably be attacked by a swarm of micro-drones and Americans will respond with outrage and demands for swift “justice.”

        What’s the word for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

    • Danny Thomas

      Bigger in what respects? I think we can all agree that ‘the world’ and ‘global’ are synonymous, so physically they’re the same size job. Some might say they’re each ‘wicked’ problems.

    • “Has the President done enough to keep us and the rest of the world safe?”

      Is it the US president’s responsibility to keep the rest of the world safe? Really?

      • Except Rob, with increased globalization, a threat to one party can result in many parties being hurt.

        The US commitment to Israel has more to do with economic stability for our allies than our own economy. Same with ensuring safe passage through the straits of Hormuz.

    • micro

      Climate change is way down any list I would compile. International terrorism-would be at the top and cyber hacking would probably feature in the top five (from a Western perspective)

      The final five candidates are terrible, although I ‘get’ the appeal of Trump I don’t think he is Presidential material but at least he articulates what many people are thinking.

      Trouble is that the Western world currently seems bereft of top line competent politicians. Obama has been terrible, Cameron is pretty mediocre, Merkel has gone mad, Hollande is hopeless

      Looking at those aspiring to take their jobs the list seems very limited. Clinton? Really? Perhaps Boris Johnson in the UK. Other than that its a sad day when Putin is able to run rings round Western leaders.

      As for giving Turkey’s 70 million citizens free run of the EU…..words almost fail me..


    • Some realists, however, view Trump as little more than an opportunist, and do not believe he is sincere in his noninterventionist foreign policy.

      Non-Interventionists Don’t Want an ‘Aggressive U.S. Posture in the World’


      But as one of the commenters below the line notes, since Hillary Clinton is the neocon from hell, the worst that can happen with Trump, even if he completely reverses his noninterventionist foreign policy, couldn’t get any worse than Clinton’s known and very explicit neocon warmongering:

      I have been prepared to be disappointed by Donald Trump for a long time now. However, I am comparing it to the horror show of a Hillary Clinton Administration who would want to go out of her way to prove that a woman can be just as tough as a man.

      Hillary has proven to have the absolute worst possible judgment on foreign policy, Iraq war-check, Libya-check, Syria-check, provoke Russia-check.

      If Trump does no better than a broken clock, I’ll take it over HRC.

      • Trump contradicts himself, because he still goes around shouting we will defeat Isis as part of making America great again, but when questioned on details, the “we” is actually “they” the Arab states that he hopes will do the job, but he has not thought through that alienating Muslims won’t give him much leverage with those states, so the whole idea is just a mess, and in the end no one knows, including himself, what he means. Good for slogans. Policy details, not so much.

      • “Some realists”

        Self defined???

      • Rob Starkey,

        “Realism” refers to a specific school of foreign policy thought in the United States.

        There is disagreement as to exaclty when the neocons pushed the realists away from the policy-making table in the United States.

        Greg Grandin, for instance, in Kissinger’s Shadow argues Kissinger, even though a self-described “realist,” was the god father of the neocons, with the Vietnam War being the neocons’ inaugural event.

        Others argue the neocons didn’t gain dominance in deciding US foreign policy until Bush II was elected.

        If you’re interested in learning more, you could start here:

        “Under a Empty Sky – Realism and Political Theory” in Bell (ed.), Political Thought and International Relations


        This is a critique of realism from the neocon point of view:

        Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Realism, and Just War Theory: A Critique

        And this is a critique of neoconservatism from one of the United States’ leading realists, John J. Mearsheimer:

        Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism

      • Trump has a long history of discussing issues with Trade, spending our treasure to protect other wealthy nations, and has long held the policy of non-interventionism.

      • Jim D,

        What do you know about Muslims? Do you have any qualification at all to evaluate how supposed Trump policies will alienate Muslims? And which Muslims?

    • The only trouble with that headline is that it is a lie. Trump never questioned the need for NATO. Listen to the interview. It’s the WAPO. Standard Democrat controlled media treatment of Republicans, period. Dishonest BS.

      • M0nf0rt is putting out the mistruth. That interview ended with a question to Trump: “Well, I guess the question is does the United States gain anything by having bases [in other countries]?”

        Trump replies: “In my personal opinion, no.”

        Holy criminal stupidity Batman! Weigh in on this one rodent. You went to war college, right? Does the US gain anything by having military bases in foreign countries?

      • Are you going to let this emotionally disturbed clown pollute another thread, Judith?

      • Calling me an emotionally disturbed clown is non-polluting of course.

        ROFLMAO @ U

      • Monfort evidently has no opinion on whether the US gains anything by having military bases in foreign countries. Instead of answering he calls me an emotionally disturbed clown for asking.

        Duly noted.



      • We were getting worried that you had got scared and run away, little man.

        You don’t understand geo-politics. Trump is positioning himself to deal with our “allies”. He never said he wants to do away with NATO. You, like the WaPo monkeys, are making crap up. He wants our “allies” to spend a little of their filthy lucre to defend themselves. If we are going to have bases in Germany, let them pay for it.

        Now, when are you coming to Detroit? Surely, after all that BS badgering about wanting to know my whereabouts and the implied threats, you aren’t going to CHICKEN TF OUT! Better get your brown pants out of the cleaners.

      • I’ve been wanting Europe to pony up its fair share of defense costs since you were sh*tting Gerber Baby Food, Donny. Trump is puffing. He won’t get crap done. He has to get congressional approval to wipe his ass in a foreign country. Congress loathes him like a majority of the rest of the nation. You really need to buy a few clues, son.

      • You threaten to have some thugs meet me in Detroit instead of you and then call ME the chicken?

        Does not compute. First rule of holes, Donny. You lost this round. Everyone knows it.

  2. Why do we still have troops in Germany? We give over Subic Bay in the Philippines, abandon Iraq, but we’re still in Japan and Korea? If they don’t want us there why should we pay for it and if they do why shouldn’t they pay for it? It’s time the Eurocommies either started paying their own way to prop up the Western world or roll over and die instead of trying to pick our next president again.

    • Reasonable to question if they are still worth the cost

    • Wagathon asks

      “Why do we still have troops in Germany? We give over Subic Bay in the Philippines, abandon Iraq, but we’re still in Japan and Korea?”

      I think most soldiers would rather be in Germany than Iraq. Why should soldiers be where you want them to be rather than where they want to be?

    • Where’s the Pacific fleet… Hamburg?

      • Looks like in hindsight, Admiral Richardson understood things better than the Democrat politicians:

        “Until May 1940, the Battle Fleet was stationed on the west coast of the United States (primarily at San Diego). During the summer of that year, as part of the U.S. response to Japanese expansionism, it was instructed to take an ‘advanced’ position at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Long term basing at Pearl Harbor was so strongly opposed by the commander, Admiral James O. Richardson, that he personally protested in Washington. Political considerations were thought sufficiently important that he was relieved by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, who was in command at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor.” ~wiki

    • When Obama wanted to cut the US military budget most of the ass clowns here had a cow. When Trump says the same thing they defend the idea. This is why you’re ass clowns and why your vote in primaries isn’t legally binding.

  3. David L. Hagen

    Nuclear Winter
    Trump: Fear nukes, not climate change

    Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says the world is more at risk from nuclear weapons than climate change. . . .
    “I am not a great believer in manmade climate change. I’m not a great believer,” Trump said. “There is certainly a change in weather that goes — if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using ‘extreme weather’ I guess more than any other phrase.

    Makes sense.

    • Wow. I had no idea Trump was so conversant on the subject.


      • Dump Trump Now,

        You wrote –

        “Wow. I had no idea Trump was so conversant on the subject.


        You have not included any comment after the /sarc flag. I wasn’t aware you were so ignorant about the scope of a candidate’s knowledge. What did you intend to be sarcastic about?

        Did you forget to write something?


      • David L. Hagen

        Dump TN Your ignorance of the destructive power of the atomic bomb and Nuclear Winter is far more amazing.

  4. I saw your Harry Potter poster, and I raise you with Grease!


  5. Thanks for the new thread, Judith. I will ignore the inconsequential maroons in an attempt to do my part to keep this one cleaner.

    • Ok, but i am busy deleting many of your comments from the previous thread

      • You let that one get out of hand, Judith.

      • Danny Thomas

        Nothing like individual responsibility. Unless one is suggesting a powerful entity of oversight is necessary?

      • I deleted many of your comments (only a few of Springer’s comments).

      • Some oversight is obviously necessary, danny. You seem to be trying to start something. Why don’t you control yourself. We want to keep this thread clean.

      • Danny Thomas

        There’s a difference between reminding of individual responsibility vs. foisting that responsibility on others, and ‘starting something’ Don. Your perception is off base. I’m in complete control of myself while chiding you and getting exactly the response expected.

        I think I asked you once why you feel the need to lash out. While I recognize politics is personal, if the discussion makes you uncomfortable participation is not a requirement.

        I think this is quite ‘clean’. The oversight begins with you.

      • Good for you, Judith. That should do wonders for Springer’s self-esteem. Has he emailed you to express his gratitude?

      • Thank you, danny. I am sure that was very useful. Anything else you want to get off your chest?

      • I actually quite enjoy reading the full and frank exchanges of opinion between Judith Curry’s pet Rottweilers (she may not appreciate that description).

        And sometimes, when I feel the need to be calmed-down, I actively go searching for comments by the boy Springer. That’s not intended as a slight or insult to the Don.

        When I feel the need to be made angry, I go looking for the Mosher.

      • Dr. Curry, I think you should have left the comment where Don Monfort talks about his background (perhaps you could have snipped offensive parts). He has a very interesting life story.

      • Did she actually cut that, Canman? And she left at least one of the demands from little emotionally disturbed davey that I tell him where he can find me, with the implied threats. Wow, Judith. You could use some help with you moderating. Maybe even some legal advice.

      • Sorry Judith and Don. I just searched for it (using “Detroit”) and it’s still there. I actually bookmark interesting comments and bookmarked yours, but I hit the wrong one. I do this for notes, in case I ever get around to writing The Canman’s Guide to the Climate Blogosphere. Let’s face it. Jerry Springer’s audience is missing out.

      • On second though, I don’t think I bookmarked the wrong comment. WordPress screws up the order of the links to comments when some are deleted. I’ve had it happen before.

      • I only want to know your 411 so I can expose you as a fraud, Monfort. All you had to do was ask why I wanted to know. Give me something to go on. What’s the name of one of these companies with you in the masthead. What city do you live in? What university did you attend. Nothing you’ve ever claimed about yourself is verifiable. Meanwhile “the military cook” as you like to call me has the nads to let everyone know who and where I am. You’re pathetic, Monfort. Craven. A total fraud.

      • You aren’t going to sue anyone, Donnie. You’d have to give up your anonymity to do that. Duh.

      • My comments aren’t going through.

        You are lying, little man. I asked you why you wanted to know my whereabouts. you obviously implied some kind of threat. Well, bring your silly little butt to Detroit. I’ll pay your fare and your little motel room. I don’t think you got the guts.

      • Let me get this straight. Your offer is to have me go to a fleabag motel somewhere in Detroit after you’ve already told me you’ll have some thugs you know waiting there for me. And I’m a chicken if I don’t. Sounds great. Send me the plane ticket. Please make it refundable.

    • Yeah, I was sort of ready for a cage match between you and Springer.

      • Don’t agitate, jimmy. We want to keep this thread clean.

      • The Lone Ranger and his trusty sidekick Tonto were atop a ridge. They were surrounded by hostile indians ready to attack them. The Lone Ranger says “It looks like we can’t escape this time, Tonto. We’re goners.” Tonto replies “What’s this ‘we’ sh*t, paleface?”

      • Are you going to let this emotionally disturbed clown pollute another thread, Judith?

      • Second time Monty calls me an emotionally disturbed clown who is polluting the thread. Calling someone an “emotionally disturbed clown” is civil non-provocative discourse in some warped mode of thinking I suppose. Maybe Professor Curry can figure it out or perhaps ask someone she knows in the abnormal psyche dept at Georgia Tech about what kind of mental defects might account for it.

      • You are obviously emotionally disturbed. Posting pictures of yourself posing with the neighbors dogs trying to intimidate some joker you had a beef with on some freaking obscure blog. You need help, little dude. I am just the man to give it to you. Meet me in Detroit and I’ll see that you get some assistance.

      • That guy was calling the family phone number leaving messages on the machine that were being picked up by others. A real scumbag. Thanks for asking. I told him if he showed up at the door I’d let the dogs loose on him. He never showed. First and last time in 25 years of blogging that anyone called or even emailed me.

        If Judith Curry has the guts to do what she does then I’d be a spineless tool in comparison if I tried to hide who I was. You go ahead and keep being that spineless tool, Donny and let a girl show you what real courage looks like.

  6. This is a very plausible analysis of where the Republican primary race stands. From 3-16, but last nights results fall in line:


    • Hmm isn’t John 3:16 the Bible verse seen on signs in the endzones of football games? Does the Republic have a prayer of survival? ;-)

    • Before Tuesday, Trump needed about 53% of the available delegates for the 1237 target. Now he needs 52%. Hard to tell if he makes it or not at this point, but if he doesn’t, his chances of winning in a contested convention are slim to none since 60% of the people there don’t want him. So far the RNC have not ruled out adding new nominations for a contest, and they can make up rules that suit their needs prior to the voting. Even if he wins, 30% of Republican voters would prefer a third candidate.

      • Who are the alternatives to Trump, yimmy? How many Republicans want Cruz, or Kasich, or that loser Romney? How about that loser Paul Ryan? Do you think that anyone who didn’t even have the guts to run the race should be declared the winner by some pezzonovante?

        Trump will go into the convention in the lead after a long campaign with a minimum of 1160 delegates and a lot more votes than the also-ran in second place. Trump will be the nominee and whatever the number of dimwitted Republicans who refuse to back him in the general election will be more than made up for by the additional folks that Trump is bringing in from the sidelines, independents and disaffected Democrats.

      • He has 37% of the Republican popular vote, and almost all of that other 63% is dead-set against him. His grandiose view of his support is just another of his self-deceptions.

      • Your crowd is very afraid of The Donald, yimmy. Already in a panic. That’s all I have for you. You are a broken record. Very boring. Tedious in the extreme.

      • The Trumpsters are very special. I feel sorry for them resting their hopes on someone who doesn’t actually know anything (including where the current President was born).

      • David Wojick

        Preferring somebody to Trump for the nomination is very different from preferring Clinton to Trump in the election. Almost all Republicans will vote for Trump if he is nominated, so the fact that say 67% would prefer another nominee is irrelevant. So will a lot of Independents, because of his independence. This is how he can win.

      • Half the Republicans think Obama was not born in the US and half think he is a Muslim. These people are allowed to vote and this is Trump’s base. They think he “tells it like it is”, which means he plays to their misguided beliefs. Thankfully most of the US (75%) sees it like it really is, and don’t want a candidate who doesn’t.

      • David Wojick

        Jim D, as usual I do not see how you have responded to my point. Are you predicting that half the Republicans plus all the Independents and Democrats will vote for Clinton if Trump runs?

      • No, a lot of Republicans will stay at home and wish they had a third choice, because they can’t conceive of such a person as President.

      • David –

        Almost all Republicans will vote for Trump if he is nominated,

        Almosr all?

        Do you have any evidence in how many Republicans who typically vite for the Republican nominee will vote for Trump?


        Quite a few prominent Republicans have said they will not vote for Trump and polls show his unfavorable ratings to be historically high for a nominee.

      • @Wojick

        No almost all Republicans won’t. Not a single one that I’ve talked to in fact including myself. I voted Libertarian in 2012 because I didn’t like Romney. I like Romney a lot more than Trump so I’m sure as hell not going to hold my nose to vote for Trump. Hillary is going to win if Trump is the republican candidate. Bank on it.

      • The problem the RNC faces isn’t POTUS. The problem is that the RNC has a hard won majority in the Senate, the House, and a frickin’ huge majority of US governors (31 Republican, 18 Democrat). Trump being the standard bearer for the Republicans makes it unlikely the Senate will remain a Republican majority, the House will be in danger of flipping, and we’ll lose important state governors too.

        There is no way in hell mollifying a bunch of inbred angry rednecks that never bothered to vote in a Republican primary before being conned by Trump will be allowed to endanger what took so many election cycles to accomplish. POTUS just isn’t that important to win in trade for losing so much else. Rodents don’t understand this. Smart people do.

      • Nor is he a crossover candidate. He is at -27 in favorability among Independents, worse than any other candidate, and -70 among Democrats.

      • I agree with Don. Jim D, like many others, is protesting too much. An indication they are indulging more in wishful hoping than in reasoned analysis.

      • Springer,

        If Republicans refuse to vote and hand the election to Clinton, then they / we deserve what we get. I ignore all the name calling between you and Monfort. I think you are both smart guys. So why does an intelligent person think it a good idea to cut off their nose to spite their face? Your points are valid for working to nominate a candidate other the Trump. But you might as well toss them in the toilet when you get to the general election and he’s the candidate.

        To extend that analogy, the uncertainty of a Trump Presidency is along the lines of facing bouts of diarrhea and constipation from time to time, while Hillary as President is volunteering to have Crone’s Disease.

      • “So why does an intelligent person think it a good idea to cut off their nose to spite their face?”

        Integrity. Google it.

      • ” Integrity”
        More like a 2 year old not getting their way.

        While I thought Romney was above his current antics, he’d still be 100 times better than Obama as President.
        And any marginally sane person has to vote against any of the Democratic nominees for President.

      • David Wojick

        Dump, if you voted libertarian in 2012 then you are an Independent, not a Republican. Are you really going to vote for Clinton? That you despise us rednecks is also telling. We can win without you.

      • Both Clinton and Trump have extremely high negatives.

        To say that Trump is the only one with this problem is a distortion.


        Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton viewed unfavorably by majority – CBS/NYT poll


      • Danny Thomas

        Looking at the questionaire, looks like independents are the difference makers.

        Highest level of ‘scared’ is Trump at 50% with Hillary 2nd at 35%. Kasich seems to lead to least scared/concerned.

        Interesting survey. Thanks for the link.

      • Clinton’s negatives are not as high as Trump’s, and I expect especially less than Trump’s number among Independents.

      • ==> “To say that Trump is the only one with this problem is a distortion.”

        We were discussing David’s assertion about how many Republicans are going to vote for Trump in the general. Trump’s unfavorable rating is what is most directly relevant in that regard.

      • I prefer Kasich. But I’m used to candidates I don’t like.

      • Sorry Springer, but

        1) you have no monopoly on integrity


        2) it’s still doing something st00pid out of spite. Trying to mask it with the gauze of “integrity” doesn’t change that, even if it makes you feel better.

        So, how about an intelligent response? How is Trump a worse outcome than Hillary?

      • Don Monfort | March 23, 2016 at 12:12 pm |

        “Who are the alternatives to Trump”

        Let me start the list by volunteering Pee Wee Herman. At least he doesn’t go postal when someone says he’s got tiny hands.

      • David Wojick | March 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm |

        “Dump, if you voted libertarian in 2012 then you are an Independent, not a Republican.”

        That’s not your call, David. We each self-identify as to political party.

        “Are you really going to vote for Clinton?”

        No. I’d vote Libertarian again to send a message.

        “That you despise us rednecks is also telling.”

        Great. I’m glad you can tell *something* for a change. What did it tell you? If it told you that I have no tolerance for ignorant white bigots then you hit the nail on the head. Being of the same race and living in Texas it makes ME look bad. Guilt by association.

        ” We can win without you.”

        Would you care to put your money where your mouth is on that?

      • Hey, Wojick: Tell the emotionally disturbed little rascal to put his mouth in Detroit, where my money is. I’m paying for his trip.

      • micro6500 | March 23, 2016 at 8:05 pm |
        ” Integrity”
        More like a 2 year old not getting their way.


