U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part X

by Judith Curry

Today marks the end of the Presidential primary season.

Here are few articles that I’ve spotted

Camille Paglia: Zombie time at campaign Hillary: Trump’s real strength and Clinton’s fatal sleepwalking

Is the U.S. about to administer chemotherapy to its body politic?

Comparing debate styles: Trump, Clinton, Sanders

Toward a sensible, coherent Trumpism

Clinton vs Trump:  Strengths versus weaknesses

Why some of the smartest progressives I know will vote for Trump over Hillary

Donald the Destroyer

Interview with Gary Johnson

Samantha Bee’s Hilarious Interview with Gary Johnson Reveals Awesome High School Nickname




533 responses to “U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part X

  1. The primary has confirmed that our form of government is now in far worse shape than any of us imagined possible when Climategate emails revealed some unpleasant facts in late Nov 2009.

    • Seven years later, it is time to find a wise spokesman to meet privately with NAS President, Ralph Cicerone, and RS President, Paul Nurse, to find a way to peacefully resolve differences of opinions and restore society to contact with reality. These two gentlemen are caught in the middle because their superiors do not want the public to know that they too are powerless over the forces of nature.

  2. Hillary Clinton Has Clinched Democratic Nomination, Survey Reports New York Times

    Yves Smith, who supports Bernie Sanders, posted this comment on her blog:

    This “news story” is so unbelievably, mindbogglingly wrong on so many different levels—the most obvious being its timing on the eve of the California primary—that it is difficult to express them all. Who, exactly, is in charge of the New York Times or the AP? Joseph Goebbels?

  3. New York Times Reporter Asks Sanders If He Is Sexist For Continuing to Oppose Hillary Clinton

    • New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor has infuriated even non-Sanders supporters with a bizarre suggestion that Sanders is sexist for merely opposing Hillary Clinton.

    • The question was loaded, fairly hostile, and facially ridiculous: “What do you say to women that say you staying in the race is sexist because it could get in the way of what could be the first female president?”

    • The tendency to define any criticism or opposition to Clinton as sexist is becoming a parody of the campaign.

    • Despite widespread ridicule, Alcindor insists that Sanders was the one in the wrong for expressing legitimate shock at the insulting question. She later tweeted: “Some women think @BernieSanders will be standing in way of history tmrw if HRC wins & he doesn’t concede. He got testy when I asked; Oh well.”

    • The question also reinforced the view of many that the mainstream media is closely allied with Clinton in seeking to eliminate or marginalize Sanders.

    As Cenk Uygur has pointed out, CNN is spinning Sander’s refusal to surrender in the same way:



  4. Trump is a stormily dynamic change-maker who will surely win this election unless the Democrats get their house in order and nominate a figure of honor and integrity. Bernie Sanders, who represents the wave of the future, is my first choice, but Joe Biden, with his international experience, would be a solid second. If the kamikaze party wants to nominate an ethically challenged incompetent like Hillary Clinton, then I’ll be voting Green for the second time. Go, Jill Stein! ~Camille Paglia

    How concerned can a radical Lefty really be about Trump being a NY-style Mussolini if she is will waste her vote on the Green party? Nothing makes sense because the political establishment has turned the country into a rotting barrel.

    • Paglia practically runs out of adjectives as she thinks about Trump’s “boisterous id” (read “big id”) but can’t bring herself to vote for a woman who lives and works in the real world where compromises are made and things are not black and white.

      She writes of Trump: “He goes straight as an arrow to the forbidden and repressed—as when he recently fearlessly raised the long hushed up case of the 1993 suicide of Vince Foster, the deputy White House counsel whom the Clintons had brought to Washington from Little Rock.”

      Definitely a straight arrow kind of guy that Trump. Unfortunately the Vince Foster thing has been debunked so many times it hasn’t been hushed up. It is just that everybody (except apparently Paglia) knows the story is complete garbage and nobody wastes time on it anymore.

      She is too intellectually frail to vote for the “stormily dynamic change-maker” and too intellectually threatened by a competent woman so she has to bail and pick not of the above.

      • What are your thoughts about people who remember the demolition of Building 7? It’s collapse proves gravity works.

      • …or, Vince Foster was the man who knew too much.

      • It was Ron Brown who knew too much!

      • I’ve often thought there might’ve been a minor coverup related to Vince Foster’s suicde note regarding this statement:

        I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport.

        There was sort of an official line that he was hounded to death by the GOP, FBI and WSJ. But after watching the actual movie from the Citizen’s United case, I suspect the true interpretation of that quote was that Foster was refering to his own actions and couldn’t live with himself.

        This post sort of supports this:


      • Who is this “competent woman” to whom you allude?

      • Big problem with your analysis James.

        The whole competent woman meme. Hilly has repeated proven that competence is not her forte.

      • You say the story about Foster is garbage…are we supposed to take your word for it? Can you explain how Foster got to the park without getting any mud on his shoes? Can you explain why there were carpet fibers all over his clothes?
        It seems to me that when you are dealing with people who are morally vile, dishonest, lie about so many things it’s impossible to keep track of, you don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, you have a bias in favor of those thugs. Both Hillary and Bill put out a stench that can be smelled coast to coast and how the hell this woman gets more than ten votes is something for a social psychologist to do research on.
        Or are you saying Maduro is right and Venezuela is collapsing, not because of anything that he or that other thug, Chavez have done, and the people gave their blessing to, but because of sanctions? Every thug always claims innocence and blames the other guy. And if your high enough on the mountain the likely hood that you get away with it is very high, indeed.
        Experience, and the analysis Christopher Hitchens did on their moral torpor is enough to convince me that they moved Foster’s body to prevent the discovery of their illicit behavior through documentation in Foster’s office.. I can’t prove it but…a few hundred years ago one of the Roman Popes was involved in murder. Did he do jail time? Clinton and Janet Reno gave the order that resulted in women and children being burned alive…did they do jail time? Did they even get a slap on the wrist? The head of the IRS is a liar…what has happened to him for lying to Congress? Gruber and Obama lied to get possibly the worst piece of legislation in a 100 years through Congress? What have been the penalties? All I’m saying is that it is excruciatingly naive to think that people above a certain level are subject to the same set of laws that we peons are subject to. They are not…so the idea that the Vince Foster case was ‘debunked’ is on the same level as any Venezuelan buying into the slop that Maduro is selling. The truth is, we may never know. How many people in the past 100 years have been found guilty of high crimes in the US government. Damned few and those that were are usually not the one’s in power. While there are people like Cincinnatus and Washington, the Clintons are far more dominant and it seems to be getting worse.

        If anyone can explain to me how people rationalize voting for someone so incompetent and morally challenged I’d love to hear it.

      • David Springer

        Hillary had Vince Foster snuffed, moved the body, and tried to make it look like a suicide. No “debunked” that. Not even once.

      • The truth is, we may never know.

        A Deputy White House Counsel and personal friend of the President is found dead in a park almost spitting distance from ground zero, and the National Park Police, a unit of the Department of the Interior, are allowed to investigate rather than the FBI. Fort Marcy Park isn’t in the District of Columbia, because Virginia got pissed after the War of Northern Aggression and took their land back.

        While the Park Police were bungling the investigation of the 1st crime scene, Hillary was gleefully looting Foster office and destroying files.

        Fort Marcy park is far enough from ground zero, that a dead body would have take a taxi or get a ride from its friends. Fort Marcy Park is in Virginia and about a seven mile walk from Vince Fosters office.

        No one competent, not even the Washington Post, doubted that some crime occurred, starting with a body move and escalating from there..

        No one competent, not even the Washington Post, doubted that if the Clinton’s weren’t personally involved, there would have been a serious investigation. And I’m not aware of anyone who, at the time, claimed a serious investigation was performed.

      • David Springer




      • Must be a huge conspiracy in this cover up.

        “Foster’s death was concluded to have been a suicide by inquiries/investigations conducted by the United States Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the United States Congress, Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.”


        “Trump was canny enough to hedge — he’s not the one raising questions, he said, but others have. He noted that Vince “knew everything that was going on, and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.” The circumstances of Vince’s death, he observed, were “very fishy” and the theories about possible foul play “very serious.”

        This is scurrilous enough coming from right-wing political operatives who have peddled conspiracy theories about Vince’s death for more than two decades. How could this be coming from the presumptive Republican nominee for president?

        Five investigations, including by independent counsels Robert B. Fiske Jr. and Kenneth Starr, concluded that Vince suffered from severe depression that caused him to be unable to sleep, unable to work, unable to think straight, and finally to take his own life.

        I know this to be true because Vince lived with me when he came to Washington to serve as deputy counsel to the president. This is a grueling job in any administration, especially so at the start, and in the case of the Clinton White House, the counsel’s office — and Vince — were consumed with problems, including over the firing of employees in the White House travel office.”

        “This was the beginning of the countless conspiracy theories spun by those who claimed that the Clintons had Vince murdered because he knew something about Whitewater, the real estate transaction that became the subject of the Fiske and Starr investigations. Repeat something enough times and in enough venues, I guess, and people begin to question their own good sense.

        These outrageous suggestions have caused our family untold pain because this issue went on for so long and these reports were so painful to read. For years, our family had to wage a court fight to prevent release of photographs of Vince’s dead body. My heartbroken mother was plagued by harassing phone calls from a reporter.

        Through all this time I have not spoken publicly about this matter, out of an effort to maintain our family’s privacy. I am now, because The Post sought my reaction. I have donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaign but have not had contact with anyone at the campaign about my decision to go public.”

        From Vince Foster’s sister


    • I’ve always found Paglia likeable, if a bit of a ditz. Okay, so she’s a lot of a ditz…but one is grateful for any feminist who can see through Hillary and the hubby who still believes in a place called Grope. Usually feminists really go for those Taliban family values.

      As for her writing, Camille is surely the Ed Wood of the pen: so optimistic about what she is doing that she draws you along, no matter how absurd it gets. If I was Camille I guess I would have said “so yankishly optimistic she slurps you into the vortex of her sparkling Lisa Simpsonesque brio”.

      A feminist progressive without hate or even self-hate? I should be so nice.

      • Say, moso, what’s a ‘ditz’?

        I also like Camille though she be of the left and I of the
        right. She has a capacious consciousness that sees us
        human beings out on the littoral tryin’ ter make sense of
        it all and recognizin’ that the nanny state goes against
        trial and error nature and human enterprise ter dare
        ter venture … Music… Tah dah!

      • Back in the 90s a feminist friend handed me a copy of Sexual Personae, assuring me that Paglia would appeal even to a redneck like me. In fact, the book appalled a redneck like me…but I just get off on the lady’s Yankee optimism and good cheer.

        A ditz is a bubbly, silly person, usually feminine gender. If, in saying that, I’ve just broken several Canadian or Californian laws, just mod me. (But you know I’m right.)

      • Getting away with hiding the truth didn’t work for Nixon but the Democrats see no problem having someone like Susan Rice cover-up the truth about the attack on Benghazi being a response to a video and get away with it even when caught straight-out lying to the people escape responsibility for sleeping through the 3 AM phone call for help…

      • To quote a competent old rogue and great survivor: “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.”