        Really. If I vote Libertarian because I agree with that candidate more than any other it’s childish. What a two year old does.

        Very interesting.

        And adults in your definition vote for candidates they find disagreeable because why?

        My guess:


      • Dump the emotionally disturbed cowards.

  7. Don Montfort – nice link.
    I like the “What if” slider.
    If things run along the way they are going, Trump gets over the magic number and wins outright.
    If Cruz takes 70% of the remaining delegates, and Trump and Kasich each take 15%, even then Cruz barely does not get an outright win. This scenario is unlikely unless something really crazy happens.

    • The party is just paying lip service to the 50% delegate hurdle hoping they won’t have to go so far as taking out Trump coming in with a bare majority. There is no law that requires a private political party to nominate anyone in particular. Riots from the Trump ignorati? Bring it on. Who cares? Rubber bullets and tear gas are cheap enough. It’ll make for great theater.

      • It will make for a great voting-out of Congress is what it will make for.

      • Destroying the Republican Party is probably the single best reason to support Trump.

      • There ya go. Opluso nailed it. That’s what the Democrats want. Destroy the only party with the organization and infrastructure to beat them. Gone are the peskly Republican majorities in both houses of congress. Gone is the 31:18 Republican majority in state Governors. A political system with only one major party and a few others that can barely get on a few state ballots like the Green and Libertarian parties just to make it look open to all. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket. Trump probably already made a deal to do just that which makes it a win-win situation for him personally. If he wins then he’s president and if he loses the Democrats will be beholden to him and heirs for generations for destroying the only competition they have.

      • And you are an emotionally disturbed little runt.

  8. Looking at things from this side of the pond, none of the candidates, including those that have dropped out of the race are suitable. I feel that there is something seriously wrong with the US presidential electoral system. And the role has far to much power, it should be repatriated to the individual states.

    • Danny Thomas

      Rob Johnson-taylor,

      Perspective from ‘over there’ is of interest. The challenge comes when enumerating which powers are repatriated. Each (the states and the fed) have created and each have resolved certain issues.

      • Curious George

        I agree with Rob. The two-party electoral system should be replaced with a lottery system.

    • Do you have someone you could send over here who could do better, Rob?

      • There is a restriction on being USA born. We could send you Boris Johnson (not related). Not sure how good it would be but it would never be dull. And unlike most politicians, in the UK at least, he is rather clever whilst he likes acting the buffoon.

      • Send us Boris, Rob. They could use an actual Mayor, in NYC. DeBlasio’s claim to fame so far is that random slashings that are terrifying the City have become epidemic because his so-called administration is getting tougher on guns.

    • Yes, Rob, a King or Queen would be much better for the US. Don’t you agree?

    • Rob Johnson-taylor,

      When it comes to the executive, I don’t think you guys on the other side of the pond have much to crow about either.

      Beginning with Margaret Thatcher, it’s been down hill all the way, with each successive prime minister worse than the one who came before. Thatcher was our Richard Nixon.

      And it wasn’t Cameron who helped save the US from plunging into another Vietnam-Afghanistan-Iraq style quagmire in Syria, but the UK’s legislative branch.

      Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action



      And in a stunning development, on Thursday, August 29, the British Parliament denied David Cameron its blessing for an attack. John Kerry later told me that when he heard that, “internally, I went, Oops.”….

      Not long ago, I asked Obama to describe his thinking on that day. He listed the practical worries that had preoccupied him. “We had UN inspectors on the ground who were completing their work, and we could not risk taking a shot while they were there. A second major factor was the failure of Cameron to obtain the consent of his parliament.”


      Hillary Clinton, the neocon from hell, blasted Obama for not bombing Syria:

      “Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS”

      The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama’s: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”


      • Problems started long before Mrs Thatcher. I’m trying to think how far back I have to go. Hmm Balfore or Disraeli possibly. not sure

      • Rob Johnson-taylor,

        Maybe the problems started in 1851 when Queen Victoria, after visiting the Crystal Palace Exposition in London, confided in her diary:

        We are capable of doing anything.

        It was a real Icarian moment:


        — From Aaron L. Friedberg, The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895-1905

    • Considering how totally screwed-up the EU and component countries are, I think I’ll keep my messy election and politicians. I think Trump can ace any politician in Europe when it comes to leadership and effective action.

    • I like Kasich. He’s better than the other candidates. Vote for him and you’ll do fine.

  9. We need a President to undo the damage from our failure to heed Eisenhower’s warning in his farewell address: Federal research funds may be abused by:
    _ a.) An industrial-military complex, or by
    _ b.) An elitist scientific community to take control of US policy

  10. Why Either Trump’s and Cruz’s Tax Plans Would Be the Largest Redistributions to the Rich in American History

    Reich says Trump and Cruz are “seeking exactly what that Republican establishment wants.”

    But to be honest, Trump and Cruz (and this is true only if Reich’s assessment of what Trump is seeking is correct) are seeking not only exactly what the Republican estabishment wants, but exactly what the Democratic establishment wants too.

    The Democratic Party establishment threw people who have to work for a living under the bus a long time ago, preferring instead to focus solely on identity politics.

    The undoing of the U.S. working class and the lower rungs of the middle class has been a bipartisan affair, and could have never have happened without the complicity of the Democratic Party.

    1. Trump’s proposed cut would reduce the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent – creating a giant windfall for the wealthy (at a time when the wealthy have a larger portion of the nation’s wealth than any time since 1918). According to the Center for Tax Policy, the richest one tenth of one percent of taxpayers (those with incomes over $3.7 million) would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million each every year. Middle-income households would get an average tax cut of $2,700.

    2. The Cruz plan would abandon our century-old progressive income tax (whose rates increase as taxpayers’ incomes increase) and instead tax the amount people spend in a year and exclude income from investments. This sort of system would burden lower-income workers who spend almost everything they earn and have few if any investments.

    3. Cruz also proposes a 10 percent flat tax. A flat tax lowers tax rates on the rich and increases taxes for lower-income workers.

    4. The Republican plans also repeal estate and gift taxes – now paid almost entirely by the very wealthy who make big gifts to their heirs and leave them big estates.

    5. These plans would cut federal revenues by as much as $12 trillion over the decade – but neither Trump nor Cruz has said what they’ll do to fill this hole. They both want to increase the military. Which leaves them only two choices: Either explode the national debt, or cut Social Security, Medicare, and assistance to the poor.

    Bottom line: If either of these men is elected president, we could see the largest redistribution in American history from the poor and middle-class of America to the rich. This is class warfare with a vengeance.


    • Danny Thomas


      It’s kind of interesting when those who are already ‘the wealthy’ voluntarily suggest they pay higher taxes: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/40-millionaires-ask-new-york-raise-taxes-wealthy-1-percent-plan-fairness

      But I guess they can do so w/o it being a requirement.

      • Maybe they’re clairvoyant enough to not want to see one of these in their or their children’s future?


        As Charles Dickens, who certainly was no friend to the lower orders of society, but was nevertheless a realist, wrote in A Tale of Two Cities:

        It was too much the way…to talk of this terrible Revolution as if it were the one only harvest ever known under the skies that had not been sown — as if nothing had ever been done, or omitted to be done, that had led to it — as if observers of the wretched millions in France, and of the misused and perverted resources that should have made them prosperous, had not seen it inevitably coming, years before, and had not in plain words recorded what they saw.

        And again:

        All the devouring and insatiate Monsters imagined since imagination could record itself, are fused in the one realisation, Guillotine. And yet there is not in France, with its rich variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf, a root, a sprig, a peppercorn, which will grow to maturity under conditions more certain than those that have produced this horror. Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar circumstances, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms.

      • Glenn

        Charles Dickens no friend to the lower orders of society?

        He was deeply concerned about social inequalities, wrote about them frequently, lobbied the great and the good and was instrumental in bringing in social reforms



      • climatereason,

        George Orwell thought differently.

        Orwell describes Dickens as being more of a fan of noblesse oblige, or what the Romans called mos maiorum or virtus, than an advocate of the oppressed advocating for their own interests.

        His “whole moral,” Orwell says, “is that capitalists ought to be kind, not that workers ought to be rebellious.”

        If, he says, you behave as the French aristocrats behaved, vengeance will follow….

        Dickens sees clearly enough that the French Revolution was bound to happen and that many of the people who were executed deserved what they got.

        In his essay “Charles Dickens” Orwell writes of Dickens:

        As ususal, he displays no consciousness that the structure of society can be changed. He despises politics, does not believe that any good can come of Parliament…, and he is slightly hostile to the most hopeful movement of his day, trade unionism….

        Revolution as he sees it is merely a monster that is begotten by tyranny and always ends by devouring its own instruments.

        Later Orwell notes that:

        It seems that in every attack Dickens makes upon society he is always pointing to a change of spirit rather than a change of structure. It is hopeless to try and pin him down to any definite remedy, still more to any political doctrine.

        His approach is always along the moral plane….

        The central problem — how to prevent power from being abused — remains unsolved.

        But despite his shortcomings as a political strategist, Orwell gives Dickens top grades when it comes to morality:

        Roughly speaking, his morality is the Christian morality….

        All through the Christian ages, and especially since the French Revolution, the Western world has been haunted by the idea of freedom and equality; it is only an idea, but it has penetrated to all ranks of society.

        The most atrocious injustices, cruelties, lies, snobberies exist everywhere, but there are not many people who can regard these things with the same indifference as, say, a Roman slaveowner. Even the millionaire suffers from a vague sense of guilt, like a dog eating a stolen leg of mutton….

        Dickens voiced a code which was and on the whole still is believed in, even by the people who violate it. It is difficult otherwise to explain why he could be both read by working people (a thing that has happened to no other novelist of his stature) and buried in Westminster Abbey.

    • “But to be honest, Trump and Cruz (and this is true only if Reich’s assessment of what Trump is seeking is correct) are seeking not only exactly what the Republican establishment” wants, but exactly what the Democratic establishment wants too.”

      It is a ridiculous argument to say that Democratic plans are anything like the Republican plans.

      Hillary and especially Bernie would raise overall taxes mainly on the richer segment. The Republicans would cut taxes so much that the deficit would grow astronomically.

      All of the Republican plans are for massive tax cuts with nothing but voodoo economics to pay for them.

      We can’t fund the Republican tax cuts by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse; eliminating the EPA and some other departments, or eliminating foreign aid. We are not going to achieve a growth rate of a developing country just by the magic of cutting taxes.

      The end result of the Republican plans will either be massive deficits and/or complete elimination of most of what the government does for “the people who have to work for a living” .The bulk of entitlement benefits go to the middle class and/or the elderly.


      • Jim

        Hillary has a tax plan that is chump change. $100 Billion per year. That is less than the annual inflation cost for the $3 Trillion Democratically inspired Social Program budget which has increased by $2 Trillion per year since 2000. Why don’t you ask her how she is going to address the $615 Billion deficit first before she adds more spending.

        Bernie has a massive tax increase, much of it involving increases on the lower and middle classes through increases in the Payroll taxes. Surprised? Of course, no one wants to talk about that. Not do they want to talk about the estimated loss of 6 million jobs that some analyses have shown,

      • As Sanders has said many times, the payroll tax increase is less than the amount saved by no longer having any healthcare insurance payments. It is a net gain for the less well paid. Think of it like Medicare, except now instead of paying for some future after-retirement healthcare, you also pay for all your current healthcare via the same system. You no longer make the artificial separation of retired and non-retired people within the medical paying-in system. It’s for your own health, now and future.

      • What’s Trump’s plan, the US files for Chapter 11 reorganization then rename it and sell it to the highest bidder?

    • I see Robert RRRReich has a little bit of cartooning skill. His YouTube channel is called Inequality Media. I think economic equality is the world’s most overrated concept. Are we worse off because Steve Jobs creating the iphone and George Mitchell perfecting fracking helps pad the dollar percentage held by the 1%? The real benefit and wealth are acquired by the masses who now have an affordable all purpose entertainment center they can carry around and cheaper energy bills.

    • Curious George

      Why Either Trump’s and Cruz’s Tax Plans Would Be the Largest Redistributions to the Rich in American History? Too late for that; the richest 1% already own 99% of wealth – or am I wrong?

    • Glen
      Without weighing in on these proposals, I want to focus on the mantra of the Left, including Reich, who incessantly rant about the income inequality created by Reagan with his tax cuts for the rich and then how all was wonderful when Clinton increased taxes. The facts don’t support that popular view. In a previous post I spoke about the “effective tax rate” vs the “top marginal tax rate.” The effective rate is the % of the Adjusted Gross Income paid in taxes. Here is how the effective tax rates for the rich were under Reagan and then under Clinton.

      In 1987, the seventh year of Reagan’s 2 terms the effective rate for those making over $1M was 28.7%. In 2000, the eighth year of Clinton’s 2 terms and 7 years after his tax increases, the effective rate for those making over $1M was 27.7%. That is 1% less than under Reagan after having increased taxes.

      In the same years, 1987 and 2000, for those making over $200,000 the effective rate under Reagan was 27.8% and under Clinton 26.4%.

      The effective rate in 1988 went down to 25.1% and 24.5 %respectively, less than but not by much, under Clinton’s last year. But how did the income inequality explode in just one year, when the previous 7 years the effective rates were more under Reagan than they were under Clinton? In 1986, the tax law changed for S Corporations and much of the taxes paid by individuals in the Corporate Tax System were switched to the Individual Tax system and who knows how the individuals fared under both systems as that transfer took place in 1987 and 1988 and beyond.

      That buttresses my previous argument that there were many other factors at work regarding the long term income inequality trend that began decades ago. Taxes were just one of the factors. and I submit a minor one.

      I hope my Liberal Brethren will think about the effective tax rates under Reagan and Clinton. because it goes against all the propaganda they have heard for the last 20 years. I hope they also remember the number of tax filers making more than $1 M went from 66,000 in 1992 to 240,000 in 2000. In the best use of Climate Change inductive reasoning, it is clear when one increases taxes on the rich, income inequality goes up.

      • In 2000, the eighth year of Clinton’s 2 terms and 7 years after his tax increases, the effective rate for those making over $1M was 27.7%. That is 1% less than under Reagan after having increased taxes.

        This is low, it was ~33%.

      • Max

        Since I was looking at the actual IRS archives in the report from the IRS using the IRS spreadsheet on the IRS website, I think I have the only authoritative source. You are welcome to your own world.

      • Hi Cisco,

        I don’t know why you are addressing me, but thanks for thinking of me.

      • Lol, I don’t either. Except I saw an m and it sounded like something you would say. These phone screens are not the biggest thing to read from.

        So I guess micro needs to cough up his source. What ever source it is doesn’t trump the IRS.

      • So I guess micro needs to cough up his source.

        I’m going by my taxes. So maybe that’s what the IRS says is their average, but I paid near, maybe a bit over 33% in 2000.

      • Taxes are going to all go to debt.
        According to the New York Times, OECD countries have $78 Trillion (with a T) in unfunded pension obligations. Twice the national debt of the 20 OECD countries.
        Your children and grandchildren are going to spend their entire lives paying for the “generosity” of left-wing European and American baby boomers. Not in taxes- this level of debt simply can’t and won’t be paid – but they will pay in terms of economic collapse. But, hey, at least the emissions will drop.


      • The statistics clearly show that increases in economic inequality have increased more during Democratic Presidencies than I Republican ones.

        So I find it humorous – in a lying, dishonest sort of way – when Democrats regularly raise this issue. Guess they are confident that most of the dumba$$ voters who are their target audience won’t bother to fact check.

      • When national wealth goes up, as it tends to during Democratic administrations, the wealthy get more of the share. How can that be solved?

      • Jim D

        The first thing to do is to increase the number of Full TIme Jobs. Under Reagan and Clinton Full Time Jobs increased by 16%. In the last 8 years, Full Time Jobs increased by only 1%. That would be a start.
        In spite of what Trump says about forcing employers to bring back jobs to the US, he is not going to hold a .38 magnum to their head to do it. Do what you have to do in any capitalist economy, create proper incentives so that the actors will make the right decisions that are in their own best interest. The tax code is a mess and Congress did the right things in 1986 to reward investment and savings and increasing productivity. Trump could get the political players in a room and show leadership by threatening to go over their heads to the voters and working against their reelection, unless they enact legislation that creates incentives for business to bring jobs back to the US and to invest in growth of all businesses here.

        The amount of taxes paid by those making over $500,000 (about the 1%) could be doubled. That would bring in $430 Billion each year. The effective rate then would be higher than it was in the 1950s and 1960s for the 91%ers. But since the deficit is $615 Billion, that does not help much for income redistribution. The total Adjusted Gross Income of all tax filers is $9.2 Trillion. There needs to be much more help to make things equal than through the taxing the rich.

        We could bring down the incomes of the rich. Eliminating TV and the Internet could do a terrific jobs of leveling the playing field. Judge Judy would no longer make $47 million a year and Tiger Woods no longer would be worth $500 Million. Without TV, the baseball players could start out again at $5,000 per year and pro golfers could have pay checks of $33.33 like Jack Nicklaus did in his first tournament. The income inequality has been affected by no small amount from just increasing markets to billions from TV and the Internet. All celebrities have benefited from the increase in eyeballs watching them perform.

        The Bern wants to increase Corporate Taxes share of all Federal Taxes. He rightly points out that the Corporate Taxes share of total Taxes has gone down from 30% in 1953 to 10% today. What he does not say is that in 1953 Corporations paid about $3.5 billion in Payroll Taxes. Today they pay a large share of $500 Billion. He also does not mention that many employers were part of the Corporate Tax Code then and their taxes were counted in that 30% and now they are within the Individual Income Tax Code with their taxes showing up elsewhere. Those two factors could have the actual share of taxes paid by Corporations much closer to what it was 60 years ago.

        But why bother a Socialist with details.

      • Jim D,

        “When national wealth goes up, as it tends to during Democratic administrations, the wealthy get more of the share. How can that be solved?”

        I’m tempted to start out by asking exactly what is the problem you think needs a solution. My next thought is to take the time to explain why the wealthy get a bigger share. But I suspect I’d be wasting my time.

        I need to hunt down the internet parable about the 10 buddies who get together every Friday night for beers. If that doesn’t explain why your question is not really relevant to income inequality, nothing will.

    • Overlooking the major point that when you earn that sort of money there are so many ways to shield your income from the tax man they never pay these taxes. Fla tax rates with no exemptions raise more revenue, simply because the government is no longer trying to control your expenditure, by giving exemptions on tax for things a government wants you to spend money on.
      The second point is giving money you have earned to someone else to spend is one of the worst ways to spend money. This due to the fact the person spending the money has no connection to the individual earning it, and becomes more careless in its use. Wealthy individuals will often spend quite large quantities of money on social projects they have interest precisely because they can more clearly identify how it is being spent, and the project spends money more wisely because they know funding can be lost if they don’t.

  11. Danny Thomas

    Another area of confusion. Unions.

    Sanctioning a union.
    “To your second question, we understand the importance of a law enforcement union. It’s the only voice for the agents. It’s the only voice to learn the truth. It’s the only way to know what’s really happening. It’s the only way agents can protect themselves from political appointees and special interests.”

    Then here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/business/donald-trump-unions.html

    Finally at his own property: “In fact, the nearby Las Vegas strip and downtown area have a roughly 95 percent union density. ”

  12. We should keep in mind that this is a competition for delegates.

    it’s not an election
    it’s a suggestion

  13. Challenge your assumptions.

    Take the I Side With quiz, and be sure to weight your key issues, then see which candidate agrees with you ( rather than the other way round ).

    I was surprised not so much by the top candidates, but by the order of others.

    • same here. libertarians and cruz trump

      • Danny Thomas

        Socially liberal, check. Individual rights and responsibilities, Check. Fiscally more a moderate/conservative than conservative (public vs. private I guess) the biggest surprise. Middle libertarian, check. Furthest from Ted Cruz, check.

        Of note, this does state Trump is a Republican and I’m not so sure that’s correct.

        Okay. Now the hard part. Where in this race do I find a libertarian socially liberal fiscal moderate/conservative?

      • stevenreincarnated

        A libertarian shouldn’t be surprised that they score high with conservative politicians at this point in time. You don’t have to agree with an opinion to believe the person has the right to that opinion and it is conservative opinions that are mostly under fire these days.

      • The 3 percentage points between Cruz and Trump on my matches are within the margin of error.

      • I’m all over the map but Cruz came out on top, followed by Trump, then two libertarians followed by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton dead last.

        Problem is I don’t trust Trump and think his ham fisted approach will do more harm than good and his supreme leadership role in negative opinions will cost conservatives the Senate, diminish the House majority, and lessen the huge lead in Republican governors. I’d rather Hillary were POTUS and we keep our majorities elsewhere which neutralizes what Hillary can do. Gridlock is a good thing. My greatest fear is Hillary AND democratic majorities in congress.

      • Almost dead in the center of the politcal map. A centrist. It’s not on the main chart but the more detailed breakdown lists Rick Perry as my number 4.

        The map of where voters side with me most is Congressional District 31 in Texas the border of which is about 5 miles away from I live as the crow flies. That’s impressive if they didn’t use a geo-location service but I suspect they must have.

      • Springer,

        Looks like a lot of similarity in opinions between us. And thanks for answering the question I posed above. I think they are extremely valid concerns. (But then I have many of them myself.) Perhaps my dislike and personal aversion to Hillary is contaminating my decision process. I don’t know. Right now I know who I would choose, and my hope would rest on a realization coming on the part of Trump, once he achieves the goal of becoming President.

        Besides, if I had to choose between a President who others find insulting and one who constantly feels the need to bow and apologize, it’s no contest.

      • Springer,

        As a resident of Texas, how would you rate Perry’s potential as a President?

        An individual’s prior performance means more to me than how they do in a debate. One reason I believe governors tend to be better candidates. Perry, were he running, would rank up with Kasich and Christie for me.

      • Danny Thomas

        Depends what you want in a prez: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/is-rick-perry-dumb-062214?o=4

      • That is the captain obvious moment of this thread. Will the voter by what they are selling.

        Is Trump’s ability to adjust quickly giving him an advantage?

      • Danny Thomas


        Oh! Do I get a tight fitting shirt with an emblem? :)
        Seriously, did you read the article. Perry too (like Trump) is a great salesman. Reactive, reads after the fact, but not a forward thinker.
        Not saying he’s a bad politician and he graduated from Texas A&M. Worked his way up from Ag. commission (actually a sorta big deal in Texas, has degree in animal science) and kept the Gov’s office for a long time.
        But I think Trump is more analytic, Perry more passive (formerly a Democrat by the by), and neither suited for the job.
        Trump being a sales guy, senses objections, parry’s (not Perry’s) to overcome said objection, works to close ‘the deal’, and look how often he repeats things in 2/3’s. Magik in the sales world. It’s advantageous to be able to tell folks that which they wish to hear vs. giving them good counsel and selling them that that’s the best approach.

        Lawyers vs. salespeople.

      • I did my required reading danny. Personally I found that Perry had a pleasing look but was stiff when under attack. I don’t think he’s murder boarded very well. If he was he bee more relaxed under fire.

        I agree re salesman comcept. I don’t begrudge politicians as salesmen. It just is what it is.

        What really is unique in Trump’s shtick is that he doesn’t need other people’s money. That’s a big deal in a population that is succinctly aware of a bought for government. They know their politicians pander to those who pay.

        Incidently, Trump has already won as businessman. In 6 months time he has elevated the recognition of his brand beyond anything he has had in the past. He’ll reap profit from his 10M that he invested so far.

      • Trump only proves that you don’t need other people’s money if you are rich enough to buy the Presidency for yourself. I am not sure that is a good lesson either.

      • He’s been out spent by ALOT in the last accounting I saw. If he was buying the election he’d be spending more no ?

        He’s not using his money to buy off an electorate. He’s using it to demonstrate that he cannot be bought by special interest and therefore is more likey to listen to the voting public.

        It’s very appealing to people who have become used to special interest money determining political positions. It’s gotten so comical that all you have to do is check publically available sources to see who is giving the most money to a politico and them track what they promote and use their vote for.

      • A mere millionaire would not have had enough money to get beyond Iowa. Renting speaking venues must be expensive, or do his supporters pay an entry fee to cover it? However, he figured out how to get free air time.

      • He’s really got his opponent flummoxed. Attacks on his create new voters. There is SO much good attackable material in his twitter posts and they don’t touch it. Are they saving it for later … doubt it.

        His opponents can’t figure out how to knock him down a peg or two. He has seized the moral high ground that the voters have identified for him.

        Btw, you ain’t seen nothing yet concerning free media. Trump tweets on average 30 times a day. Those tweets immediately get picked up my the news cycle in real time AND he adds to the zesty froth by interactively talking to people.

        NOBODY comes close to doing this. It’s a massive advantage. His son has become his wingman and is creating his own following. I’m sure he’ll expand the concept even more.

      • He’s sure bringing the level of dialog down to his level. Now he even has Cruz calling him a sniveling coward. I wouldn’t be surprised if they come to blows next time they are near each other, because that is the direction it is going. Presidential, not. His ratings against Clinton, declining. Dislike factor, rising. He has lost the plot with the wife-bashing.

      • Danny Thomas

        I get such a kick outta this whole self financed so no special interest topic. Should Trump prevail, he still has to work with everyone else unless some suggest he rule by fiat and using Executive order (but this is unliked). Well where do the ‘everyone else’s’ get their money? Not Trump, so he’ll have no influence and is diligently irritating them in the process. Assuming special interest influence will have no effect is not looking far enough down the line.

        And yes, Trump is reasonably successful, but if we’d had the same ‘leg up’ as he: http://investorplace.com/2015/09/donald-trump-vs-vanguard-500-index-vfinx/#.VvVLhvkrKM8

        “Co­in­cid­ent­ally, there was a self-made busi­ness­man who was also worth about $40 million in 1974: War­ren Buf­fett. Had Trump al­lowed Buf­fett to man­age his for­tune, too, Trump might also be worth what Buf­fett is today: about $67 bil­lion — or about 22 times bet­ter than what the stock mar­ket would have pro­duced.”

        Warren Buffett for Prez?

      • Danny

        My comment had nothing to do with his inheritance, so I see no relevance.

        His fiscal independence from special interest money is so appealing to people that they don’t care if he can/can’t work with them. The primaries are demonstrating that voters are willing to deal with the consequences of the angry rent seekers. They are so unhappy with the status quo that they are willing to shake it up.

        It is a rare moment in recent political history.

      • Danny Thomas

        While I understand this perspective:” His fiscal independence from special interest money is so appealing to people that they don’t care if he can/can’t work with them.” I just don’t see it. While he personally may not (at this time) be beholding, this does not mean those with whom he must work (Congress) isn’t. He will be in need of their votes to get things passed assuming a change of heart occurs and with his alienation of so many I’m not sure it will. And even if that change does happen, special interests will still have influence.

        Maybe I’m just skeptical of much change. Once in office, how much do the voters matter?

      • You should be skeptical. Buyer beware. My perspective is an observation. First tier representative attempts at governance are obviously stuck in the quid pro quo mode. It’s not working for those who can’t come up with the quid. Most people who live in first tier nations want the freedom to earn an honest wage with some assurance that they are safe. Once that dwindles among the masses, the masses become fertile soil for a populist who promises to restore it.

        None of Trump’s appeal should be a surprise.

      • Danny Thomas

        Frankly, were Trump to be elected, I’d love to see him fulfill the shoes he’s attempting to create. Via the “Isidewith” interactive he & I (or I & he) were a better than 50% match. Lower than the top 4 (one of whom I have no knowledge of interestingly), but higher than I would have expected.
        I truly appreciate the perspective of his not being beholding due to self finance but fear it’s a simplistic analysis of the realities of politics in the big D.C. Sometimes a good ‘gut’ observation is just the ticket. One of ours is obviously a bit skewed.
        Special interest money has come to take place of the individual wishes and lacking modification of the stance of the SCOTUS will only get worse. I appreciate Trumps public thumbing of his nose, but doubt the realities will change.
        Were Trump less of an egotistical bullying populist we might match better. But his lack of substance and variation depending on the whims of the wind leave me underimpressed. Having said that, I respect your choice as well as they way you present it.

      • Thanks Danny

        In the end, the voters will decide and mine is but a grain of sand on the beach. I do think these are exciting times because you can feel the emotional fervor.

        Terror scares people and the economy worries them. What Trump wants will be FAR less important than the economic times or safety threat that he has to handle.

        The circumstances of actions that have a life of their own will define the next 8 years. I personally find it better to observe how a leader handles crisis than how he handles his plan. I’m still watching to see how the candidates handle duress.

      • https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

        Trump is raising and spending the least of the front runners with little outside help, he is just plain thrifty. Only Bernie Sanders would be less owned by outside interests. Further – Bernie is almost as effective a fundraiser as Hillary.


        Gee. Hillary has 4 times the “burn” rate of Trump, 6 times if you include outside interests, and Bernie has a high burn rate as well.

        This doesn’t bode well for the general election. Trump will be getting Republican dollars for the general election and if Hillary doesn’t doesn’t stay ahead of Trump in polling she could “burn” out. Bernie could also have issues.

        Further the Democrats have collectively blown twice as much on the primary which may leave them winded for the secondary.

    • 98% with Hillary, 97% with Bernie, only other major candidate Trump at 31%

      • Jim

        I am trying to understand why anyone would actually want to make the 98% and 97% public. I would be ashamed myself.

      • Unfortunately there wasn’t anybody more to the Left so I could hit 100%.

        BTW, I am an older white male from the South who has worked in the private sector most of my career and I feel that I am paying too much in taxes. In other words you would probably think I would be a Trump (or at least a Cruz) supporter.

        I saw enough of what Republicans can do for the country in the eight years under Bush. Disastrous unnecessary wars, 9/11, gross mismanagement, surplus turned to deficit, anemic private sector job growth, and a financial meltdown.

        Anybody want to go back to that? Seriously?

      • We have been there the last 7 years. Apparently that was what Bill Clinton was talking about the other day when he talked about the “awful legacy of the last 8 years..”
        In the last 8 years we increased full time jobs by 1.5 million, lowest of any 8 years since records began. The Debt Held by the Public has gone from $6.4 Trillion to $13.8 Trillion in that period driven by increased Social Programs spending by $2 Trillion since 2000.
        The housing bubble had its genesis in the Federal government intervention in underwriting sub-prime mortgages in the 1990s through the Community Reinvestment Act and Home Affordability initiative and having HUD increase goals to selected groups and putting a gun to the heads of banks to increase risky mortgages. Democrats were in all the market distortions as much ad anyone else.

      • 99% Hillary, 97% Bernie, 51% Kasich, 7% Cruz, 5% Trump
        Seems about right.

      • By the way, Hillary just gave a really good terrorism speech. Rational, calm, knowledgeable, and dare I say, looking more Presidential all the time. Meanwhile, in other news, the Republicans are talking about each others wives.

      • ceresco

        Clinton was referring to Republican obstructionism which has held back the economy and progress.

        Of course, we know according to you guys everything bad that happens while a Republican is President is the fault of the Democrats and every good that happens while a Democrat is President is the result of the Republicans. And vice versa.

        In this worldview Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11. Democrats responsible for the housing bubble and meltdown. Republicans in Congress responsible for the job growth during the Clinton years but nothing to do with slow growth from the Bush economic collapse. No, that’s all Obama even though their obstructionism and deficit obsession (which was strangely lacking during the Bush years) have made growth much slower than it needed to be.

      • In this worldview Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11.

        No, but he probably could have prevented it.

        Democrats responsible for the housing bubble and meltdown.

        They are, it started during Clinton, and Barney Frank rebuffed W in 2005 or so

        Republicans in Congress responsible for the job growth during the Clinton years but nothing to do with slow growth from the Bush economic collapse.

        What about Clinton and Greenspan’s role in the dot com collapse? We were in recession at the end of 2000

        No, that’s all Obama even though their obstructionism and deficit obsession (which was strangely lacking during the Bush years) have made growth much slower than it needed to be.

        Yeah, Harry Reid did block everything he and the President didn’t even want voted on. That would have made the President veto something.
        But how’s about “you can keep your Dr’s”, or it was a “internet video”, or his first meeting with Senate Republicans.

      • Some of you are extremists. No surprise there. I was 82% Cruz on the high side and 56% Hillary on the low side. Just so slightly right of center it’s still in the bulls-eye.

      • As I noted above, Hillary gave a calm speech on terrorism. Fox doesn’t like calm. They like a more hair-on-fire approach to terrorism, like perhaps having their President racing back to the White House every time a bomb goes off somewhere in the world.

      • Yes yes the Hillary speech is a great example. When your leader or want to be a leader you can either bring the drama up or you can bring the drama down depending on what your agenda is.

        Both are meant to emotionally Jack you up or bring you down. The hard part for the voter or The Listener is to decide for themselves whether the risk is real or not.

        None of that has changed in thousands of years. What has changed is that Trump has figured out faster than anybody else is how to adjust his message in real time.

        I for one am really curious to see how he does that so efficiently. He may be on to a method to evaluate true public opinion.

      • He adjusted to AIPAC by copying all the positive parts from the previous speakers and using a teleprompter. When he ad-libbed, he either got laughed at (not with, but at) or booed. It was one of very few lessons he has had from a non-Trump audience. He is too conditioned to his own audience now, and that is harmful to his learning, because it becomes a reinforcing spiral to their common denominator.

      • This is very helpful I appreciate it. I saw that speech and my impression was that he was pretty much a big hit for most of the speech. He told them what they had not been hearing for the past 8 years.

        What he seems to be most adapt at is identifying the void that currently exists in terms of attention. Then he floats a balloon on Twitter that uses logic an appeal to emotion and a bit of credibility.

        Since he is a populist candidate as soon as stops doing this his momentum will falter.

        He has identified common themes that he goes to when a lull in attention occurs.

        Great stuff. I’d love to be able to spend a day with his social media manager to watch how they are compiling and then executing.

      • His applause lines were applause lines for previous speakers. He copied some of them almost verbatim. He probably doesn’t care if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem, but it got great applause, so he used it.

    • Gary Johnson 91%
      Ted Cruz 86%
      Donald Trump 75%
      John Kasich 73%
      Hillary Clinton 27%
      Bernie Sanders 23%

    • Picking the “best” presidential candidate is like picking the least ugly frog.

      • Yeah, this grocery list of position statements is only useful to a limited extent.

        Legislation determines much, not the president.
        And legislation, in theory, involves compromise.
        And these are issues of the past and present. The issues change, sometimes rapidly.
        And none of this addresses what kind of commander in chief each candidate might be.

        So I’m just watchin’ the puppet show like everyone else.

      • Maybe America doesn’t deserve a good president.

      • Eddie,

        America deserves the best we can give it. What worries me is that our current system may discourage the best from trying.

        Or maybe a more valid assessment is it is stacked against them.

    • Turbulent Eddie

      Thank you so much for the I Side With quiz link.

      I had to think about my answers, especially when I used the neither button and then ended up writing my own answers. Very helpful to me.

      What was a bit interesting, so to speak, was the candidates with whom I supposedly agreed, usually on three or so items. The one candidate with whom I seemed to side with most was John Kasich. There were 6 broad issues where we agreed, two more issues than any of the other candidates.

      I started to wonder about the “weighting” of the answers I had given which skewed the responses towards other higher rated candidates. I also wondered about the answers where the computer/survey could not discern Kasich’s position.

      All-in-all, a fun quiz on a rainy afternoon.

      • Danny Thomas

        “I had to think about my answers, especially when I used the neither button and then ended up writing my own answers. Very helpful to me.”

        Did probably about 1/4 (roughly) that way. Curious as to how the algorithm applied those answers (or didn’t apply them). Many were ‘yes, but’, or ‘no, but’ in nature. Thinking about redoing it and sticking to the yes/no versions to see if response changes.

        Fun quiz. Passed it on, and in fact have already received it from another direction via e-mail. Think either these guys are on to something, or are in a position to really rig a vote.

    • For me Ted and Donald, both 89%.

    • I scored Cruz yuk.

      Quiz need trade, most important issue.

      Also “Should your candidate be owned by Goldman Sachs?”

      The ethnic problem is going to kill US. We have rising demographics that will demsnd and get communism.

      • nickels, Correct. Trade and international relations came up short, and almost all the questions require a “Yes/No – but only if … ” answer.

        for what it’s worth, i came up
        Cruz 89%
        Petersen 84%
        Trump 82%
        Kasich 81%

        but also:
        Clinton 66%
        Sanders 58%

        So I’m either happier than i thought, or deeply conflicted. I suppose the deciding factors will end up being personal Integrity, trustworthiness and competence.

      • nickels,

        I think you are overly worried. Placed against demographic issues other nations face, the US has it pretty good. Unlike most of the developed world, the US has a population growth rate slightly above replacement. That is a very good thing.

        Compared to the EU nations, our population is far more homogenous, with the majority of immigrants still wanting to fit in and become “Americans”. That is also a very good thing.

      • Hillary might actually be the best candidate on the issue of trade, but I don’t think I could hold my nose tight enough to vote for her.

      • Fundamentally, Hillary is another stiffie. Over coached and hypermanaged. It comes across in her body language.

        What the ole lass needs is a weekend intervention where key advisors pummel her into tears with her weaknesses and then rebuild her. She has to do something to regain the human touch.

  14. Judd Gregg (R) has written an editorial calling for both Presidential campaigns to find common ground on nuclear power: http://thehill.com/opinion/judd-gregg/273632-judd-gregg-a-novel-nuclear-option

    A major issue in this subject is the closing of existing nuclear power plants. Contrary to many people here at CE blaming Renewables, Nuclear Operators are citing (1) low natural gas costs; (2) high nuclear operating costs: http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2016/02/23/Nuclear-industry-bemoans-Clean-Power-Plan-stay-by-Supreme-Court/stories/201602230009

    While the CPP (Clean Power Plan) clearly gives incentives to new nuclear its confusing exactly how the CPP addresses existing nuclear. While Rudd believes the CPP is unconstitutional, could Rudd (or other knowledgeable folks) still give us some insight on what a “mass-based compliance target” means (its just confusing):


    • David Wojick

      Isn’t the mass-based compliance target simply the allowable tons of CO2 emissions from the State’s combined generating sources for a year? Mass refers to the total mass of the CO2.

    • David Wojick

      I would say that CPP does not address existing nuclear, except that shutting down an existing baseload nuke will make CPP compliance much harder to achieve. Each existing nuke puts out a lot of juice.

      The CPP targets are based on State by State scenarios that do three things: 1) increase coal fired plant efficiencies (barely feasible), 2) shift generation from existing coal fired plants to existing gas fired plants, and 3) add a bunch of renewables.

      The draft CPP scenarios included efficiency, so much that demand did not increase, but that was dropped in the final version as being too controversial (the outside the fence issue). Instead the renewables generation was cranked way up.

      In principle a new nuke is an alternative to a lot of renewables.

  15. General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 45, Cruz 42 Clinton +3

    • Is the memery whole full yet?

    • When Timmy and his crowd-funded Climate Council refuse to give you recognition it’s a bit like losing that last lucky dip at the school fete: you’re relieved you don’t have to carry home any more junk.

      By the way, is crowd-funding becoming the perfect way to sell monorails or marching bands to all us dumb folks in River City? (The boater and cheap striped suit would be a perfect look for Timmy.)