        When you are doing something as villainous as destabilising North Africa and murdering to transfer weapons over to another grand bungle in Syria, you could at least stay awake and come up with a fib more believable than dog-ate-homework.

        For all her ambition, ruthlessness and ferocity, Hillary is thick. If she thinks the participation in Libya of Sarko, Berlusconi and the slippery yuppie Cameron was reassurance – then she is double thick.

      • Wagathon…the interesting thing about Nixon was his sense of doing the right thing led him to step down and not put the country through impeachment. His offense was a million times less than anyone of Clintons. Hilarious acting for the benefit of the country would be nowhere in her mental landscape. The country can go to hell as long as she can ride the wave down and profit from it. And blame George Bush.

  5. Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

    The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they’ve mistakenly viewed escalating distress and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise. Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand, the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable success: “I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself.”

    If Hillary loses that’ll be the reason. The ‘let them eat cake’ bubble the Clintons live in is not where the electorate is at right now. If Hillary played solitaire she would cheat and convince herself it was justified.

    • Prior to the blog, Webber/Smith had graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Business School and had close to 20 years of experience in the financial services industry. She had worked for Goldman Sachs, McKinsey & Co., and Sumitomo Bank.She has written articles for the New York Times, Bloomberg, and the Roosevelt Institute.

      Yep, makes perfect sense why she would vote for Trump.

      • It would make more sense if she voted for Hillary Goldman Sacs and all. Since when is the NYTs pulling for Trump. You’d have to be real delusional to believe that. Sounds like a Globalist in repentance. Either that or it’s counter propaganda.

  6. http://i.imgur.com/aVYmfgx.png


    • Hillary Clinton is the first woman to come within striking distance of the presidency.

    • That’s the race Clinton has already won.

    • It’s a historical reality voters may wish to consider when they take the measure of Clinton and the current race.

    • It’s a historical reality voters may wish to consider when they take the measure of Clinton and the current race.

      Definitely a media puff piece. Let them be delusional!

      They think they’ll coronate Clinton, but the electorate may not be so much in to the monarchy.

    • Yes, and since Hillary has now already won, she can declare victory and let Trump take the Presidency.


      Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • What a truly empty victory. Could anyone be more fatuous then folk who think focusing on gender is anything more than vacuous nonsense? Are we as a culture, so empty headed, so lacking in any substance, so easily satisfied with the irrelevant? Are we?
      And as far as accolades go, women have been heads of state for 2000 years and Hillary doesn’t measure up to anyone of them. She defines the banal and the fatuous.
      How any self-respecting woman can look at this woman and not gag is another mystery.

    • As a First Lady for 8 years, a Senator for 8 years, and a Secretary of State for 4 years, she is the one of the most qualified candidates in recent decades.

      • Not directly solely at you Jim, but if “most qualified” is simply “most politically experienced”, then sure – but I was under the impression that you Americans don’t always want the “most qualified” and would rather have the “best qualified” for what YOU want – and I suspect from the polling I’ve seen that Trump may be the “best qualified” to start pulling the nasty politics out of being a president and a leader. Even if you don’t agree with everything he says.

      • Well, she also has two ex-Presidents who presided over growing economies and relative peace on her side. She will also embrace the best of Bernie, that Trump would have a hard time with: raised minimum wage, reversing the effects of Citizens United on campaign financing, respecting minorities, plus a level-headed foreign policy that doesn’t desert South Korea to help North Korea, and leave Ukraine to Putin by stepping away from NATO. Trump may respect the tyrants, but he wants to concede to them and withdraw America from both the military and trade world into the confines of some kind of wall.

      • George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; the first four presidents of these United States didn’t even come close to holding the prestigious credentials of Hillary…certainly not one of them could claim to be a first lady…not even for a single term let alone eight years. Still, even with all their inexperience and such they didn’t do such a bad job. Sure, Adams signed into “law” the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Washington had his Whiskey Rebellion to deal with, but the somehow managed.

      • My response was to the comment above it that she is only there because she is a woman. I didn’t see my responders disagreeing with that one, but now is your chance.

      • David Springer

        Her record as a senator and secretary of state are awful. Unless you like wars abroad and poverty at home of course, then she’s your girl.

      • Accomplishments?

      • Keeping the US out of stupid wars, and in solid alliances that restrict potential enemies. Not as easy as she made it look.

      • Donnygonefishing

        I’ll help you, yimmy. She wouldn’t have been Bill Clinton’s wife if she were not a woman. If she had not been Billy’s wife, she would be a nobody.

      • Sure, a self-made person like Palin may be your preference, but even as First Lady she had some significant responsibilities.

      • “As a First Lady for 8 years, a Senator for 8 years, and a Secretary of State for 4 years, she is the one of the most qualified candidates in recent decades.”
        On paper…but in reality she has utterly failed at everyone of those jobs in the sense of doing the job. Her success (if you want to call it that) has been to use her position to lie and steal and sell what wasn’t hers to sell.
        This is what you think of as competent?
        If there are many of you out there who think like that we are headed to third world status on skids greased by lies, corruption and betrayal.

      • Republicans might call it a failure because she did things they didn’t like, and didn’t do things they wanted, but hey, she’s a Democrat.

      • Donnygonefishing

        Have you seen this memo from huffpo HQ, yimmy dee?


      • Donnygonefishing

        The clown who runs Zimbawe has been in charge of that mess forever. According to little yimmy’s standard, he is the most qualified head of state on the planet. And he is not about to be indicted for being incredibly stoopid.

      • David Springer

        Hey Monfort. Good to see you back. I owe you an apology. You were right about Trump and I was wrong. I have changed my tune accordingly.

      • She’s only there because she’s a woman? Hmmm. Every time someone mentions how glorious it is that she could be the first woman President an angel loses its wings and a black mark goes into a book under the heading “Only because she’s a woman.”
        8 years as First Lady? Is that supposed to be impressive? What, actually was her accomplishment there other than being the wife of the President? And as far as experience goes, what was that in other than in indiscriminately firing White House staff, throwing temper tantrums and breaking furniture. I think the less her stint as FL is mentioned the better for her.
        She won a seat in the Senate? Yes she did. She won it because it was handed to her by the DNC and she was running in the capital of Progressive Pukism, the capital of crony capitalism and the evuh present PC culture. And what great accomplishment did she have there? Nada. Zilch. Zero. And what experience did she gain other than how many corrupt deals she was able to make? Her stint as Senator means absolutely nothing in terms of her as an individual as preparatory work for being President.
        Shall we visit the long list of incompetent dealings she managed as Secretary of State? Possibly the worst Secretary of State in the nations history. This piece of the ladies resume positively screams against her being President. She’s likely to sell the Washington Monument to ISIS and allow them access so the can blow it up. Secretly of course like everything this corrupt, vile and traitorous person does. She’s about as transparent as Obama. And a whole lot more disagreeable.

        Again, if anyone can explain to me how Hilarious Godham Clinton has more than ten people voting for her, I’d really love to hear it. The most dominant explanation I can see from interviews with voters is appalling ignorance, Magisterial Myopia and a Malfunctioning Memory. Almost forgot to include an unbounded capacity for denying reality.

      • You seem bitter.

      • Jim D “Republicans might call it a failure because she did things they didn’t like, and didn’t do things they wanted, but hey, she’s a Democrat.”

        Such as?

      • You tell me. Kept us out of a ground war in Libya? What is it you didn’t like precisely about the US foreign policy in 2009-2013 compared to, say, 2001-2004.


    “This yearning to appear high-minded has caused conservatives to equate principle with abstraction.” –DECIUS (Toward a sensible, coherent Trumpism)

    Lord Trump may be here to save us from the sanctimonious global warming alarmists of Leftist academia as well…

    • Jim D “You seem bitter.” Nah, I’m one of the most consistently happy people I know. Training horses will do that for you…they are absolute realists, not sentimental and absent any of the bent and crooked nature that makes Hiliarious Godham Clinton such a vile, ugly human being. Perhaps you resonate with sociopaths…I don’t know but I’m beyond my ken in understanding how you could vote for someone like that and have such an active capacity to screen the more salient aspects of reality, though the two do go together.

      “Kept us out of a ground war in Libya?” Hilarious! There’s that ability to screen the more salient aspects of reality…”What is it you didn’t like precisely about the US foreign policy in 2009-2013.”

      Hmmm…let me see…the Russian reset that ‘oversold’ it and allowed her to sell US uranium to Putin. Leaving billions of dollars worth of military equipment in Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq prematurely. Helping to rid Libya of Qaddafi and causing a failed state which allowed the rise of ISIS. Helping the Muslim Brotherhood, a wholly owned front for Fascist Islam to take control of Egypt. Taking 100’s of millions of dollars in selling access to US policy to dictators. BOZNIA. The inability then and even now of seeing Islam for what it is and the threat it presents and insisting doing threat assessments through the prism of political correctness which cripples our ability to deal with the threat. Adding weight to stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline. BOZNIA. Supporting the Commander in Chief’s appeasing, capitulating Apology Dance. Did she help Kerry succeed her? That, if she did. Helping to rid the upper echelons of the military and intelligence services of anyone who isn’t a goose stepping, politically correct, sycophantic apparatchik. Rewriting training materials used in the military and intelligence service so as not to offend Muslims. Generally blaming the US for every evil in the world (attitudinally). Using an unsecured server for email across which top secret material was passed. Any lying about it. BOZNIA. And as the French would say, the Pièce de Résistance, supporting Iran going nuclear and selling out our allies in the Middle East and endangering the world and giving billions back to Iran to support their terrorist agenda. And through all of this, lying her way to money and power.

      That’s just off the top of my head. If you want more send $100 to my PayPal account.

  8. Trump’s dangerous white strategy?

    Trump wants to be known as a bigot because he believes that’s the best way to attract enough white voters to help him win in November….

    In the 21st century, eight years after Americans elected (and then re-elected) America’s first black President, one of the final few people vying to become the nation’s next president might get there by brazenly playing to white people’s fears and racial angst.

    With his constant drumbeat of racially charged, us vs. them rhetoric, it seems clear that Trump wants white people to buy into the myth that the deck is stacked against them. This is despite the fact that almost all of the racial gaps concerning wealth, income, education, personal well-being, health, representation in the criminal justice system and as the heads of industry — including the media and Fortune 500 companies — continue breaking in whites’ favor.

    • One of the Trump supporters who was beaten up in San Jose was a gay Latino dude.

      Trump may be right or wrong about immigrants, terrorists, the Wall, etc.

      But, just taking for granted that Trump is the contemporary embodiment of the KKK just makes you (and the guy you are quoting) look silly.

    • On second thought, maybe you quoted them to make them look silly. I apologize if I wrongly jumped to conclusions assuming that you agreed with them.


      • David,

        Clinton Inc. seems to believe that if it can break the United States in two, it will end up with the larger half.