  16. tu quoque or not tu quoque– that is the question: Nature give us pause. The fair Hiatus! A global warming slowdown to deny, a quietus to whip, scorn, spurn, ignore.

    • Really… Clinton actually gets votes after going all climate change BAZINGA! of us and promising a solar panel on every roof. Yahoo, another 8 years of a Maroon-in-Chief.

    • Meanwhile the aggregate of 8 other polls in March, five of them in the past three days, have Clinton ahead of Trump by 10.5% and Clinton ahead of Cruz by 2.3%. Fox news poll yesterday had Clinton up by 11% over Trump and Cruz beating Clinton by 3%.

      Kasich is the safest bet against Clinton. He’s been consistently polling ahead of her since forever and he has an aggregate lead in the polls of 6.6% over Hilly with the Fox News poll yesterday have him smoking her by 11%.



    • It’s a dead heat with Clinton up by 3.1%. Technically then Fox has Clinton and Cruz in a dead heat with Cruz up by 3.0%.

      Here’s the dealio, my friend. The spread between Cruz and Trump is 6.1% and that’s outside the 3% margin of error by a fair amount.

      Funny how that dead heat stuff works, innit?

  17. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-angry-voters/

    From the supporters of Donald Trump to the street protesters of southern Europe, voters around the world are mad as hell. Inequality, immigration, and the establishment’s perceived indifference are firing up electorates in a way that’s rarely been seen before. As these charts show, the forces shaping the disruption of global politics have been building for years and aren’t about to diminish.

    • Danny Thomas

      Looks a bit like a call for a move to the center with improved income distribution. Note, this does not say ‘redistribution of wealth’.

  18. Jeb Bush just endorsed Cruz.

    How Far Jeb Bush Is Going To Stop Trump

    Cruz is leading with endorsement from other Republican candidates 4:2 over Trump. His negative opinion rating groweth.


  19. http://i.imgur.com/aFRlPM4.png

    Whatever one may think of Donald Trump, his campaign has done us a service — exposing the underbelly of a decaying establishment whose repudiation by America’s silent majority is long overdue.

    The American people want their borders secured, the invasion stopped, the manufacturing plants brought back and an end to the conscription of our best and bravest to fight wars dreamed up in the tax-exempt think tanks of neoconservatives.

    Trump is winning because he speaks for the people. Look at those crowds.

    Donald Trump is only the messenger.

    If these conservative defectors from a ticket led by Trump collude with Democrats, by running a third party candidate to siphon off Trump’s votes, they may succeed.

    But they delude themselves if they think they will have solved the problem of their own irrelevance, or that they have a future.

    The party will survive. They won’t.


    • As a three time loser of presidential primaries Buchanan’s expertise speaks for itself. Trump is winning with a plurality in a single party Pat. And not a large plurality either. His polling is even worse among Independents and Democrats, Patty m’boy. That’s not a movement Patrick it’s a mob of uneducated bigots who suddenly discovered they could vote in Republican primaries.

      • Buchanan went off the deep end and lost relevance a long time ago. Chris Mathews is another. If anything he’s more embarrassing than Pat.

  20. If Trump ran the EU, we might not see the level of terrorist attacks we are seeing now. From the article:

    Stephen Miller, the senior policy adviser for the Trump campaign, minced no words in stating that Border Patrol agents will have a “direct line” to the White House if Donald Trump becomes President of the United States. Miller stated, “I am here today to say that we are going to work closely, directly, and intimately with the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) to develop a border policy for this nation.” He continued, “The NBPC will never again have a back seat in our nation’s border policy.”


    • Danny Thomas

      Not if Trump doesn’t have Ryan and Republicans as allies: “The immigration reform bill was sent to the United States House of Representatives, but has not since then been brought to the House floor for debate or an up-or-down vote.”

      • The Redimowits won’t pass it because it is tantamount to amnesty and their constituents don’t like the bill.

        Get a bill that first secures the border and by some means causes illegal aliens to leave (employer fines perhaps) and you will see it pass with flying colors.

      • Danny Thomas

        3 legged stools are more comfortable that 1 or 2 legged ones. Sure, secure the border (20,000 more agents might have helped, huh?), fine employers of illegals (and be willing to finance the higher cost of food), stabilize undocumented/visa programs.

        I linked the authors of Simpson-Mazolli the other day (not sure you read it), and they still insist the single leg approaches aren’t/won’t get it done.

        Points from this article:
        “”The end result was that they essentially gutted the employer sanctions,”

        and: “Why were the border restrictions ineffective? Poor funding, for one. Congress didn’t provide enough money to ramp up Border Patrol hiring until the mid-1990s”

        What did 2013’s attempt try to do?

        Build physical barriers.
        Improve guest worker programs.
        Make employers responsible.
        Provide amnesty.

        Pretty much what Reagan signed in to law but loopholes and all that.

        A wall won’t get it done: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/us/calexico-california-border-tunnel-drug-smuggling/index.html

      • The Dimowits broke their promises to Reagan. Pure and simple.

      • Danny Thomas

        Assertion? How about some evidence? And a separate question is how does that affect the 3 legged stool of 2013 and why the House (Rep. controlled) would not even discuss it?

      • The Dimowits are famous for bargaining gains for themselves for Redimowit gains later. The Redimowits shouldn’t bargain with them at all, that would be a sign they have learned the lessons of history.

      • Danny Thomas

        Yep, like the polarization evidenced by Glenn’s Bloomberg link. That ‘history’?

    • Over 33% of border patrol agents are Hispanic. In 2008 it was over half. I think Trump refers to them as rapists and drug dealers. Or at least their parents and grandparents if they’re second or third generation Americans.

      Ya think they’d have a better working relationship with a) Trump or b) Cruz based on what you now know. Take your time. There is a right answer.

      • DTN – I thought you were smarter than that. Trump didn’t call Hispanic border patrol agents rapists and drug dealers. You are either a liar or are stupid. (Well, I suppose you could have made a mistake … right!)

        At any rate, of course they will work with Trump.

      • Danny Thomas


        C. None of the above.

        Cruz voted against adding additional (40,000?) B.P. agents suggesting there was sufficient capability under current law to handle our immigration/border issues.

      • “I think Trump refers to them as rapists and drug dealers. Or at least their parents and grandparents if they’re second or third generation Americans.”
        That isn’t what he said at all.

      • Danny Thomas

        Cruz looks almost as poor. I’ll stand by my ‘none of the above’.

      • He certainly did say that, Jim. It was in his campaign kickoff speech:


        “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best … they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems,” Trump said in his June campaign kickoff speech. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”

        Sanchez cannot imagine a description further from his parents. “My parents are both from Mexico, they’re born and raised in Michoacan, and they came to America for the American Dream,” he said. His parents are not involved with drugs or crime. Mostly, he said, they work.

        My third generation hispanic wife’s uncle was a border patrol agent in the 1970’s and 1980’s after he got back from two tours in Vietnam. His parents were Mexican immigrants. Every male descendant of theirs I can think of older than 35 now served honorably in the United States military and I know a lot of them from being married into the family for 35 years. My father in law was a Marine Sergeant. My brother-in-law who I met when he was 10 years old became a Navy Seal and is now 45 year-old civilian in the DoD in Baltimore doing stuff he can’t talk about. There are a lot of them. Another uncle served in Vietnam. They are the most patriotic hard working productive Americans I know. That seems like quite something given Mexico is sending us rapists and drug dealers, huh?

        I loathe hispanic haters with a passion you can’t possibly imagine. Uneducated redneck bigots looking for scapegoats for your own failings. Phuck every last one of you.

      • ” When Mexico sends its people,”
        Did Mexico send your wife’s family to the US?

      • Danny Thomas | March 23, 2016 at 10:22 pm |

        “Cruz looks almost as poor. I’ll stand by my ‘none of the above’”

        Cruz net unfavorable with hispanics is minus 4. Trumps is minus 65.

        Do you need help with the math?

      • Danny Thomas

        Nope. I understand next to last is almost last and only one closer to first.

        How’d I do?

      • Monfort,

        What you’re doing now smacks of manipulating content through misleading vividness.


        Can you marshall any empirical evidence which shows that undocumented immigrants commit property or violent crimes at a disproportionate rate?

        Empirical studies seem to indicate the very opposite:

        [R]oughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants….

        A variety of different studies using different methodologies have found that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to engage in either violent or nonviolent “antisocial” behaviors…


      • You are full of crap, glenny. I am not manipulating anything. That is the reality. This stuff goes on continuously. And guess what, these lawbreaking people are not supposed to be in our country. NONE of them. ZERO. So don’t start with that proportionality crap. Most of the miscreants are multiple offenders. Caught and released. Wouldn’t you prefer that they committed their crimes in their countries of origin? Or are you just plain naive and incredibly stoopid? Oh, wait! You live in Mexico, so naturally you prefer that they don’t stay on your side of the border and do those horrific things to your family, friends and neighbors. Send us your poor, your tired and your monsters too.

      • Yeah, that one goes down in the incredibly st00pid category for Trump.

        I’ve always thought the opposite. Anyone willing to hazard the dangers and hardships that go with crossing our southern border, for a chance to better themselves, strikes me as being among a nation’s best.

      • Yeah, that one goes down in the incredibly st00pid category for Trump.

        I’m not so sure.

        When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.

        It’s an odd phrase if you’re referring to Mexican’s deciding to walk to the US. On the other hand it is the right phrase if you thought the government of Mexico was deporting Mexican’s to the US.
        And I’m guessing Mexico is not deporting their best citizens. Now, maybe they don’t do this, but Trump followed up a few weeks later where he said Border Patrol Agents said his statement was true.

        I agree, he could be better in his phrasing, if he is actually trying to be clearer. But it could all be clever like a fox.

      • Are you impressed by glenny’s “stats” from an illegal immigrant advocacy group, tim? We don’t even know how many illegals we have in the country. They routinely commit all kinds of mayhem and run back across the border. They live in the underground and got twenty freaking aliases and it’s not like they are carrying valid ID. How do we know which crimes have been committed by illegal immigrants? How do you find and jail people like that? Fingerprints? We don’t have their freaking fingerprints.

        Oh, but we got a lot of locals who are bad actors so it’s OK. I am surprised at you, tim.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t think a pro immigration group can be relied on to provide good statistics on crime data. The GAO states 27% of all federal prisoners as criminal aliens. That’s a high percentage. The immigration group group did something with educational level although I didn’t see where they made it clear exactly what, but I suspect they are taking a very small percentage of the US legal population and comparing it with a large percentage of the illegal immigration population. I didn’t look long since the source was suspect and went for a government report. Here’s one.


      • stevenreincarnated

        2005 GAO report states 27% of Federal Prison inmates are criminal aliens. Link pending release from moderation.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Never expected that one to get held up. Oh well.

      • Micro gets it. This looking at the proportion of their bad actors compared to our bad actors is just stoopid. We are not exchanging 3.3 of our bad people for 1.6 of their bad people. We are just getting additional bad people. Can you people follow that? Do the freaking math.

        And because all “undocumented” immigrants are breaking our laws by sneaking in here, we don’t get a chance to sort them out. Why would any sane inhabitant of the U.S. want to allow this to continue? And that includes sane illegals who are already here. Unless the newcomers are their relatives what interest would they have in seeing more illegals flooding across the border? Are you people getting any of this? Those crazy Trump supporters get it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The statistics were manipulated. Comparing educational levels of the criminals when you are much more likely to be a troubled youth in the US if you dropped out of school early than you are in poorer countries where you tend to be needed as an income producer much earlier in life.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’d suspect I was person non grata if I hadn’t managed to get one comment through lol.

      • Don,

        I am not disputing that there are highly undesirable elements among those coming into the country illegally. In determining how big of a problem it is, knowing what the percentage is would be useful. But as you say, we don’t know.

        I don’t live in a border state. Well I do, but Canadians crossing illegally doesn’t appear to get the same amount of coverage. So I have to admit the issue is not at the top of my concerns. And when listening to many of the arguments about the many problems they cause, I am struck by how many are of our own making. It sounds ridiculous to hear people complain about the drag on social services when it is us who grant them.

        I would think that cross border drug operations are a far bigger criminal problem facing us than there being a percentage of scumbags among those coming across illegally.

        Were I advising Trump, I would have advised against such a generalization. The point could have been made without it. But then as I’ve said, I don’t put much stock in what the candidates say. Trump could say he plans to reinvigorate the manned space program and be the first President to shake the hand of the man in the moon and I’d hope for the first part and ignore the second.

      • We all generalize some more than others. Pay attention to Trump’s messaging style. Hes very good.

        First catch their attention with an emotional hook. Sprinkle in a little logic and some credibility. Settle on a few things that keep their attention. Rinse and repeat.

        What should the strategy can be found in a book called Obama Zombies. It documents how Obama used the internet to tap into the youth vote.

        Trump’s brilliance is that he is using the same strategy but doing it in near real-time.

      • Sorry Dragon speak typo alert. The statement should read … the same strategy can be found

      • @Dump Trump Now | March 23, 2016 at 11:04 pm |

        Your quote does not show were Trump said Hispanic border patrol agents were rapists and drug dealers. So, you still seem to have problem getting your facts straight. We need to seal the border and induce ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to return to their country of origin because:

        1. An open border allows rapists, murderers and other criminals, gang members, and terrorists into our country.
        2. We need to control who gets into our country in general.

        Your rant lacks substance, David.

        I would add a requirement that anyone who even applies for citizenship be required to read and write English so we don’t have to have multilingual educators in our schools.

        We have legal ways for foreigners to work, go to school, or visit here.

        We should stop all immigration from Middle Easter countries immediately and make sure it stick by sealing the border.

      • Trump never admits he was wrong, but he doesn’t repeat things that were criticized like the rapist remark against immigrants, or the oath/salute to him (which I think he stopped, but am not sure), or asking people to punch people or going after family members of terrorists. However, when he removes these things from his speeches, he replaces them with things he has to remove later. He still talks about banning all Muslims, and doing things worse than waterboarding. So pay attention to what he removes, because that is as close as you get to an admission of being wrong.

      • What he does do is he floats balloons his message based on reaction.

      • That’s very similar to the way a toddler learns.

      • We all learn at a very young age how to adjust our message to get what we want. Again some are better than others at doing this. Trump is currently better at this than any other candidate for US president.

      • He is a beginner, and he needs to be doing some other elected governing job as training. President is not an entry-level position.

      • Damn JimD, how thick can you Trump-haters be?? Pretty thick, obviously. He said SOME are rapists and murders. Learn to read.

      • This is all a giant lesson in messaging. Trump is adjusting his message in near real-time. I can’t think of anyone who’s done a better job at this than him.

        Trump has changed the game. In order to beat him you need to be quicker at the draw.

      • No, he said some may be good, implying not a majority.

      • Don Monfort,

        I was born into the working class, so I sure to hell know what the methods used to stigmatize and demonize a particular class of people are. After all, “class hatred,” as Lynsley Hansley so astutely noted, “is the last acceptable prejudice.”


        And since I have experienced first hand the sting of stigmatization and demonization by those who harbor irrational prejudices, I can spot the perverse arguments from a mile away.

        The factual data necessary to debunk your, and Trump’s, arguments can be found in three reports produced by the U.S. government:

        1) “Prisoners in 2014,” a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice,

        2) “U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2013,” a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and

        3) “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011,” a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

        And here’s what we can glean from the three reports:

        Three percent of inmates in federal prisons are noncitizens convicted of violent, property, drug, weapons and other offences

        Nonresidents make up 7.7% of the total U.S. population

        The imprisonment rate of citizens of adult age is over twice the imprisonment rate of noncitizens


      • Danny Thomas

        Don’t confuse the issue with facts. This is salesmanship. Some have already bought.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t see how you could have created the charts you show from the links you gave. The GAO report I linked stated 27% of the federal prison population consisted of criminal aliens three years in a row yet now it has dropped to 11% according to your chart? Illegal immigrants are suddenly more law abiding? Where did you get the charts? Even if they were right, and I seriously doubt they resemble reality in the least, I don’t see any harm in getting control over our borders and keeping the MS 13 types out and making those statistics even better.

      • Wow, I see that little glenny is still with a googled quote of some clown and some BS charts arguing that the mayhem committed by illegal immigrants is OK, because it ain’t so much as a percentage of the total mayhem. Absolutely freaking naive.

        Why should we tolerate any amount of mayhem from people who have broken our laws and our borders to sneak in here?

        Answer that question, little glennie. And what do you have to say to the victims and to the victims’ families? There ain’t a lot of you. Is that what you are going to tell them? Give them a colorful pie chart that shows they are proportionally a small part of the WHOLE population, like a few fish in the WHOLE school, so never mind.

        Some of you people are beyond help.

  21. Alarmists Airbrush Judith Curry Out of ‘Women in Climate Science’ History

    She originally appeared last year on a list of “20 women making waves in the climate change debate” on the website of the International Council for Science.

    But when an alarmist organisation in Australia called The Climate Council appropriated the list for its own propaganda purposes, the 20 women were mysteriously reduced to 19.

    The Climate Council – a non-profit run by Australian alarmist Tim Flannery – had given Curry the Stalin airbrush treatment.

    This was especially vindictive given that of all the women on the list, Curry was the one with by far the most expertise in the “climate change debate.”

    Watts Up With That also mentioned


    • Brian G Valentine

      History has away of remembering those of independent thought and forgetting those who lack it.

      No one would know who Cardinal Belarmine was if Galileo didn’t live

    • Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.

      Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. … We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”

      Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,” …

      To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”

      Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:


      • Can someone please remind me how many terrorist attacks have been made by illegal Mexicans?

        I must have left the data in my other wordpress account.

  22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande

    Almost 2000 miles of American border with Mexico is the Rio Grande River. If Trump or anyone else tries to build a fence depriving the State of Texas of huge tracts of beautiful national parks, and centuries-long source of irrigation and recreation water, he’s going to have to send the United States Army down with the construction crew because they’ll be hunted like coyotes. We’ll aim to wound at first.

    Get a grip people. There isn’t going to be a fence. At least not in Texas.

  23. Brian G Valentine

    Why can’t we have some rational candidate with a conviction that CO2 in the air isn’t the “greatest difficulty” people face.

    We have candidates with that conviction, but lack humanity or sanity.

  24. Here’s an idea. How about we put drug sniffing dogs on patrol at all of Trump’s hotels, casinos, and other entertainment destinations. Let’s cut off some of the demand for those drugs coming across the border.

    Surely The Donald doesn’t want the patrons of his businesses helping make a market for cocaine on his property, right?

    Maybe someone can ask him his stand on that.

    • I wonder how many men have done lines off the fake boobs of the stripper he married?

    • Brian G Valentine

      That would curtail a “celebrity”clientele and jeopardize his enterprises as going concerns.

    • Not that I have anything against top shelf strippers mind you. The good ones are as smart as they are good looking and excellent conversationalists. One I knew was a virtuoso on the piano and about the only subject she couldn’t keep up with me on was computers and she was no slouch there either. I just don’t think plastic surgery and posing in the nude is a good role model. Maybe it’s different in New York City and that’s what parents want their little girls to grow up to be there. I’d be interested in opinions of other parents in this regard. Needless to say anyone in Utah needn’t weigh in. Y’all were loud and clear last night about your values.

  25. Brian G Valentine

    When we have candidates as ignorant and insane as Donald Chump. the only outcome is an appreciation of how many are as ignorant and insane as Donald Chump.

    So, there is benefit derived from him after all.

    • In open primaries I wonder how many of the surge of new people were Democrats crossing over. I have Republican friends in Texas who voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary because they didn’t want Obama to get the nomination. Trump is who the Democrats want, certainly. He polls the worst against their girl Hillary and she’s in no danger of losing to Sanders so they can cross over in primaries with impunity.

      • Brian G Valentine

        I think many Dumbocrats voted for Chump in the primary to ensure a Hillary victory.