        In that larger half Clinton envisions Blacks, Hispanics, women, and LGBTs.

        In Clinton’s half we also find the finance sector, the military-industrial complex and the trans-national capitalists like Carlos Slim (Mexican), Frank Giustra (Canadian) and ExxonMobil (which is US based but realizes more than 80% of its production and profits outside the US).

        So there’s much more to Clinton Inc. than just abstract identity politics. There’s gold in them hills too.

        This photograph taken last year at an event co-sponsored by the Clinton Foundations speaks volumes.


        On the right is Carlos Slim, the Mexican oligarch. He also has his own propaganda arm in the United States: he threw the NY Times a financial lifeline a few years ago and is now its principal stockholder. In the center is the Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra, a transnational mining magnate with mining interests throughout the world. And on the left is you know who.

        Needless to say, Trump’s nationalism and his war on neoconservatism and neoliberalism don’t bode well for the gold-seekers (the 1%) in Clinton’s half, though they would undoubtedly benefit the 99%. (For instance, Trump’s naitonalism would be a bonanza for LIttle Oil, along with its domestic workforce, but it would be poison for the Big Oil boys like ExxonMobil.)

        So Clinton Inc’s challenge is to keep the 99% in her half focused on abstract cultural issues — identity politics — while leaving the concrete, material issues up to the 1%.

    • Obama can mark “Increase racial division” as a successful addition to his legacy.

    • Now there is some really first class dreck! Any simple minded nonsense can be published, I suppose, if it fits a useful political purpose. But why, Glen, would you post an analysis so laughably wrong?

      Just as an example: “This is despite the fact that almost all of the racial gaps concerning wealth, income, education, personal well-being, health, representation in the criminal justice system and as the heads of industry — including the media and Fortune 500 companies — continue breaking in whites’ favor.”

      Ah, do you suppose being the majority might make a difference? Do you suppose education has anything to do with it? Do you suppose values are determinitive? Ah, nope, it’s all skin color. How simple minded and convenient for the mentally challenged.

    • “…it seems clear that Trump wants white people to buy into the myth that the deck is stacked against them.”

      If true, he may be right.
      Because here Down Under, one conservative politician has been branded as “racist” by progressives for daring to suggest that government assistance should be “color-blind” to race, color, creed or religion, and based ONLY on status (“citizen”, “permanent resident”, “tourist” etc) and need. That is to say, if you are a citizen, it shouldn’t matter if you are black, white, yellow or green and it shouldn’t matter if you are christian, muslim or anything else, just that you are a citizen and that you meet the qualification of “need” – that’s it. But they turned that into “racist” because “politics”.

      see: https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/24/dennis-jensens-speech-the-full-transcript-in-all-its-ranting-glory/
      We need to have policy to address issues, not race. Very few policy problems are absolutely unique to Aborigines, and even where they do exist they are best addressed in terms of the issue, not the race. So we should not deal with Aboriginal alcoholism, Aboriginal child abuse, Aboriginal incarceration or a whole host of other issues; instead, we should deal with alcoholism, child abuse, incarceration et cetera, wherever we find it. I can already hear the ‘but, but, buts’. Here is the question, though: have all those ‘but, but, buts’ had a real impact? Or would it have been better from the start to have a colour blind policy? An Aborigine with a university degree, working in a high-powered job, has far less in common with some of the disadvantaged Indigenous youth not getting an education and with all sorts of social problems than does some disadvantaged non-Aboriginal youth with no job and little education. As I said, we need to deal with the issue, not the race.

      Martin Luther King dreamed of a time where his four children ‘will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. Yet today, in Australia, we have a situation where I, for instance, have been castigated by some as being a racist for having the view that we should be colour blind. To quote one such critic: ‘To be colour blind is to be racist.’ Is that really the way we want our nation to be? That is what we are doing with our policy. The word ‘racist’ in terms of our policy and legislation is extremely confronting, but it makes it no less true.

      The whole founding ethos and values of the Liberal Party were that we seek equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We seek to bring all the horses to the same starting position, not to slow down our fastest horse.

    • Issac Bailey seems content to write racist dreck.

  9. From the article:

    Molyneux also notes that under the FBI’s official definition of “domestic terrorism” as “acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” which appear “intended to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” these rioters are technically Domestic Terrorists.


    • If that’s the jacket she got taken…It looks more like a Salvation Army jacket for $12.95. I see her taste in clothes matches her moral acumen.

    • @GS: VIDEO: Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality

      Show me someone not in the rag trade themselves who’s obsessed with what clothing costs and I’ll show you someone with right-wing politics.

      I’m put in mind of David Springer who was convinced a while back that I’d paid over a hundred dollars for shoes (in a photo here a year or two ago) that my wife had bought for something like $5 at a thrift store.

      If Armani actually ever received $12,495 for even two of those jackets, all my illusions about rag trade marketing would be completely shattered. :) It’s like the 489-lb bluefin tuna that sold at auction at Tsukiji Market in Tokyo on 1/5/2013 for 155.4 million yen (about US$1.76 million). That number bears no relation to actual tuna prices, it’s pure marketing, just like the meaningless $12,495 figure for a jacket which is aimed at convincing an unsuspecting public that they’re getting a fantastic deal if they can get it for a “mere” $7,000.


      • Vaughan Pratt said:

        Show me someone not in the rag trade themselves who’s obsessed with what clothing costs and I’ll show you someone with right-wing politics.

        Exactly! The Democratic Party is the most right-wing party in the land:

        Palin Clothes Spending Has Dems Salivating

        Since her selection as John McCain’s running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin….