        I hope the strategy doesn’t prove disastrous

    • Brian,

      OK, you don’t like Trump. You make the claim he is ignorant and insane. You provide no evidence for it.

      In fact, there is significant evidence he is quite intelligent. To wit, he beat out the establishment. Jeb is gone. Kasich is dead. Rubio is gone.

      In fact, the only person who can realistically secure the popular vote nomination for the Republicans is Trump.

      And he has done this without a teleprompter. Often, without even notes. He has gone up against some well prepared questions designed to tear him down. The press has tried to tear him down. The Establishment has tried to make him go away. Yet, he has managed to beat out all these people.

      And, provided these eGOP is not successful, he will do the same thing to Hillary, and become the next president of the United States.

      And, it won’t be because of his skin color, but in spite of it.

      Meanwhile, if you have evidence of Trumps insanity, or ignorance of something important, please do tell.

      • Does Trump even know where the President was born?

      • They are whistling past the graveyard, ed. First The Donald was just a rich clown out to get some attention. Didn’t have a chance. Remember the 12% ceiling ?Now, he is the next coming of hitler-mussolini-genghis khan-jeffrey dahmer etc.

        And poor desperately lyin’ ted is lifting lines from movies. He rehearsed, but still stumbles at the end:


      • Jim D asks

        “Does Trump even know where the President was born?”

        Here is Scott Adam’s (the dilbert guy) thoughts:

        “Did Trump’s involvement in the birther thing confuse you? Were you wondering how Trump could believe Obama was not a citizen? The answer is that Trump never believed anything about Obama’s place of birth. The facts were irrelevant, so he ignored them while finding a place in the hearts of conservatives. For later.”

        Lots of good thoughts on Adam’s blog about Trump. Many coming true.


      • Don,

        It really doesn’t matter how stupid Jim D., or others, think Trump is. It’s amazing how they could think this after Trump deposed Jeb!zzzz, how he has taken down the establishment’s second choice Rubio. He turned establishment threats into a stick to beat them with, by saying he would run independent if not treated fairly. He is quick on his feet, turning the tables on Kelly.

        The press is going after him in any way they can, but it isn’t working.

        Once the nomination is behind, and provided the many people plotting against Trump fail (they are scared of the real change he represents, instead of the false change of Obama, which was more of the same in the same direction), Trump supporters will have a ton of fun watching Trump outmaneuver Hillary and her entire, well paid team.

      • Trump scares the crap out of them, ed. Especially the little granny hilly-billy team. They are not dumb.

      • Don

        This drug smuggling tunnel under the border from Mexico into California made it onto the British news this morning


        Does this make any traction in the US and would it help Trump?


      • Danny Thomas

        Tunnels are evidence of ineffectiveness of walls as physical barriers.

        Gotta wonder how many people have passed thru that tunnel already.

        The last para: “That said, Mexican cartel violence has been known to spill over the border because of the lucrative smuggling business. In April 2015, U.S. Border Patrol agents seized more than 69 pounds of methamphetamine coming over the border. In the process, they found how smugglers were getting around the wall between Calexico and Mexicali—they had built a tunnel. ”

      • Danny

        And of course there were many tunnels into Israel which allowed Terrorists to strike hard at that country.

        A wall seems very unlikely to be effective to me unless you are willing to police it with the same ruthless efficiency as the Berlin Wall.


      • Danny Thomas


        Having so much physical barrier in place already (not sure if you viewed the NatGeo offering) seems to lead one to consider a more appropriate use of some $6B, $8B, (some say much more******) in building a wall.
        We need people, technology, and enforcement of laws on employers assuming we’re willing to pay associated higher costs.

        It’s a wicked problem.

        These seem like a great risk that walls cannot address knowing folks will give their lives for their cause: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brussels-attacks/brussels-attacks-bombers-filmed-nuclear-researcher-expert-says-n544776


        (*******Some don’t care for WaPo: “Roughly, he said a wall of this type would cost at least $25 billion — and that is not counting a video system to keep watch on the border. Building the wall would also require at least 40,000 workers a year for at least four years, but he doubted it could be built so quickly.”

      • Danny

        We have a spare wall in the North, built by the Romans to keep the Scots out.


        I hear the Chinese have also got a much bigger one. I can do a good deal for you on either one…

        I can’t see how you could possibly build a wall along the Rio Grande river as presumably too many access and riparian rights would be infringed?

        Why don’t you take a leaf out of Putins book and merely annex an area of Mexico that stretches up to ten miles from the river/border then build it half way in from the new boundaries? Simple!


      • Danny Thomas

        Great idea. And I’ll bet we can get Mexico to pay for it!

      • Tony, anything that highlights the failings of our border security help Trump. Especially stuff like this, which goes on here all the time:


        I suggest that you pick out one of the videos on youtube of Trump speaking to a crowd of tens of thousands and actually listen to what he has to say and think about why he does it that way. Hint: he ain’t a dummy.

        Here’s one of many:


        You’ll see dozens of his speeches on youtube with hundreds of thousands of views and comments. Look at the speeches of other candidates and the reactions they get.

        He has been in a very crowded primary race and he has used symbolism and catchy rhetoric to run almost all of the competition into the ground. He has no intention of literally building a huge wall all along the border that he thinks will solve the problem. He knows how to hire people who will design border security, including walls in appropriate places, that will be a vast improvement over the porous BS border security that we have now. People who are actually paying attention know what he is talking about.

      • Don

        I have some sympathy for Trump as border issues are very contentious and the powers that be seem reluctant to do anything.

        We have exactly the same border concerns with a mix of refugees and economic migrants forcing their way into Europe whilst our leaders wave their hands. The result is not only a tidal wave of humanity-some needing help others taking advantage of the porous borders-with many people meaning us serious harm amongst them.


      • Jim D,

        How should he know the answer to that question when apparently the President isn’t even sure?

      • I’m fairly confident that man learned how to tunnel shortly after he learned to build walls.

      • To think we got Romans to pay for it. Another first.

      • I like Kasich. And I think it’s feasible to build a set of parallel fences to stop most illegal traffic. I saw a reference to drug smuggling tunnels…however, stopping a flow of people is very different from moving boxes. In any case, tunnels can be stopped with solar powered listening devices. I don’t buy the objections.

  26. Joshua said:

    “There is a lot of evidence to indicate that people (1) people tend to discount risk stretched out over a long time horizon and, (2) people tend to underestimate risk.”

    He said this without offering a scintilla of evidence. Let’s consider the evidence:

    Context affects the interpretation of low but not high numerical probabilities: A hypothesis testing account of subjective probability


    This study suggests that it is not so simple as underestimating risk or overestimating risk. The experiment involved a series of tests where people were told that there was a 30% chance of rain in both Seattle and Phoenix and then were later asked how likely they were take an umbrella with them on a trip to Phoenix and Seattle. A high percentage revealed they felt it more likely to rain in Seattle than in Phoenix. It turns out that people are inclined to “double” the base rate in times like these, unaware that meteorologists for the Seattle forecast had already taken into account Seattle’s proclivity towards rain when forecasting a 30% chance of rain, people did it again, and assumed it more likely to rain in Seattle than in Phoenix.

    There is also Daniel Kahneman’s prospect theory concerning people’s tendency to overestimate risk because their aversion to risk tends to outweigh their hope for gain;


    Or consider Sunstein and Zeckhauser’s study:

    Overreaction to Fearsome Risks

    “Fearsome risks are those that stimulate strong emotional responses. Such risks, which usually involve high consequences, tend to have low probabilities, since life today is no longer nasty, brutish and short. In the face of a low-probability fearsome risk, people often exaggerate the benefits of preventive, risk-reducing, or ameliorative measures. In both personal life and politics, the result is damaging overreactions to risks. We offer evidence for the phenomenon of probability neglect, failing to distinguish between high and low-probability risks. Action bias is a likely result.”


    Or consider this:

    Risk: Second Edition – Deborah Lupton

    “Several psychometric researchers have developed a “taxonomy” by which hazards are categorized and dealt with cognitively. They have argued that lay people overestimate and underestimate some categories of risk, and find it difficult to assess risk using probabilities.”


    Or this:

    Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City


    “A general finding from the literature is that people tend to overestimate the probability of rare events.”

    “We find that most people overestimate probability and underestimate damage. ”

    “The literature on decision-making suggests that individuals underestimate the likelihood of a low-probability event if they have not experienced it (Hertwig et al., 2004; Fox & Hadar, 2006) and overestimate its likelihood if they have experienced the event (Brilly & Polic, 2005; Ruin, Gaillard & Lutoff, 2007; Siegrist & Gutscher, 2006; Viscusi & Zeckhauser, 2006). This behaviour can be explained by an availability bias.”

    How individuals perceive risk is no where near as simplistic as Joshua has presented it.

      • Happy too. PJ was quoted as saying something like ” when he moved to the new HAD/CRU building that he had “thrown out the original data to save space and that it could not be reconstructed.” That is why I keep asking for a clear answer to this simple question of What, Where, When, How. There should be more transparency about what he meant. If you don’t know how do I find out. Thanks Steven.

    • Nice Jean Paul.

      Though I must say it is wasted on the putz. Most of us already know that even simplistic is stretching his boundaries.

    • Jean Paul –

      ==> How individuals perceive risk is no where near as simplistic as Joshua has presented it.

      Fair enough. Yes, the particulars of a given context play a huge role. But that was my underlying point about the vapidness of simplistically referencing lists of policy concerns as being particularly meaningful in the context of public perceptions w/r/t climate change policy.

      Your list of references does, indeed, underline the point of evaluating context and biases in how people evaluate risk.

      Here’s another example that, IMO, has interesting implications to the question of prioritization of concerns about climate change (emphasis mine):

      People refuse to buy flood insurance even when it is heavily subsidized and priced far below an actuarially fair value. Kunreuther et. al. (1993) suggests underreaction to threats of flooding may arise from “the inability of individuals to conceptualize floods that have never occurred… Men on flood plains appear to be very much prisoners of their experience… Recently experienced floods appear to set an upward bound to the size of loss with which managers believe they ought to be concerned.” Burton et. al. (1978) report that when dams and levees are built, they reduce the frequency of floods, and thus apparently create a false sense of security, leading to reduced precautions. While building dams decreases the frequency of floods, damage per flood is so much greater afterward that the average yearly damage increases. It seems that people do not extrapolate from experienced small hazards to a possibility of large risks; rather, the past experience of small hazards sets a perceived upper bound on risks. A society well-protected against minor hazards will take no action against major risks (building on flood plains once the regular minor floods are eliminated). A society subject to regular minor hazards will treat those minor hazards as an upper bound on the size of the risks (guarding against regular minor floods but not occasional major floods).


      That article also references overconfidence and other biases that I was thinking of.

  27. Danny Thomas

    Congressional concerns:
    “unlikelihood that the GOP could “insult” voters into agreeing with them”
    “protect Senate and House candidates”
    “already begun laying groundwork”
    “need for a firewall”
    “What the establishment hopes will happen then is not that Cruz will become the nominee — remember, they still don’t like him — but that the Texas Republican, having served his purpose by keeping it from Trump, will be replaced by a more palatable alternative like, say, Kasich.”

    Politics. A full contact sport.


    • I’m okay with Kasich and so is a good Republican friend of mine who was born and raised in Cleveland. Neither of us will vote for Trump but I’d vote for Cruz and he won’t. Again, a story with a moral in it:

      Moses and Jesus are playing golf. Moses steps up to the tee and hits a beautiful shot 250 yards straight down the middle of the fairway. Jesus steps up to the tee and hooks the ball into the trees. Jesus looks up into the heavens, raises his arms, and suddenly the sky darkens. A thunder clap rings out, rain pours down, and a stream rises among the trees. The golf ball floating on top finds its way into the mouth of a fish. Then a bird flies down and takes the fish and the ball out over the green, drops it in the cup for a hole-in-one. Jesus turns to Moses with a satisfied grin, and Moses says, ‘Look. You wanna play golf or you wanna f*ck around?’

      So all you conservative boys and girls, you wanna beat Hillary or you wanna f*ck around?

      • Yep, want to win, hence Trump. Cruz can’t win for several reasons. One is the question of his eligibility. Another is that he is simply too deep into the religious thing for many (and I might include myself in that). The third is he is moving establishment, and owes the banks. Fourth, he can not win the nomination by popular vote.

        Cruz is dead as a candidate in 2016, unless something external to Cruz’s collective efforts. Like, Hillary goes to jail, or something.

      • Golf balls don’t float. That story needs work.

    • The idea of nominating Kasich is unrealistic. He is for illegal immigration. Trump and Cruz supporters would never change their vote for him. They may switch to either Cruz or Trump but never Kasich. They would vote for Kasich if he were the nominee to prevent a corrupt, Lying, Hillary from taking office, but he won’t be the nominee.

  28. Lose with Cruze.

    • Slump with Trump.

      • Clever, Jim D. Unfortunately for the h8ters, Trump is headed north, busting 50% in the rolling Reuter’s poll.

      • The answer is he doesn’t know and neither does his base which is half of the Republicans in the country, who also mostly think he is a Muslim. From the outside, this is a form of either insanity or a sign of indoctrination by a certain part of the right-wing media who pound in these thoughts on a daily basis. To this base he is “telling it like it is”.

      • I think you are the one indoctrinated. That, or you are an automaton.

      • This ended up in the wrong place, and the question was “where was the current President born?”

      • Are all Trumpsters birthers, or if not, how do they explain Trump’s belief as anything a sane person could think? I ask because the numbers of Trump supporters do match the numbers who are birthers or think Obama is a Muslim, so it is not a large step to think that they are one and the same people.

      • Jim D. I posted this above, you didn’t see it, didn’t read it, or ignored it.

        To understand Trump you need to learn more about him and his capabilities and methods, instead of clinging to your “gotcha” petty events.

        Here is your answer, again:

        “Does Trump even know where the President was born?” (Jim D.)

        Here is Scott Adam’s (the dilbert guy) thoughts:

        “Did Trump’s involvement in the birther thing confuse you? Were you wondering how Trump could believe Obama was not a citizen? The answer is that Trump never believed anything about Obama’s place of birth. The facts were irrelevant, so he ignored them while finding a place in the hearts of conservatives. For later.”

        Lots of good thoughts on Adam’s blog about Trump. Many coming true.


      • Yes, he is taking advantage of the birthers. They are allowed to vote, and he became their leader in 2012. It’s more of the same. Play to the base. As I mentioned elsewhere, his support numbers, and probably their demographics, match those of the birthers. Coincidence? To them, he is the only one who says it like it is.

      • Jim D.

        Sorry, didn’t know these were directed to me (were they?)

        ‘This ended up in the wrong place, and the question was “where was the current President born?”’

        How should I know? I never investigated the birther’s claims because I don’t care if he was born in Kenya, or wherever birthers think he is. Do I “trust” the government? Less and less.

        I am, however, very concerned the general populace voted that man into office. I’m also angry the press (through the journolist club of elite leftist media figures) intentionally hid stories.

        Here is one they didn’t investigate. Do you like star trek voyager? If so, you may recall seven of nine, the busty half machine babe. Her ex husband, it turns out, is a politician. And not any politician, one who ran against Obama, hapless Jack Ryan.

        Their child custody records had been sealed, in the best interests of the child, you see. However, a newspaper and a radio station sued to have the records opened. Some judge decided that was OK. In the records, and I don’t know if this is true or not, Jeri Ryan accused Jack of pressuring her to go to sex clubs and have sex. Jack’s polling numbers plummeted, he withdrew from the race, and thus began what is now the sordid history of Obama’s rise to the presidency.

        Now, and we will never know the truth, there are rumors that an Obama operative was behind the initial push. Of course, the press never investigated, so we will never know. Releasing the records was wrong, of course. Who knows the truth? And, with humor, who could possibly want to share Jeri Ryan?

        Did you know about this? There are other investigated instances of Obama’s illicit dealings, but they were never given much attention by the press. Now, that bothers me a great deal.

        Where Obama was born? I don’t care.

      • Ed, yes, the point is that you and The Donald have in common that you don’t seem to know where Obama was born, but he cares a lot, had a large investigation, and is still looking as far as I know because the birth certificate or Hawaiian newspaper announcement at the time were not good enough. Given how big this issue was to The Donald in 2012, where does he stand on it now? That is a highly relevant question, because even to question Obama’s birthplace is a sign of a mindset that would be very worrying in a candidate. His supporters really should be interested to see where he stands on this now, because I am sure it is a source of confusion to many of them too. I want a reporter to bluntly ask him that question again.

      • Jim,

        Do you have first hand experience with where Obama was born? If not, you don’t know where he was born either, but believe it because people told you that. You too have in common with Trump that you do not know where Trump was born.

      • I take both of their words for where they were born. Why would I think otherwise? Who in history has ever lied about their birthplace? Use some common sense.

    • Looks like max and Jim D have finally found something they can do.

      Come up with slogans that ryme

      • timg56,

        Can I play, too?

        “Win with Flynn!”

        Just goes to show, slogans don’t do much, as far as I can see. I’ve got precisely no delegates, no campaign funding, and no hope.

        Bloody stupid slogan!


  29. Why is Kasich in the race? He has no mathematical chance of winning. The only reason for him to stay in the race is to deprive Trump of the nomination.

    Why is Cruz in the race? While mathematically possible, his chances of winning a majority of delegates is so slim as to be none.

    Both Cruz and Kasich can only hope to deny Trump the 1237 delegates needed for certain nomination. Their hopes are therefore to obtain the nomination in a contested convention.

    Today, an article in Politico states 57% of Trump supporters will not vote Republican in the general if Trump is somewhat shy of the needed delegates, but does not secure the Republican nominee.

    What does this mean. If you are a republican, a vote for Cruz or Kasich is essentially a vote for Hillary.

    Some republicans prefer Hillary to Trump. One large donor, for instance, said he was considering switching to Hillary.

    • Brian G Valentine

      Very early on the Republican condemnation of Trump profanity and insanity led to Trump threats of a third party bid.

      republican cowardice to the threat and everything else led to the present situation.

    • The Republicans are devouring their own.


      • Glenn,

        Not really. What is happening is the Republican party is changing.

        The Democrats also had an opportunity for actual change in Sanders, but the voters are rejecting him. And even if they don’t, Hillary still wins.

        I don’t view Obama as bringing any real change to America. He merely kept following the same old path. Trump is saying he will actually change America. So if you like hopey changey, you will love Trump.

      • edbarbar,

        Maybe so.

        There is the old saying about how hostile takeovers turn friendly after it becomes evident that the takeover artist cannot be repelled.

      • A big issue for me is foreign policy.

        I keep getting mixed signals from Trump, which I suppose at this stage of the game is to be expected.

        Top Experts Confounded by Advisers to Donald Trump

        Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to a showdown between Trump and Hillary in the general, because I believe Clinton’s track record on foreign policy is indefensible. Hopefully Trump will offer a clear alternative to that.

    • Ask Republican members of the House, Senate, and Republican state governors up for re-election this year if they want Trump to be the standard bearer for the Republican party.

      There’s far more at stake than POTUS. The RNC would like to retain hard-won republican majorities in the House, the Senate, and the 31:18 majority among state governors.

    • @edbarbar

      “Today, an article in Politico states 57% of Trump supporters will not vote Republican in the general if Trump is somewhat shy of the needed delegates, but does not secure the Republican nominee.”

      Darned if I could find that article at Politico.com

      Google couldn’t find it either.


      Got a link to it?

      • oops, no it isn’t. Interesting anyway.

      • So anyhow, Trump supporters are about 35% of the Republican party. So 57% of them won’t vote Republican. That’s .57*.35 or 20% of the party who won’t vote Republican if Trump isn’t on the ballot.

        Trump’s negative rating among independents is -27 and among Democrats is -70 according to Gallup.


        With me so far? Good. A Quinnipiac poll about a month ago asked the question of which candidate “you would definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president.” Twenty-eight percent of all Republican voters would refuse to back him, which improves to 26 percent when only Republican college graduates are considered.

        So the convention delegates have to ask themselves if they’d let 20% of the primary voters walk away, mostly deep south uneducated redneck bigots, or let 28% of the educated, civil conservatives walk away instead.

        Does anyone need help with the math? I’m not normally a third grade calculus tutor but in this case I’ll make an exception.

      • errr… 43% would back Trump’s replacement making 57% who wouldn’t.

      • Dump Dumpy.

      • Jim D | March 24, 2016 at 12:22 am |

        OK, this one. 54%, New York Post.



        Nope. That one says 33%.

        The Monmouth University survey found that 27 percent of Trump supporters wouldn’t even bother to vote in November, and another 7 percent said they’d go with the Democratic nominee.

        So Trump is running about 35% overall in the primaries. Let’s say 45% just for grins. It isn’t higher he hasn’t won a single state by a 50% majority.

        33% of 45% is 15%.

        Fifteen percent of Republican primary voters walk if Trump doesn’t get the nod. Big f*cking deal. Good riddance. They’re making the whole party look like a bunch of mean uneducated bigots. Mollifying them means we’d probably lose the Senate majority, risk losing the House majority, and lose God only knows how many of our 31 Republican state senators if that jackass is the standard bearer for the party.

        No way, no how. I say to that 10% don’t let the door kick you in the ass on the way out.

      • This is from the New York Post article.
        “The Monmouth University survey found that 27 percent of Trump supporters wouldn’t even bother to vote in November, and another 7 percent said they’d go with the Democratic nominee.
        Just 43 percent said they’d back Trump’s replacement.”
        It doesn’t add up, however, because they don’t account for the whole 57%. Even of the ones who would back the replacement, what if the replacement was Cruz, who Trump has not been nice to, or someone parachuted in like Ryan or Romney?

      • Correction.

        of our 31 Republican state senators governors…

        On the 57% you were right the first time you said you were wrong. It’s 33% and that’s a direct quote from NY Post article from a Monmouth University Survey.

        15% of the Republican party threatens a walkout if Trump isn’t nominated.

        Meanwhile, almost twice that number, 28% according to Quinnipiac poll mentioned above, will walk if Trump IS the nominee. I’m one of that 28% and I know some others personally. I guarantee I’ll walk. I voted Libertarian in 2012 because I didn’t like Romney and Romney looks good compared to Trump.

        Let’s see 15% walk if Trump isn’t there and 28% walk if he is. Plus if we put in Kasich who has consistently polled 6% or more higher than Hillary in general election polling we can beat Hillary.

        That’s a no brainer. Hasta la vista Trump baby!

      • “But 43 percent of Trump supporters said that if someone else were nominated in that scenario, they would still vote for the GOP nominee in November”

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/poll-gop-voters-unite-trump-221144#ixzz43nIHGKgA
        Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

      • Dump Trump Now:

        “With me so far? Good. A Quinnipiac poll about a month ago asked the question of which candidate “you would definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president.” Twenty-eight percent of all Republican voters would refuse to back him, which improves to 26 percent when only Republican college graduates are considered”

        That survey is old: from December. A lot has changed since December. Trump was polling at 35% at the beginning of December. Recently, he has broken 50%. And there are now some polls showing Trump beating Hillary. Wait until he turns his genius against Hillary.

        Not too concerned about Democrats. Most will vote for Hillary, many hypocritically (occupy types), when Trump is taking no money from the people they feel have too much control.

        I think no other candidate has a chance (despite your outdated poll).

        I suspect you aren’t persuadable, but maybe you have a sense of humor.

        A Hillary/Trump matchup would be a lot of fun to watch. The Grand Master persuader/huckster vs. the self serving liar.

      • ==> ” The Grand Master persuader/huckster vs. the self serving liar.”

        What’s amusing is that supporters think that there’s some distinction there. Both descriptions apply to reach candidate.

      • Dump Trump Now sez:

        “They’re making the whole party look like a bunch of mean uneducated bigots.”

        That’s quite an assertion. Not everyone agrees with your assessment. Some might say the MSM is making Trump supporters appear to be mean, uneducated bigots. Which, it seems to me, is exactly what they want to do regardless of the truth.

        I get the feeling Trump can handle it. Bring it on.

      • ==> Some might say the MSM is making Trump supporters appear to be mean, uneducated bigots.

        Playing the victim never gets old.

      • “Playing the victim never gets old”

        Huh? I’m denigrating the MSM as biased progressive liars.

      • “Both descriptions apply to reach candidate”

        Could be. Somehow, though, I get the feeling Trump genuinely loves America, and the American people.

        Never quite got that feeling from Hillary. More like disdain from her.

        But, who knows, and who cares, really. Trump says he is going to do things I have wanted done for a very long time, Democrats never align with my (nationalist) views, and Republicans often claim to, but never do anything about it.

        But meanwhile, I’m not a rank and file member shouting out “Oh, Racist, oh Sexist, oh, Hitler, oh, Islamaphobia, oh Stupid.” The rank and file progressives are, though (I do call Hillary a liar and self serving, though, but there is plenty of hard evidence for that).

      • Danny Thomas

        “Trump says he is going to do things I have wanted done for a very long time”. Could you suggest what those things are? I find him to be vulgar and a bully, but so what (although temperment is important for the job). But when I listen to him I hear, ‘great deals, win, make great, yada, yada, yada’ and have to go to his website for policy information. His speeches are uninformative salesmanship lacking substance. Debates much the same (think I’ve seen much of 3 or 4).

        Not a gotcha kind of question. I’d truly like to know as I’m not getting it.


      • Danny,

        You state, essentially, his speeches are vacuous.

        If you read Adams, it’s probably a technique. I’m going to repeat an argument from Scott Adams:

        The emptiness of Trump’s speeches is almost certainly intentional. You say something people want, like “I’m going to shut down illegal immigration with a wall,” and people’s imagination fills in the blanks. Different people will fill it in using their imagination, but in different ways.

        You get specific, and you open yourself up to attacks. It’s kind of hard to argue against an abstraction like the wall, but if you give specifics, then you risk it not being what a supporter had in mind, and you risk having your opponents throw stones at it.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thanks Ed, sounds like you’ve gotten the same message as I. Salesmanship w/o substance.

      • Danny,

        Missed some other questions.

        Here is my view. For the US to be healthy, it needs to look after itself first of all. The US is not healthy. It is the largest debtor nation in the world, with huge trade imbalances. I’m concerned there is a cliff there. Like Greece. Trump says there are unfair trade agreements, and he will fix them. I’ve worked on business deals with China, and so can say “Yes, it’s hard for the US to do business with them.” Facebook is banned in China. Google is rarely used. These are two large US corporations that cannot do business in China, yet the cost for them to do business in China is minimal.

        We are reading over and over that robotics is going to take over many menial tasks. I read, for instance, that farmers are now using machines to cull lettuce, which is very labor intensive. My view is the cheap, illegal labor impedes automation, and dumps another large disaffected demographic in the US. The San Jose Mercury news ran an article discussing the Hispanic culture. The second generation does better than the first, but the third worse than the second. Unfortunately, the culture eschews education. But, if you believe the automation thing, we do not need low skilled labor. Also, I think Hispanic labor has made it so jobs typically done by teenagers are not as plentiful, so there are less of them. In my town of way too many fast food restaurants, I see middle aged career fast food employees. These used to be done by teenagers. So, it’s good for the US to bring in the smart people, which he says he will do, and not overwhelm the taxpayer with people who really don’t want to be a part of our culture. I could go on about this.

        Third, we are still protecting the entire world since WW II, and since the cold war is over. We are spending vast amounts of treasure messing around in the ME, when we have plenty of oil resources here in the United States. We should develop our own resources: ANWR, off-shore, and government lands that are conducive to fracking. We don’t do this, in part because Global Warming. It’s silly. Somebody said “But, our oil is too expensive!” I say ME oil is too expensive. We spent over a trillion dollars to secure it, and it looks less secure than ever. Let someone else manage the ME, like China.

        He is not politically correct. That’s a cancer in our society. Hopefully he will change the tenor of that, so we can talk about the issues confronting this country. Before, you brought up the immigration thing, and it’s “Oh, Racist.” As an example.

        So, these are my reasons for supporting Trump. The US government should be about supporting the US first, not the international community.

      • Danny Thomas

        In a couple simple blog comments I’ve gained as much insight as to how you’d operate as I have with months of Trumps campaign.

        Concern about Trump is this is just another deal in a series. The Art of the deal, and all. This could be the ‘biggest deal’ he’s ever tried to pull off.

        I don’t play the race card with Trump. It’s too simplistic, even though from what he’s said (making a deal to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it) again lacks substance. There have been a series of ‘deals’ w/r/t immigration since Reagan and all have failed in the purported goals. It’s not solely up to the Prez. Congress has to participate and has not fully since the issue became major +/- 1975.

        Appreciate your views.

      • Ed

        Enjoyed the read. Thanks

      • Danny,

        No one knows what Trump will do, and how much of what he wants to do he can do. I like the things he says he is going to do, and as commander in chief he will have a lot of leverage. he knows how to use it.

        So, you’ve got a guy who agrees with you on things, and who is one of the best salesman on the planet, it’s a pretty good bet.

    • “If you are a republican, a vote for Cruz or Kasich is essentially a vote for Hillary.”
      It’s a vote for the estblishment. A great part of the establishment’s argument is that, they are the establishment. As suggested by others, it’s the establishment versus change.

      • The argument is all you can do is spoil Trump’s nomination. He will be far and away the leader going into the convention, so you will have to deny the strong plurality of the voters.

        The reason they are for Trump now, is they are incensed because the establishment republicans broke promises.

        Imagine how angry they will be if the GOP doesn’t let a Trump nomination through. That would damage the party, perhaps irreparably. Might not be so bad. Maybe we need three parties in this country. And if three, why not four, or more.

  30. David L. Hagen

    Clinton Tries to Stake Out New Turf on Energy Policy

    It’s clear that the Hillary Clinton who served as chief U.S. diplomat is not the same person on the campaign trail. That’s fruit of the strident divide inside the Democratic Party, and shows up most clearly in things like Clinton’s sudden disavowal of big free trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she described as the “gold standard” while working as America’s top diplomat. The candidate who declared her opposition to the Keystone pipeline from Canada is the same person who leaned toward approving it for years while secretary of state.

    Most recently, Clinton took a strident line on the future of hydraulic fracturing, which has fueled the U.S. oil and gas boom. This month, during a debate in Michigan, Clinton unloaded on fracking and its potential environmental perils. “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said. That generated plenty of concern in the U.S. oil patch.

    Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil

    the US was prepared to lead a collective effort by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 from a combination of public and private sources to help the most vulnerable nations mitigate the damage from climate change–if we could also reach a broad agreement on limiting emissions.

    • Brian G Valentine

      Evidently Hillary surrounds herself exclusively with people that say only what she wants to hear, and learned nothing from the failures of Bush Junior.

      It appears she can’t be counted among those who learn from the mistakes of others.

    • Hillary Clinton said:

      “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said.

      And Trump says scary things?

      Clinton has completely departed from reality.

    • I can’t stand her David, but this is an example of me not putting stock into what a politician says on the campaign trail. I doubt she’d follow through on a lot of this.

      As I recall Obama said all the right things regarding the environmentalists agendas. Mostly lip service until his final couple of years, when he realized his “legacy” was that of an incompetent clown and he went in search of something he could lay claim to.

  31. Thanks Dr J. I’ve been following the recent threads. Many many of the comments are geared towards making the case for who might win. Granted, that’s what people do when waxing on about politics.

    I’d like to toss out the concept that the both the equity and bond markets cash flows are sending historically reliable singles since about the middle of last year showing an exodus from equities and a move into protected assets. My numbers are derived from tracking rydex cash flow using raw data.

    Most voters have no skin in those games and are unaware of how asset allocations are shifting. THIS is the real political story as it will define what any new president will be faced with.

    The policies of whoever gets elected will be defined by the above economic storm that is headed our way.

    Further terror attacks in the States are gauranteed. Couple that reality with a coming nasty economic malaise and one can easily begin to understand that much of the trivial appeals to garner the voters attentions are ultimately … boring.

    While boring, those appeals will define who Americans chose because groups can’t help themselves but chose based on the emotional hook.

    Make no doubt about it, the well laid plans of mice and men will face a coming storm that will preoccupy them with a continuous barrage of crisis. All things being equal, the best candidate for the upcoming drama needs to be an excellent crisis leader, preferably skilled in anticipating what’s coming vs impotent reaction.

  32. The Trump haters are going to need a lot of grief counseling. You all should start forming your support groups now. Canada is going to get awfully crowded with refugees. Oh, the humanity!

    • Brian G Valentine

      No. Say half of the Republic are Republicans. Say half of those are insane enough to vote for Chump.

      This very crude arithmetic proves that it is impossible for Chump to win.

      • That’s telling him, Brian.

      • You are in the first stage. Anyway, you’ll probably like Canada. You seem the type.

      • Brian G Valentine

        It isn’t that I don’t like French fries and gravy, but I think I’d rather be a civil war soldier on the Federal side.

        It’s a more romantic way to die

      • Maybe you prefer tortillas and beans. If you can get into Mexico before the wall gets built, the Mexican authorities would probably not charge you too much to transit down to Guatemala, on the beast. Just don’t try to get off in Mexico. They will beat the crap out of you, among other nasty things.


      • That’s telling him, Don !

      • Why don’t you try to make yourself useful, maxie? You are just yapping like a little chihuahua.

      • Brian G Valentine

        Hmm. No thanks. Too hot and humid.

        I speak Arabic, so maybe I’ll become one of “those.”

        The fifth Crusade, led by an intrepid but ignorant Chump, will be the last for another five hundred years.

      • You wanting to start sh*t again craven boy? C’mon buddy. Let daddy know where to find you.

      • Are you going to let this emotionally disturbed little clown pollute another thread, Judith?

      • I head Donald Trump’s plan was to build a wall on this side of the Rio Grande and hang burlap bags on the other side with instructions to Mexico to put the kids into the bags and drown them in the Rio Grande like unwanted kittens.

        That sounds about right for the craven Trumpettes who wet their panties a the thought of American being the shining City on the Hill again. Make America Great again my ass.

      • I’ll be in Detroit from April 4-7. Fly in and I’ll pay for your ticket and have someone pick you up at the airport. You should wear brown pants.

      • Brian G Valentine

        Outright threats and intimidation are not “free speech” Judith so you ought to X it out of your blog

      • Interestingly, Trump is reintroducing the concept that bullying a bully who has tried to bully is noble.

        Among the reasons Trump has gained momentum is his aura of fearlessness when confronted with being bullied.

        It has gotten peoples attention which is the first task of any persuader. Compare this to the Romney 2012 and it’s easy to see why voter turnout is HUGE.

      • I think Judith and Springer have some kind of arrangement. Or maybe she just feels sorry for him.

      • “I head Donald Trump’s plan was to build a wall on this side of the Rio Grande and hang burlap bags on the other side with instructions to Mexico to put the kids into the bags and drown them in the Rio Grande like unwanted kittens.”

        I heard Hillary say (paraphrased) she got a child rapist off on a technicality. The girl was 12. She was asked by a friend to take the case and she did. She submitted documentation to the court that the 12 year old “sought older male attention,” in other words, she asked for it. Some 10 years or so later, Hillary laughed about the whole thing.

        That actually happened, unlike what you heard. You shouldn’t believe the echo chamber, Dump Trump Now.

      • knutesea

        You may be on to something about the bullying. I’m the only one in my family who is giving Trump some consideration. All the women swear they are off to the Yukon if he is elected. Even my conservative son thinks he is a whackjob. None of them likes the appearance of a course, authoritarian with bullying instincts.

        Trump is not used to relying on focus groups. He has most likely taken all facts into consideration and then pulled the trigger willing to accept the consequences. Much of the public are looking for action and decisions regardless of style. If that entails a little bullying and banging some melonheads into submission, so be it.

        LBJ used bullying tactics to get his domestic agenda through. Good for him. He was the right man for the right time. Much of what JFK wanted to do was languishing in ether land, being shepherded by a bunch of very smart but ineffective underlings. The bull in the China shop took over and did what needed to be done.

        We don’t need smoothness and urbanity. We need a leader who knows how to wrestle in the mud and force legislation through that everyone agrees is needed but are too gutless to roll the dice and risk losing their seat.

      • Danny Thomas

        “We need a leader who knows how to wrestle in the mud and force legislation through that everyone agrees is needed but are too gutless to roll the dice and risk losing their seat.”
        Yes! And we need legislators with an equal level of courage.

      • There’s a leader for every season. They come and they go a reason. Since leaders arise primarily from our collective emotions, it helps me at least to figure out what is the collective emotion of the community I’m in.

        I think (not sure yet) that people are increasingly becoming scared of domestic mayhem … for a brief moment their I saw non trumpees envision him as strong leader who predicted brussels. Bama and H were flat. She had a prepared speech of bureaudrizzle, he was playing make believe that there is no threat.

        I try to listen to the collective hum.

      • ==> Trump is not used to relying on focus groups.


        He probably relies on focus groups, or something analogous, all the time. Evaluating public opinion is the basis of advertising and many business-related decisions.

        Further, it’s always amusing to see people giving Trump a pass on the types of judgement they’d routinely apply to any other politician running for office. Where does this notion that someone who constantly changes
        “opinions” on topics, and who is trying to cull as many votes as possible, doesn’t present a public image on the basis of what will attract the most votes?

        Confirmation bias is very confirming.

      • Josh

        I hate to break it to you but the use of focus groups, etc is a relatively recent phenomenon. Do you really think executives in the 50s and 60s those things? All indications are that he is old school in the political world. By all accounts he has few advisors. This is why the world is full of wimpy little thithies. They no longer have the guts to go with their common sense and learned experience. If the current decision making process used by leaders today was the vogue in 1941, we in America would be speaking German.

      • ceresco kid



      • Fascinating. If only we could go back to the good ol’ days when men were men and they knew how to make decisions.


      • Curious George

        Joshua – have you ever attempted to listen to Trump? I did, gave up after 2 minutes. However, I don’t believe he says things that focus groups tell him to say. Hillary does exactly that. Trump is rude, but himself.

      • No, Josh, my point was that just because focus groups are used now does not mean all executives use them especially those born in the 1940s. I can tell you are too young and inexperienced to actually have been in a position of authority in real world situations. I don’t remember ever making a budget decision with the help of models or focus groups or statisticians at my side. Sometimes you just go with your gut.

        It is a politically incorrect mispronounced pejorative with a few translations, that drive some like Joshua up the wall.
        In this case it is meant as a man who can’t make tough decisions and who is better suited for quilting bees. Given the lack of political courage I would put most Congressmen in this category.

      • George –

        He says things to curry favor with voters. Which explains why he dodges about and says untruthful things at such s prodigious rate. No, he may not actually run focus groups to test policy stances, but the basic principle is the same: He picks his positions to further his political and self-serving aims. The notion that he is some honest person who is courageously saying what he really believes is hilarious.

        The confirmation bias on display about Trump is remarkable.

      • George –
        He says things to curry favor with voters.

        Or maybe he’s staking out a negotiating position.

      • Nothing romantic about dying Brian.

        And if there was, it would have been more so fighting as a Confederate. Forlorn hope and all.

      • Kid –

        Notice that I said analogous. The romantic notion that Trump is just a straight-shooter who doesn’t alter his policy stances for the sake of political expediency is charmingly naive. As is the notion that executives of old didn’t tailor their decisions and positioning on the basis of their perceptions about public opinion.

        ==> that drive some like Joshua up the wall.

        And I couldn’t care less if you want to indulge your fantasies about manly men. Whatever rocks your boat, bro.