        That entertaining scoop — which came by way of Politico — sent almost immediate reverberations through the presidential race….

        [T]he story has the potential to dampen enthusiasm among GOP activists and donors at a critical point in the presidential race. It also creates a huge PR headache for the McCain ticket as it seeks to make inroads among voters worried about the current economic crisis.

        Mainly, however, Democrats (in this scenario) are not prone to forgiveness…..

        Take a look at some of Palin’s pricey outfits (Slideshow by Anya Strzemien):

      • One can’t help but be gobsmacked by the Democrat’s hypocrisy and double standards:


        Sarah Palin says clothing budget row is sexist

        The storm over Sarah Palin’s lavish clothing budget continued today….

        “It is ridiculous that [Republicans] would spend $150,000 to outfit a vice-presidential nominee….given the dire financial straits of so many Americans and the state of our economy,” said Melanie Sloan…, a federal prosecutor during the Clinton administration….

        [T]he vice-presidential nominee herself blamed the row on sexism….

        In an interview with the Chicago Tribune newspaper, Palin suggested that male candidates who dressed sharply for the campaign trail would not have faced the same scrutiny.

      • David Springer


        “Something like $5”.

        Perfect. Something like the certainty you hold regarding global warming.

        So you don’t actually know what your wife paid. Thanks for finally making that clear. I eschew overpriced clothing but my wife doesn’t want me dressed like a hobo. Wives are sneaky, Vaughn. The only way mine could get me to not throw a fit over $100+ tennis shoes would be for her to tell me she bought them for $5 at a garage sale.

        There’s a sucker born every minute and I think your wife probably married one of them.

      • @DS: So you don’t actually know what your wife paid

        I don’t know because when I asked her recently she couldn’t remember whether she’d paid the full $10 the thrift store was asking or the $5 that it would have been if half off, as often happens. She usually goes for the latter.

        Your impressive ability to infer numbers that are wrong by a factor of ten using dubious logic is consistent with your understanding of climate.

      • David Springer

        Yeah, that’s like what my wife said about the $250-retail London Fog jacket I got for my birthday or something. She bought it on sale but doesn’t remember how much she paid. If you’re a notorious miser like me, which is typical of engineering type eggheads, then your wife is probably like mine in trying to blunt your cheapskate image to the world at large. I think she is fibbing to spare herself a lecture about thrift from you. The blinders you wear with regard to global warming evidently block other realities from you as well. Carry on.

      • David Springer

        P.S. Sometimes thrift doesn’t pay. I’m thinking of that botched experiment you conducted to replicate Woods greenhouse experiment wherein you used cardboard and saran wrap instead of wood, glass, and panes of rock salt. The lack of meaningful results made whatever meager resources were invested an utter waste. Sometimes you get less than what you pay for…

      • A bigot and a troll. Even better.

        As can easily be seen from the last section of my account of my experiments, I conducted two experiments in respectively 2009 and 2010, using respectively saran wrap and salt windows. The point of the second was to address the shortcomings of the first, a point that only a troll would ignore.

        Professor Wood’s expertise was in the design of filters for ultraviolet and infrared optics. His 1909 article showed that, unlike astrophysicist Charles Greely Abbot, he had no grasp of the role of radiation in astrophysics. Wood said in the last of the six paragraphs of his note, “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter.” The reasoning in that note was ridiculous and would be unpublishable today. Five months later, in the same journal, the Philosophical Magazine, Abbot did go into it more deeply, which you can read about in my account.

    • Glen, “One can’t help but be gobsmacked by the Democrat’s hypocrisy and double standards:”
      What I find eternally frustrating is that people on the Right seem perpetually surprised that Democrats are political hypocrites. Is it not obvious? Since FDR?
      Perhaps I’m showing the same naive puzzlement when I find it bewildering that the Right thinks it’s news when a Democrat politician lies or is a hypocrite. It’s in their DNA.
      What, fundamentally, are the causes of a person resonating with the ideas of authoritarian collectivism?
      What, fundamentally, are the causes of a person resonating with the ideas of Freedom?
      I’d like to know. Given how complex human motivation is I wonder if it’s possible to identify certain psychological traits that would predict political affiliation. Like how a person deals with risk. Or how much envy plays a part in a person’s personality and choices.
      Is it possible, I wonder, to identify fundamental psychological traits that would predict political philosophy.
      What makes a person hold on to the ideas of Marx when those ideas, played out in the world, consistently lead to human suffering and disaster?
      Fromm thought Freedom was a terrible burden to many people. Are some people genetically wired to need the safety of the group? Even if illusory?
      Spinoza, Christopher Hitchens and myself (presumably many others) all think we are just not wired to believe in a god(s). We are suggesting something prior to reasoning. If that’s true about religious belief, then wouldn’t it hold that, or at least point to the possibility that (and ergo, worthy of study (Jose Duarte, where are you?)) it’s also true or operational in the politics we ‘choose?’
      I wonder.

      • Daniel,

        How much a role hard-wiring plays and how much a role software plays has been a perennial debate.

        One thing’s for sure, though, and that is, as Yogi Bear always used to say, not all bears are average. Heterogeneity exists.


        As to how this heterogeneity fits into human cooperation and social organization is a subject that is at least as complicated as weather or climate.

        The axioms of neoclassical economics — the insistence on the self-interest hypothesis and rejection of heteogeneity in the realm of social preferences — renders a grotesquely oversimplified caricature of man.

        More on this can be found here:

        Why Social Preferences Matter — The Impact of Non-selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives

    • Every time I see Billary in that getup, I think of this …



    Join our team as we call members of Environment America to stop Donald Trump from becoming President Donald Trump!