      • Josh

        If Trump had listened to his non-existent advisors, he would not have said 90% of what he did say. You don’t have enough experience in the rough and tumble real world to distinguish theory from reality.

        My complaint is not gender specific. The new generation of wimps are becoming incapable of making tough minded decisions with an ability to face adversity. The campuses of psyches paralyzed with fragility are dooming our society to being led by thumb suckers. The protests at Emory is an example. Students are “traumatized” and demanding emergency counseling because someone wrote on sidewalks with chalk “vote for Trump”. That throws our future leaders into psychotic episodes in need of medical attention?

        Somehow dealing with this adversity doesn’t rise to the level of facing a German pillbox that earlier generations dealt with.

      • ==> Or maybe he’s staking out a negotiating position.

        I particularly like this rationalization. The last time I read it, it was in the context of Trump saying that the military would follow his illegal (and counterproductive) orders because…well, because he’s such a leader.

        So basically he can say anything and his apologists will just say “Well, maybe it’s just a negotiating position.”

        We should start a new event in the Olympics for Trump apologists: Pretzel bending.

    • Don

      Trump has one upped the current liar in chief. He’s mastered the power of social media beyond anything the current administration ever dreamed of and caught them all by storm. He and his writers have mastered the use of Twitter as a real time message tester. His opposition fail to imitate what’s good about the strategy let alone keep up if they try and it has given him a powerful sledgehammer.

      If you arent on twitter please give it a try and examine Trumps posts. They masterfully weave appeals to logic, credibility and emotion.

      The above strategy galvanizes attention. Ironically, he is stealing a play from the current administration who artfully used emotional appeals to suspend intellectual judgement.

      The jury is still out about how well Trump can articulate his priorities, objectives and most importantly, tactics. But, those are just plans.

      Personally, I look at the candidates to see signs of how well they deal with crisis … decision making under duress

      • Knute gets it.

      • I’m starting to get it. Trumps movement has gained momentum quickly. He tapped into a market that was being ignored. No matter what you feel about the man, you certainly have to admire his acumen for identifying fertile soil.

        The established powercrats are having a cow that their take turn at the trough tag team dealio is being challenged. Even if Trump fails, he has succeeded in creating an awakening that there are many other people (other than one’s self) who are sick and tired of the corrupt leadership from both sides. Awakenings like that grow because it kindles hope. Enemies don’t submit to your will if they have hope.

        It’s very exciting to watch the long time malaise of apathy awaken. The US should feel priveleged as a nation that it’s core value of freedom generates such rejuvenation.

        I can’t wait to see what else I learn from watching the next 6 months.

        I hope you follow him on twitter. It’s a hoot how he does it.

    • I think she’s just too busy to catch everything.

      I personally don’t care. If the two of you want to engage in schoolyard antics, feel free. I would note that it sets a poor example for the younger kiddies. Imagine the potential for emotional scaring max might be subject to.

  33. Take up for Motford, and look at the thanks I get. It’s like trying to defend a rabid dog.

    Latest Gallup Poll

    “Trump’s Image Among Republicans Continues to Tilt Positive”

    “55% Favorable”

    “Republicans who view Trump positively are older, more likely to be men”

    “Republicans’ views of the billionaire businessman have generally held steady. His image today is roughly where it was last July.”


    Gallop also found Trump isn’t popular among Religious Republican and young female Republicans. I wonder if there’s an overlap here. If so, young Republican gals can’t be much fun.

    • max1ok | March 24, 2016 at 1:10 am | Reply

      Take up for Motford, and look at the thanks I get. It’s like trying to defend a rabid dog.


      Not really. The dog would be worth trying to save.

      • Coming to Detroit? Wear your brown pants. You can bring your neighbors dogs. We got room for them.

  34. Brian G Valentine

    This blog proves there is free speech in America, three fifths of the world can’t do it. and it is an under appreciated blessing.

  35. Camille Paglia has weighed in again on Trump and Hillary:


    Trump may be raw, crude and uninformed, but he’s also smart, intuitive and a quick study who will presumably get up to passable speed as he assembles a brain trust over the coming months. Whether Trump can temper his shoot-from-the-hip impetuosity is another matter. There is a huge gap between the teeth-gnashing fulminations of the anti-Trump mainstream media and the perfectly reasonable Trump supporters whom I hear calling into radio talk shows. The machinations of the old-guard GOP establishment to thwart Trump voters and subvert the primary process are an absolute disgrace. But it’s business as usual for tone-deaf party leaders who, barely more than a day after the discovery of Antonin Scalia’s corpse last month, stupidly proclaimed there would be no hearings for an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Voters have a tremendous opportunity this year to smash the tyrannical, money-mad machinery of both parties. A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for the future, while a vote for Hillary Clinton is a reward to the Democratic National Committee for its shameless manipulation and racketeering. A primary vote for Donald Trump is a rebuke to the arrogantly insular GOP establishment, which if he wins the nomination will lose its power and influence overnight.

    But a Trump-Hillary death match will be a national nightmare, a race to the bottom for both parties, as Democratic and Republican operatives compete to dig up the most lurid and salacious dirt on both flawed candidates. We’ll be sadistically trapped in an endless film noir, with Trump as Citizen Kane, Don Corleone and Scarface and Hillary as Norma Desmond, Mommie Dearest and the Wicked Witch of the West.

    • The lady is a tramp and an intellectual giant among lefty midgets. One day she will have an epiphany and realize she is really a conservative. I would vote for her to be President. I am sure that the practical side of her mind would take over, if she were burdened with that great responsibility.

      • I assume you’re talking about Camille and not Hillary.

      • You would never see me refer to little infraction factory granny hilly-billy as a “lady”, or any of the other. So yeah, it’s Camille I fervently admire and respect, despite some of her odd proclivities.

      • Canman,

        Hillary is one of those lefty intellectual midgets Don is referring to.

        Though I would have to say that she has one stunning achievement to her credit. That is how anyone with such a lackluster, even incompetent record of achievement makes it as the front runner for the Democrats.

        Talk about holding your nose and voting Trump. With Hillary holding one’s nose and turning a blind eye doesn’t cut it. You have to poke a stick into both eyes and hold a gun to your head threatening to shoot yourself in order to overlook her record.

    • Curious George

      “A national nightmare, a race to the bottom for both parties.” It is time to replace a party system with the only truly democratic election system: a lottery system.

    • “Voters have a tremendous opportunity this year…” – Camille Paglia

      Yes Camille these voters are sooo stupid aren’t they! Such missed opportunities! It’s too bad they don’t heed your endless wisdom and advise! They are like petulant children not understanding their opportunities.

  36. TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Two years ago, Augustus Sol Invictus walked from central Florida to the Mojave Desert and spent a week fasting and praying, at times thinking he wouldn’t survive. In a pagan ritual to give thanks when he returned home, he killed a goat and drank its blood.


    • Curious George

      It’s great to survive your own folly. We may not survive an elected person’s folly.

  37. From the article:

    Hannity opened the two-part segment by referring to Ramos’ accusations of racism against Trump as “offensive,” blasting him for being “fundamentally unfair” for taking Trump’s quotes about undocumented immigrants out of context.
    Story Continued Below
    “I’m simply reporting what Donald Trump has been saying,” said Ramos, who one week earlier similarly butted heads with Bill O’Reilly on his show.
    “That’s not true!” Hannity replied.
    Ramos then referred to Trump’s comments last June that Mexican immigrants are drug traffickers, criminals and rapists, saying, “he’s absolutely wrong.” Hannity took issue with that characterization, remarking that Trump had indeed referred to only some of the immigrants, invoking his own experience down at the border at an intelligence briefing with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
    On multiple occasions, Hannity accused Ramos of having an agenda against Trump, also accusing him of misrepresenting Trump’s stance on closing the borders to Muslims. Ramos told Hannity that he could not blame immigrants for all of the U.S.’ problems, referring to the fact, for example, that an American citizen committed the atrocity of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary.
    “You’re talking about apples and oranges,” Hannity said.
    “Excuse me, I don’t need lectures from you, because you act like a sanctimonious, objective reporter and you’ve got an agenda! You support open borders! You support illegal immigration!” Hannity bellowed. Ramos countered by saying that he is equally tough on Democrats and independents. “Big deal,” Hannity said. “What do you want? A medal?”


  38. Now Obummer’s health debacles slips down the slippery slope to cost the middle class more of their money. Naturally, the Dimowit solution is to spend more of other people’s money. It should be taken from the Clinton Foundation. Bet that one wouldn’t hunt. From the article:

    A video shows Chelsea Clinton blasting the “crushing costs” of President Barack Obama’s signature legislation. In the video, Chelsea Clinton tells a crowd that her mother, Hillary Clinton, is open to using executive action to reduce “crushing costs” of Obamacare.

    “…cap on out of pocket expenses. This was part of my mom’s original plan back in ’93 and ’94, as well as premium costs. We can either do that directly or through tax credits. And, kind of figuring out whether she could do that through executive action, or she would need to do that through tax credits working with Congress. She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people, who even are part of the Affordable Care Act and buying insurance…”


    • “cap on out of pocket expenses”

      The out of pocket expenses are the only thing keeping costs down.

      Health care is a real problem, because there is only so much of it, but lives are very important. You give away healthcare, and people will use a lot more of it.

      Here in CA they had a great idea. Expand the amount of healthcare by bumping up what a nurse practitioner could do. Unfortunately, it got shot down.

  39. A TV presenter apparently accused the Trumpkin of telling a lie. What an unanswerable zinger, you might think!

    I thought lying was an essential pre-requisite for a career in politics, although the skill is disguising the lie as misspeaking, bad advice, truthiness, or any form of words not containing the actual word “lie”.

    Anyway, Ben Carson apparently challenged the presenter to name a politician who didn’t lie, I rest my case.


    • Good to see you Mike. I still remember you for the wiggle worm.

      To be truly inclusive we all lie. Again some more than others some worse than others.

      Lies exaggerations half-truths all meant to gain attention first and foremost. And on some level we all tolerate it.

      What we have far less tolerance for this when there is no there there. Phase 2 of the Trump movement is to demonstrate just enough of the substance to keep you listening.

      Trump has changed the game by being better in real time at adjusting than his opponents.

      • knutesea,

        Thanks. Luckily, I have no particular direct interest in the election. My reference to the Trumpkin was not meant to be other than humorous. I saw some Halloween pumpkins on TV news a while ago. Some artistic person had carved their pumpkins, and decorated them, so as to create a recognisable caricature of Donald Trump.

        It must have tickled me. I can’t remember whether I stole the Trumpkin, or made it up. I think it’s funny, but others may not. Luckily, I care not a jot, although I mean no intentional harm to anyone.

        I really shouldn’t comment on the candidates. Oh well. Have fun!


      • Sorry Mike. Didn’t mean to chase you off. I want to have fun trying to figure out how the trumpinator will adjust his message.

        The more I think about the trump technique the more I can see a potential usefulness in his campaign. He’s so good at adjusting what’s he’s selling that I’d like to know what analytics he is using. It could be an excellent tool for overall public policy other than straight up voting for everything.

      • He’s selling hate. There’s a minority composed mostly of uneducated white bigots with low self-esteem looking for scapegoats who are buying it. Quoth the angry white bigot: “I’m not the problem for my lack of success. It’s those freeloading brown immigrants including mooselems and women of all colors want equal pay for doing man’s work. That’s the problem.”

        Well at least Trump got ’em all out of the closet. It’s about 15% of the US population and about 80% of this blog.

      • OK, it’s now obvious to everyone that your emotionally disturbed little butt isn’t quite dumb enough to go to Detroit. I would have had you picked up by my friends in the Detroit PD. Or, if I were not reformed, I could have had some of my homies pick you up.

        Let this be a lesson to you. Don’t demand that people you have picked a dumb beef with on some freaking blog tell you where they live and make implied threats against them. I know exactly where you can be had. People like me are shielded from emotionally disturbed characters like you. We earned it. Try to remember that.

      • Donny, Donny, Donny…

        Do you have friends who are movers and shakers who spend as much time on obscure blogs as you do? You’ve been wasting a substantial fraction of your life for the past several years on climate blogs. Does it seem credible to you that a guy your age with wealth, power, a fine son just transitioning out of grade school, and an exotic beautiful professional wife would do that?

        I’m an old retired cheapskate and this is more interesting than watching TV. What’s your excuse?

      • Donnny, something I learned in life is that wealthy powerful people don’t brag about what they can do to regular folks who cross them. Certainly not in public and not specific. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

        The internet isn’t anonymous by the way and since you know where I live you might want to check on my neighbor to the north. He’s almost like a father to me. A retired FBI special agent, former assistant director for Homeland Security for the State of Texas, a lecturer on corporate security all over the world, and owns a private investigative agency. My baby brother-in-law who I love dearly and met when he was just ten years old, 35 years ago, is now a former Navy Seal employed by the DoD in Baltimore. Unless you’ve been lying all along you gave away enough information for either of them to find you with a couple of phone calls. Not that I’d ask but if something were to happen they’d be the ones looking. You failed your intelligence test.

        Another red flag that speaks against your credibility is that anonymous people like who you claim to be on blogs… a young wealthy guy with a fine son in middle school and a beautiful exotic wife who is a doctor or lawyer or something don’t waste a significant fraction of their lives on obscure climate blogs as you’ve done for the past several years. They just don’t, Donnie. At least no one like that I know and I know a lot of multimillionaires. I’m an old retired cheapskate and this is free entertainment for me. What’s your excuse?

        Here’s a deal for you to save face, Donny. A thousand bucks doesn’t mean anything to you, right? Mail me an anonymous cashier’s check for $1000 made out to Texans for Trump or whatever cause you like. I won’t be able to cash it so it’s worth nothing to me. If I get it I’ll scan it and post it here before forwarding it on to the named recipient and I’ll apologize profusely for ever doubting you. You’ll own me in figurative sense.

        I predict the odds of that happening are less than those of Ted Cruz getting 1237 delegates by July.

        Now let this be a lesson to you about bragging on blogs about what a mover and shaker you are while insisting that you must remain anonymous.

        Meanwhile the owner of this blog is a girl with more stones than you, Donny. She’s not anonymous and has about 50 million foaming at the mouth fruit loops all over the western world who think she’s helping to destroy the planet by denying climate change. How does your anonymous ass stack up in comparison?

        As always thanks for playing and better luck next time.

      • Now you are trying to extort a thousand bucks out of me, little man. You are incredibly stoopid. Show your threatening comments to your FBI friend and see what he advises you to do.

        I am sure your FBI friend and your baby brother in law will appreciate you claiming they will track me down for your dumb little obsessive butt to help you carry out your threats and extortion scheme. Have they done stuff like for you before? Nah, I bet they have more sense than that. I am sure they have more sense than that. Show them your threats and obsessive foolishness and ask them to advise you on how to handle this little thing from here on out. You could save yourself a lot of grief, little dude.

        Judith, you need to buy that book: “How to Run A Blog: for Dummies”. You really should think about restraining this obsessed little clown.

        If you won’t get help from the VA, ask your friends to help you. You are ill.

      • Calm down, Donny. I asked if you’d make an anonymous but verifiable donation of a thousand bucks to any charity you wanted to show us you really are a man of means who can throw a hundred grand at an anti-Hillary PAC. So I guess the answer is no. What a shocker.

      • Dr J

        The above post refers to the term “us”. Since you ultimately run this blog and I have been posting, I want to emphasize that I want nothing to do with his use of the word “us”.

        Thank you.

      • It’s starting to dawn on your dim little butt that you are digging yourself into an ever deeper hole called legal jeopardy. You have a history of this foolishness with photos of you with dogs and everything. We know how well armed and mean you claim to be. We got a file of all that stuff along with the threats you have recently made against me. And you are mentioning my wife and son in ways I don’t like at all, little man.

        You keep making your little threats, raising the stakes, I call you, you back down. I would spend $10,000, or whatever to get you to show up looking for me in Detroit. But you are not quite that stoopid. You should shut up with the threats and the extortion attempts and talking about my family now, or I will be owning you literally.

        And Judith should really think about getting busy and deleting all your threats and other sick foolishness.

        Give me the phone numbers of your FBI friend and your little baby brother in law and I’ll have somebody call them and explain to them who I am.

        I am not playing with you, sarge.

      • Judy gives people who comment under a real name she’s verified a lot more leeway than others. Tough break for you. You should probably count yourself lucky she hasn’t eighty-sixed you like Tony Watts did.

      • Donny, if that’s even your real name, I know no more about you than what you’ve stated on this blog. Not a bit of it can be independently verified so I believe none of it. The intertubes are overflowing with Walter Mitty types.

      • Oh, it’s getting more interesting. So you have discussed with Judith whether or not she has verified my name and she told you she can’t. And she let’s you get away with your threats and extortion attempts because she has verified that you are the little obsessive maroon, you claim to be. Thank you. Keep digging.

        How about those phone numbers, sarge? If those two get the 411 on me they could save you a lot of grief.

      • Well, I don’t have any hard feelings for Tony banning me. I told him to –snip– himself. He was interfering with me lambasting his boy Willis for disparaging the millions of dead and living soldiers who served honorably in Vietnam. Got it, sarge?

      • No Donny. Judith wrote somewhere that people who use real names get more leeway. Even I thought that we were both equally guilty of blog pollution and so I didn’t understand it when she said she was deleting a lot of yours and few of mine.

        That left me two logical possibilities. You were posting stuff a lot worse than what I saw and she was deleting it quickly OR she was using the verified commenter rule to give me more leeway. I suppose you could be a fabulously important individual and she knows it and expects more grown up behavior out of you than me.

        So I guess I missed that third possibility. Mibad. Is that the correct answer or is that top secret compartmented eyes-only information too?

        On the phone numbers… you have all the intelligence information you need to find them yourself. If either one of them calls me and says :”Hey Dave you had better back down before you find yourself on the wrong side of a waterboard in Gitmo then I’ll know you’re for real.” Otherwise you can go piss up a roap.

      • I understand Tony banning you. He banned me too for that reason and more.

        Good luck convincing a Texas judge that your fantasies about extortion and whatever merit consideration. You can call it that over and over again until the cows come home and it doesn’t phase me one little bit.

      • I still can’t figure why a secret agent or whatever you are has wasted so much time on climate blogs in the past few years. In between assignments? Nothing left for you to do after killing Bin Laden? What gives?

      • Why would I spend any time tracking down your alleged FBI pal and your little baby brother in law, sarge? You said you would sick them on me. Who are they? Did you make them up? Put up, or STFU.

        You are the stooopid inconsequential clown who is obsessed with finding out whatever it is you are compelled to find out about me. You are the stoopid fool making the threats and the extortion attempts. What ever would make a dumb clown like you think he could intimidate somebody on a blog into sending him a $1000 check? You are sick.

        Now that you have backed down on the threats and the extortion attempt like a little whipped puppy, I will consider letting you slide on those infractions, due to your illness. And I don’t live in Texas, so a Texas judge would indeed be the least of your worries.

        I suggest you become obsessed with somebody else. But you are welcome to continue with your stoopidity as long as you don’t cross the line. I might even get to feeling kind of flattered to have attracted a first class loon like you.

  40. From the article:

    Access is this group’s common currency. Wall Street spends millions to open doors to the top levels of the government that regulates it. Politicos bend over to get access to the money that keeps them in office. The media cut deals to get access to decision makers needed to feed ratings and circulation, even if sometimes at the cost of objectivity.

    “It’s a collection of people who live in Washington, D.C., and don’t care about the rest of the world,” said Hackmann. And, he noted, “They all have jobs.”


    “The establishment is anybody with big money who can get to the Congressmen and lobbyists,” said Judy Surak, a nurse from Clemson, South Carolina.