    Environment America is a nationwide, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organization. Our professional staff combines independent research, practical ideas, and tough-minded advocacy to overcome the opposition of powerful special interests and win real results for the environment.

    President Trump would be a disaster for the environment, but millions of swing voters don’t know that. They don’t know he’s pledged to ax the EPA, that his idea of conservation is a golf course in the middle of the desert. And that he says global warming is a hoax concocted by the Chinese government. So we’re working to ensure that Donald Trump does not become president, and that the strongest environmental candidates get elected this fall.

    Call Taylor at (916) 444-3327
    Up to $14.50/hour, plus performance bonuses and benefits
    Part-time hours
    Evening shifts
    Great training and career opportunities”

  11. At another time in our political history, 1964, a Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, was pilloried in the main steam media as being dangerous and unfit to be President, reminiscent of today’s rhetoric heard from the Democratic candidate and directed at Donald Trump.
    I possess no clairvoyance for this coming election, yet I remember the vitriol of the past that reminds me of the present.
    As it turns out, what is most important for today’s imperial Presidency is: whom does the elected official surround themselves with for advisors. If there is another run of Casper Milktoast, China will run amuck in global affairs. If there are the likes of Rumsfield and Cheney, be prepared to duck your head from the flying lead.
    In terms of accomplishing meaningful legislation, the dicretionary dollars are few, pursued like begger children when coins are cast upon the ground.
    Entitlements are where the real Everet Dirkson dollars reside. Eventually the unfunded mandates including Drug benefits and insuring 5 million otherwise uninsurable for Medicare & Medicaid plus adding eligibility to Social Security, makes good ideas go bad.
    BTW and IMO, the first women who should have been President was Elinore Roosevelt who was the power behind the throne and knew what levers to pull and, especially when.
    Obama failed as he remained a community organizer when the situation called for ideas from the top.
    Hillary is weak in almost all realms and will depend on Bill, who has lost his touch.
    Sanders is yet another talker and his free lunch rhetoric fails when the rent is due.
    Trump needs more than an echo chamber to have any legislative success.
    I wouldn’t pay much attention to most of the political patronage Cabinate positions, rather, who is Chief of Staff and others who have direct access to the President, those are the people who wield the power.
    At this point, I am definitely…undecided.

  12. A few days ago I pointed out that Trump’s energy advisor was unfit for the job. This made me think that Trump is a hip shooter who thinks the presidency is a hobby.

    Hillary Clinton has shown she’s quite incompetent in foreign policy. I also feel she simply can’t be trusted.

    Given the poor choices I’ve started up a device to signal alien civilizations to please come help us.

    • fernandoleanme wrote:
      >Hillary Clinton has shown she’s quite incompetent in foreign policy.

      She seems to really, really like wars. She seems not to realize that destabilizing the Mideast was a really, really bad idea.

      And, all that really worries me.

      fernandoleanme also said:
      >I also feel she simply can’t be trusted.

      Well, the good news is that many of her falsehoods may not be intentional lies: she simply may have lost the ability to tell fantasy from reality.

      I wish I knew what on earth Trump will actually do as President, but he does seem at least to think that war is bad for business.


      • The vote was to give authority to Bush to go to war, but it was at a time where he was using that vote as a threat to turn over his WMDs that Bush was convincing everyone that he had. As Hillary said, they had no idea he would use his authority in such an incompetent way. Remember things didn’t cave until after the Mission Accomplished stage of the war and that was from mismanagement and poor planning of the outcome by the Presidents appointees. Sometimes the history needs to be told in full rather than the “she voted for the war” meme.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Bush was a clever guy. He even convinced Bill while Bill was still the president.

      • David Springer

        Trump has 4 months to develop policies and give it to voters. Patience. If you bring in a new Chief Executive Officer from outside he needs time to come up to speed. Cr00ked Hillary is already up to speed… she’s going to carry on with Obama’s policies which means further erosion of jobs, median household income, and aggressive military and financial intervention abroad. Globalization First America Last ought to be their mottos.

    • FL:

      This made me think that Trump is a hip shooter who thinks the presidency is a hobby.

      I think Trump saw the hundreds of millions being spent and saw a way to get it for pennies on the dollar. It was a deal too good to pass up.

      • You might watch the first few minutes and learn something about Trump.

      • stevenreincarnated | June 9, 2016 at 12:50 pm |Bush was a clever guy. He even convinced Bill while Bill was still the president.

        Thanks for that +10. Golden.

      • David Springer

        Trump called OPEC an illegal monopoly. I’ve called them that myself. He notes every time the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates OPEC raises the price of crude. I’ve noted before that OPEC controls our economy. They bleed it for as much as they can without quite bringing on a full blown recession. They walk a tightrope where crude price borders on just low enough to make liquifaction of coal competitive which happens at $80/bbl. Because of the huge capital investment required for liquifaction OPEC can let price rise above that for short periods of time.

        +many 4 Tiny Hands Trump for understanding this

      • David Springer,

        I get the impression that Trump believes the long run of the petrodollar is in jeopardy. The United States is losing control over the world energy order, which spells the end of US control over the world financial order.

        Does Trump want to prolong control of the world energy order, and the world financial order? Or does he foresee a more modest role for the United States, that of a regional hegemon that is self-sufficient and lives on what it produces?

        Why The Petrodollar Is Facing Its End

    • Why is Trump’s energy advisor unfit for the job?

    • I’ve started up a device to signal alien civilizations to please come help us.

      What makes you think they’re not “helping us” already?