    All over South Carolina, ask the people reveling in the music at Greenville Heritage Main Street Fridays, or starting their day with homemade onion sausage at Lizard’s Thicket on Two Notch Road in Columbia to define the establishment, and they usually echo Surak.

    They often add a gentle qualifier: They don’t want to blow up the political system. They just want it to be more responsive, to work better.

    “The country’s long-term problems have to be fixed within the system we have,” said Mark Cruise, a Columbia executive.


  41. jim2 | March 24, 2016 at 9:36 pm in moderation.

  42. Here’s what you Trump-haters open borders BS has gotten us. From the article:

    WASHINGTON — American Muslims are watching in growing horror as Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz battle for the Republican presidential nomination, outdoing each other with provocative proposals that have included Muslim registries, immigration bans and fleets of police patrolling their neighborhoods.

    With round tables, summit meetings and news releases falling on deaf ears, national advocacy groups are planning to fend off policies they consider hostile to Muslims with a more proactive strategy: driving up the Muslim vote.


    • I would have sworn we have the freedom to hold any or no religious beliefs in this country.

      That’s not true, Jim? If not what are the allowed choices?

      • Dump Trump Now,

        You wrote –

        “I would have sworn we have the freedom to hold any or no religious beliefs in this country.” You can hold any religious belief you like – just be careful to whom you communicate that belief.

        The Smithsonian has a nice little article “The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record” in the Smithsonianmag.

        The US has democracy – for some. Religious freedom – for some. Freedom of speech – for some. And so it goes. As in most countries, some people appear to be freer than others. Sometimes based on inherited wealth, power, or position, sometimes based on money, or ruthlessness, or fanaticism.

        So if your religion involves human sacrifice, sex with young children, or even swallowing live goldfish, it might be best not to demand Government support. Even religions supporting polygamy, in one form or another, or polyandry, are not looked on favourably. This is odd, in light of the historic support of polygamy by the majority of the world’s religious adherents.

        Followers of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are occasionally subject to ridicule from purveyors of mainstream religion, for example.

        So freedom to believe does not necessarily imply freedom from persecution by those who hold different beliefs. Freedom to support one candidate does not mean that supporters of the others won’t subject you to their obviously demented views.


      • A typical nonsensical non-answer from Flynn.

        Makes a lame attempt to impugn religious freedom in the US via reductio ad absurdum by writing:

        “So if your religion involves human sacrifice, sex with young children, or even swallowing live goldfish, it might be best not to demand Government support.”

        Yeah Flynn, great point..


      • Dump Trump Now,

        I wasn’t actually answering any question you may have asked. I was merely pointing out that the Smithsonian expressed a point of view, backed up by fact, with which many Americans apparently disagree.

        I might have pointed out that the US Government does not support the right of the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to practise their faith in an unfettered fashion. Apparently, the world wide practice of polygamy is prohibited in the US. No religious freedom here, by God!

        And this is a Christian church, one might assume.

        As to sacrifice and cannibalism. I could point out that a particular revered personage was supposedly sacrificed by God, and this is celebrated by many Christians. The transubstantiation, at which you might snigger, is believed by many devout Christians. This is my body, eat. This is my blood, drink. Literally. Not in English originally, but a reasonable translation. If you speak Aramaic, I will accept an alternative translation, of course.

        So we have sacrifice and cannibalism (for the finest religion reasons) and you call believers maroons – as I said, religious freedom is not necessarily freedom as in freedom. It is more Warmist freedom, which is something which changes from day to day.

        If you choose to believe that the US observes religious freedom, as in freedom, good for you! Do you support male and female circumcision if carried out for religious reasons? How about defloration as a religious rite? Or maybe the practice of self castration? The Skoptsy, for example.

        Maybe your Government supports these things. Do you? Or do you disagree with your Government? I don’t believe that things are always so clear cut. I admire your ignorance. It’s much easier and more convenient.

        Unfortunately, being a maroon means that I have to think for myself. Occasionally? No, mostly.


      • Not if your religion involves blowing others up.

    • So they see what may be discrimination and then vote. Seems like a peaceful act. What if the solve their problem by voting. Then they may say, that worked pretty good. I’ll keep that in the mind for the next time I see a problem.

  43. “Make America Great Again” is code for putting wealthy white men in charge of everything again.

    Agree or disagree?

    • Come to Detroit and we can discuss it.

      • As it turns out I was born on the opposite end of Lake Erie from Detroit and I’m spending this summer with my mom there. I’m driving so I can take one or two of my dogs with me. I did that last time and it worked out well. Detroit is a bit out of my way but Toledo isn’t 60 miles to the south. I can catch I-90 there instead of at Cleveland no problem.

        First I want to know that you’re who you say you are. I’m not in the habit of meeting blog clowns of no substance.

        For instance, you said you’d “budgeted about $100,000 for Trump’s campaign”.

        Yet I can’t find a single campaign contribution to anyone made in your name ever. Your first rodeo is it?

        What was your Alma Mater and year of graduation so I can check up on that MBA?

        What’s a company you worked for in the past or some BoD you sat on?

        What’s the address of some real estate with your name on the deed?

        You can find me all the phuck over in public records from patents at Dell 20 years ago to sitting on the city council in my hometown last year. Not exactly Donald Trump although I do have more experience holding an elected public office than he does and I’m willing to bet it stays that way.. LOL

      • Dump,

        These are ridiculous questions for Don and even I, not matter how I disagree with him on Trump, would defend his right not to answer them.

        Just stick to the issues.

      • Of course he has a right to not answer them. And he didn’t.

        Duly noted.

        Constitutional rights upheld!!!



    • Disagree. It’s about tweeking policy and reforming the tax code to bring more jobs and corporations back to the US for everyone, no matter the skin color. You are way too hung up on race. You are obviously using race as a blunt instrument to further your political goals. Blacks have endorsed Trump and about 30% of, probably legal, Hispanics have a favorable opinion of him. Your race baiting doesn’t hunt.

    • Let’s see: Get rid of cheap illegal labor that taxpayers subsidize. That will help the wealthy.

      Make it harder for multinationals to ship jobs to foreign countries. That will help the wealthy.

      Less money spent on foreign adventurism. Lots of wounded warriors, how many of them are rich?

      So far, not a penny taken from the rich wall street banks, hence, no obligations. Hillary has. Hillary WILL help the wealthy.

      I think you are confused, Dump Trump Now.

      • You are mistaken.

        Here’s how it works.

        Cheap unskilled labor at $8/hr does the grunt work building a new home. The cheap labor for part of the job enables the builder to pay his licensed engineers, plumbers, electricians, inspectors, and so forth $80/hr. When I was on city council we were paying our contracted city engineering firm $150/hr and the building inspector was getting $120. Don’t even ask what the lawyer was getting. Needless to say I had kittens over those costs and asked why would couldn’t just hire wetbacks for those jobs. Turns out state and federal law doesn’t allow it. Who knew?

      • Sorry for the repost: it went to the wrong place:

        Dump Trump Now

        Here in CA over half the K-12 population is Hispanic. That’s about $35 Billion a year in taxpayer money, much of it from regressive property taxes. That’s only 1 government service.

        That’s a lot of money so you can have $8.00/hour illegal labor. And, might I add, every taxpayer pays for it, not only the people making money off the taxpayer subsidized labor.

    • Is Donald Trump the Michael Mann of politics?

  44. Obummer needed Google Analytics to get elected. Trump can do more with a mere Twitter account. He can do a whole lot more with a whole lot less. That’s the kind of man we need for President because everyone knows we as a country have blown every last dime we have and a whole lot more.

    • jim2,

      The national debt is only nineteen trillion dollars. In dimes, only nineteen quadrillion. Not much, really.

      Brother, can you spare a dime? Or nineteen quadrillion?

      Problem solved! Next!


    • You think he can get congress to go play ball with him? From where I’m sitting the loathing for him from the Republican majorities in congress are exceeded only by the Democratic minorities.

      How is Trump going to repair the national debt in four years? Or even eight? What’s the plan, Stan?

      • Not even Trump can undo the damage done since President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 started us down the socialist path. But at least he would get it moving in the right direction.

      • Danny Thomas

        Is he gonna do that under the umbrella of a democrat, an independent, or as a republican (or what used to be called republican)?

      • Yes, although I wouldn’t necessarily cover my impression of whats happening with a total rejection of the societal safety net.

        People seem to sense and express what you see and it’s one of the reasons Trump has a bit of the Teflon thing going for him.

        They want more economic opportunity and safety assured. Not complicated.

  45. Interesting write up in latest Standpoint Magazine

    “Culture And Politics In The Age Of Trumpery” by DANIEL JOHNSON
    April 2016

    Trumpery is an archaic word for fraud, taken from the French tromper, to deceive somebody. Shakespeare puts it into the mouth of his rogue Autolycus, who boasts of defrauding the gullible with his worthless trinkets: “Ha, ha! What a fool Honesty is! And Trust, his sworn brother, a very simple gentleman! I have sold all my trumpery . . .” (A Winter’s Tale, Act IV, Scene IV.)


    • Cute, but it doesn’t apply to Donald Trump.

      • jim2,

        The article is definitely a hit piece on Donald Trump, though quite an intellectual one.

        There is an abundance of theory, but a dearth of evidence presented. The intent is undoubtely to preach to the choir, in a very bookish way.

        I’m agnostic when it comes to Trump. One thing’s for sure, though, and dynasties like the Clintons and the Bushes are no slouches when it comes to practicing the art of trumpery.

        Nevertheless, should we rush into the waiting arms of Trump? For as James Baldwin writes in The Fire Next Time:

        We should certainly know by now that it is one thing to overthrow a dictator or repel an invader and quite another thing really to achieve a revolution,

        Time and time and time again, the people discover that they have merely betrayed themselves into the hands of yet another Pharaoh, who, since he was necessary to put the broken country together, will not let them go.

        However, given the nature of our constitution, with its divsion of powers between the various branches of government and between the federal and state governments, I would think this poses quite an impediment to Trump rising to the status of a Pharaoh.

        The bottom line: I think much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about Trump is overwrought, and entirely self-serving.

  46. Argentina is collapsing, and the Ignoramus-in-Chief issues this BS. From the article:

    Barack Obama told an audience of Argentinian youth that the differences between socialism and capitalism make interesting conversation but just pick whatever works. The ideological-left US president suddenly doesn’t have an affinity for ideology.

    He said in the past there was a sharp division between communists, socialists and capitalists but that is merely an intellectual argument and it’s not so today.

    The Marxist in the White House is erasing the lines between two dangerous ideologies and the one that made the US great, just as he erased our borders. This is a man who would be at home in communist China.


    • I read that elsewhere. What an affront to all the previous Presidents who have been a beacon to the rest of the world for our economic system. We spent a lot of treasury to provide other peoples to enjoy the fruits of an open market economy. But that doesn’t mean much when the guy who should be the number 1 cheerleader shrugs his shoulders and says “whatever floats your boat”.


    • Just another thought. Can you imagine FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush ever saying any thing remotely like this? They understood first hand the stark differences in freedom and opportunities that we had that others in the world did not. Where did Obama’s education go wrong. Words escape me.

  47. This is going to turn out like billionaire Ross Perot running as a third party candidate in 1992. If there’s no serious third party candidate running then the Green and Libertarian candidates are going to get enough Republican votes to sink Trump.

    It’s sort of a tradition with the Clintons to divide and conquer. Ross Perot siphoned enough votes away from George HW Bush so that Bill Clinton won the election. It’s like deja vu all over again. I bet the Clintons are laughing their asses off.

    Note the Clinton machine is not seriously going on negative on Trump yet. They want to run against him. He’s such a target rich environment for negative campaign ads they’ll be beside themselves trying to choose among them. Meanwhile the Clintons have been dragged through the dirt so many times there’t nothing to be negative about that hasn’t been heard already.

    Trump is playing half the country for a fool and about half of that half is willing to play the fool for him.

    • Voting against Trump by giving a vote to Green or Libertarian party deprives Hillary of a mandate and at the same time sends a message to Washington that you reject both Hillary and Trump.

      I don’t think it’ll come to that. Trump is going to be the nominee. Jeb Bush was the establishment guy.

      So if Jeb Bush is the candidate how many here will play the 2 year old not getting her way and vote for someone else? How about you TMG?

      I like Jeb. I like that he’s married to a Mexican girl in an age-appropriate relationship. A girl who was nobody rich or famous when he met her. I like that Jeb was governor of one of our most populous states for 8 years before seeking the presidency. I like that he’s statesmanlike and a gentleman. But most of all I like that he isn’t Donald Trump. Dump Trump Now.

      • “I like Jeb. I like that he’s married to a Mexican girl in an age-appropriate relationship.”

        You would like it less if he were married to a white “girl”? (I think “girl” is a micro when referring to women).

        Should adults chose their mates based on their race? Sounds like the old days of Kingdoms, where you marry for reasons other than compatibility and love.

        What about gender? Would you like it better still if Jeb were married to a guy?

        Just curious. This PC/MC world is very strange and contradictory to me.

      • It’s confusing because it’s used opportunistically. At one point it was a good idea to prevent abuse and now used to create power.

        Us humans, we seem to be incredibly adept at taking what makes sense in the first week then turning it into an unrecognizable thing 6 months later.

  48. Unreal!

    This is “democracy” Mexico style.

    “Arizona primary: Maricopa County had one polling site for every 21,000 voters”


    • So much time has elapsed since the disaster of 2000 and so many opportunities to get it right and yet we can’t. I’m tempted to say ” there ought to be a law” , except there probably is and it still doesn’t help.

  49. “Trump is Positioned to Win the Presidency”

    So it’s time to get real.

    The establishment types are still in denial. Wake up, idiots!

    At this writing, Trump is my odds-on favorite to win in November. Things could change. But that’s where we’ve been for months and where we are now.

    Trump is hardwired to find the weak spots in his opponents. He’ll have a field day demolishing Clinton’s candidacy, which is constructed on a pair of fantasies: that her long resume equals a list of impressive accomplishments, and that her record of supporting right-wing wars and trade agreements means she’s secretly a progressive longing to race out of the gate to keep “fighting for us.” Remember what he did to Little Marco Rubio.

    Trump will blow up Hillary’s BS over and over and over. And there’s a lot of BS to blow up.

    Hillary’s support is wide but shallow. Sure, some Bernie voters will dutifully Feel the Hill. But many Democrats, the ones who got into the Bern because they couldn’t abide Clinton, will not. DINO Hillary is to Trump’s right on war and trade and probably on Israel too.

    Should/can Trump be stopped? Yes, but not by the Republican Party. The GOP’s Stop Trump stampede — the anguished editorials, the cable-news rants, the pompous insider scolds, tens of millions of dollars in SuperPAC-funded attack ads that even smear his wife as a slut — is counterproductive, playing into the framing of a guy who sells himself as an establishment pissing-off outsider.

    The Stop Trump movement within the GOP is undemocratic to the point of making me want to retch.

  50. “Camille Paglia: This is why Trump’s winning, and why I won’t vote for Hillary”

    There is a huge gap between the teeth-gnashing fulminations of the anti-Trump mainstream media and the perfectly reasonable Trump supporters whom I hear calling into radio talk shows.

    The machinations of the old-guard GOP establishment to thwart Trump voters and subvert the primary process are an absolute disgrace. But it’s business as usual for tone-deaf party leaders who, barely more than a day after the discovery of Antonin Scalia’s corpse last month, stupidly proclaimed there would be no hearings for an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Republicans need to wake up and realize that Trump’s triumph is not due to some drunken delusion by a benighted rabble but is a direct result of the proven weakness of their other candidates.

  51. From the article:

    China cheats and it cost US jobs: Larry Kudlow
    Thursday, 17 Mar 2016 | 8:39 AM ET
    Larry Kudlow, CNBC senior contributor, weighs in on why the nation needs a “tough guy” to enforce free trade agreements. And John Engler, Business Roundtable president talks about…


  52. I think Heidi Cruz is the kind of woman the Republican Party should be appealing to. How is the Republican Party establishment reacting to this? I’ll be an establishment Republican for 5 minutes. I am not speaking out, I’m afraid Trump will go after me. We’ve already lost the successful womens vote.

  53. David Springer

    Hey Everybody!

    I’ve been out of town since the 23rd. Did I miss anything?

    Something kind of strange happened. The wife and grandkids were home while I was gone and I told the kiddies they could use my computer while I was gone. The oldest boy, 14, said someone on a blog I’d left up on the screen offered him $10,000 to fly up to Detroit and meet him in a motel room?

    He’s a computer genius of course, runs in the family, but tends to make up some wild stories. That didn’t really happen did it?

    • That’s really funny, putz. But I don’t think it’s a serviceable defense. Maybe instead of the out of town story you should try claiming that you have been completely out of your mind since the 23rd. That could work. Ask your FBI buddy. No, you would be embarrassed if he knew you were trying to get him in trouble on a freaking climate blog. Don’t cross the line, sarge.

      • David Springer

        Funny you should talk about crossing lines…


        Proceed with caution, dopey.

      • David Springer

        Don Monfort | March 25, 2016 at 12:01 pm |

        “I would spend $10,000, or whatever to get you to show up looking for me in Detroit.”

        I didn’t believe it until I saw it. Donny you really need to make sure you aren’t playing your silly big man on campus act with minors. The law is clear even in Michigan that ignorance of the true age of the minor is no defense.

        Act 328 of 1931

        750.145a Accosting, enticing or soliciting child for immoral purpose.
        Sec. 145a.

        “A person who accosts, entices, or solicits a child less than 16 years of age, regardless of whether the person knows the individual is a child or knows the actual age of the child,”

        What happens from here is out of my control. I’m not the child’s parent.

      • Have you completely lost your freaking little mind, Springer? Are you incredibly stoopid enough to accuse me of this:

        750.145a Accosting, enticing or soliciting child for immoral purpose.
        Sec. 145a.

        You better google “libel per se”. I’ll have you walking around barefoot, you dumb little clown.

        Judith, you dumb clown, you better put a muzzle on your little pet. I ain’t playing around here.

        This crap is really incredible. I have never seen so many stoopid clowns in one place.

  54. From the article:

    There are a record 61 million immigrants and their American-born children in the United States, including an estimated 15.7 million illegally here, according to a new analysis of 2015 U.S. Census data.

    The estimated number of undocumented immigrants is one of the highest ever.

    The analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies found that 45.3 million, or three-fourths of the 61 million, are legal immigrants and their children. The report out Monday notes that the so-called “Gang of Eight” immigration bill supported by GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio would have doubled that number of legal immigrants.


  55. Great article. From the article:

    What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
    Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

    One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
    Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book “Liberal Fascism” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
    Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
    It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot — and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
    What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
    The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People…”
    That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.
    The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.


    • JimD

      Free and potentially useless advice. The blogosphere is a big place. If you want something to gain legs try truncating your point instead of large cut and pastes. Make a point in a short paragraph and link to the source.

      Again, free advice and potentially useless.

  56. Thomas Sowell in moderation @Jim2 | March 26, 2016 at 10:51 am

  57. My lawyer has copied this thread. Little late to delete it, judy.

    • Hill 937.

      • Not even close, Arch. These fools here are too easy.

        I started out the war with the 3rd Brigade 101st Airborne. Lost some good friends on that hill. At the time I was with a 5 man recon unit of the 3rd Brigade 82nd Airborne in another part of the A Shau Valley.

  58. Oh, you got me in moderation. You better see your lawyer, soon. What were you thinking letting that little fool get out of hand like that?

    • Well all your talk about lawyers made me think i should put any comment that mentions ‘Montfort’ into moderation, to make sure nothing actionable gets through. Of course, that results in your own comments being in moderation also

      • I suggest that you actually learn what is actionable. A lawyer could help you. I’ll check back in a few days and see if you have found the good sense to do something about this.

      • David Springer

        Check and mate.

  59. We’ll be interested in your email communications with little David Springer.