  13. From the article:

    Edward Snowden showed we’ve inadvertently built the world’s largest surveillance network with the web,” said Mr. Kahle, whose group organized the conference. “China can make it impossible for people there to read things, and just a few big service providers are the de facto organizers of your experience. We have the ability to change all that.”

    Mr. Kahle’s Internet Archive, which exists on a combination of grants and fees from digitizing books for libraries, operates the Wayback Machine, which serves as a record of discontinued websites or early versions of pages.

    To make that work now, Mr. Kahle has to search and capture a page, then give it a brand new web address. With the right kind of distributed system, he said, “the archive can have all of the versions, because there would be a permanent record located across many sites.”

    The movement to change how the web is built, like a surprising number of technology discussions, has an almost religious dimension.

    Some of the participants are extreme privacy advocates who have created methods of building sites that can’t be censored, using cryptography. Mr. Cerf said he was wary of extreme anonymity, but thought the ways that digital currencies permanently record transactions could be used to make the web more accountable.

    Still, not all the major players agree on whether the web needs decentralizing.

    “The web is already decentralized,” Mr. Berners-Lee said. “The problem is the dominance of one search engine, one big social network, one Twitter for microblogging. We don’t have a technology problem, we have a social problem.”

    One that can, perhaps, be solved by more technology.


  14. The neocon, Wall Street and transnatonalist wing of the Republican Party sees its opening to dump Trump with the Judge Curiel embroglio, and so has joined hands with its mirror image — the Rubinite (Clinton) wing of the Democratic Party — to make that happen:

    GOP senators say party could still deny Trump the nomination

    Donald Trump’s recent attack on a federal judge has multiple GOP lawmakers floating the possibility that the presidential nomination might slip away from him at the Republican convention in July.

    “He’s not our nominee yet,” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said pointedly when asked about Trump and the current Supreme Court vacancy.

    Trump has won a majority of GOP delegates and remains the only Republican candidate in the presidential field. But he repeatedly accused Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge overseeing a fraud lawsuit against Trump University, of being biased because “he’s a Mexican.”

    That has outraged and alarmed GOP lawmakers on a day when the primaries are winding down — a point in the race in which a party would typically be unifying against the Democratic nominee. House Speaker Paul Ryan described Trump’s charge against the judge as the “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

    On the Democratic side of the aisle we see James Carville floating the same baloon:

    VIDEO • Carville: Trump May Not Be Republican Nominee

    Normally the oligarchs control the electoral process through the nomination process, insuring that both parties nominate candidates friendly to their interests. So regardless of which party wins, the oligarchs win. This time, however, they lost control of the nomination process on the Republican side of the aisle.

  15. If you want economic growth, pick the candidate who’s actually created jobs

    President Obama’s top banker Janet Yellen gave a somber assessment of the current job market this week, throwing cold water on the president’s election-year message that voters should elect a Democrat to the White House again.

    Obama’s been bragging that America has “the strongest” economy in the world. And pigs can fly.

    Growth under Obama has averaged a stagnant 1.7 percent a year. Meanwhile, Ireland is growing at nearly 8 percent, India at 7 percent, Sweden at 4 percent.

    The Obama economy is embarrassing compared to those countries — and compared to what Americans enjoyed for decades. It’s “the worst economic-growth record of any president” since the Great Depression, says Stanford economist Michael Boskin.

    Last week’s economic reports were bad news for job seekers. Growth dipped below 1 percent in the first quarter, and full-time employment actually shrank in May.

    Median household income during the Obama presidency fell:


    While inequality continued to rise:


    Change you can believe in!

    • Whether or not we are in a recession is based on the rise and fall of GDP. While I can’t easily find it, I would suppose in general as GDP rises, so too does median income.

      To the individual, rising and falling median income is a good indication of whether people are in a personal recession or not. From this data, Americans have been in a recession for the last 16 years, losing 7% of their purchasing power based on income alone. That doesn’t include additional taxes levied against them, for instance here in CA the increase in gasoline taxation for no additional value, nor the large taxes on energy, water, and many other things.

      Yet, the press hasn’t been pointing out how poor individual American’s situation has been in the US. It doesn’t point out how families fear their children will do less well than they have.

      But, GDP is rising. That means the policies of the US have benefited the well off. And all of this comes with increased government spending with the ACA, under Obama’s belief redistribution is good.

      Something is wrong with the US approach. People know it, even if the press isn’t reporting on it. That’s why Trump is doing so well.

      • It’s 21st. century capitalism, you’re soaking in it.
        In a capitalist economy a positive GDP is a sign it’s working as designed. Of course it concentrate generational wealth too. Capitalism also accelerates entropy on many levels both meta(tech/social/economic/political) and physical(resource extraction/waste production). We chose this path 250 years ago and you would have to write a new constitution to change it.

      • “It’s 21st. century capitalism, you’re soaking in it.”

        That’s odd. And I thought it was 21st century cronyism and socialism that caused it. It started with the housing bubble created by leftists and continued by the compassionate conservative George Bush. And when the wealthy messed up, they got future taxpayers to pay for it, with TARP.

        It’s the letting in cheap labor from south of the border. The ownership class is thriving on it, while the taxpayer pays for it with more welfare, the patient pays for it with higher healthcare bills, and we all pay for it with greater pressure on the many public resources (roads, water, schools, etc).

        It’s regulatory capture, making small businesses hard to start, and giving large corporations and banks an advantage, as they amortize their small army of regulatory compliance employees over large sales.

        The problem is big meddlesome government, and government picking winners and losers.

      • edbarbar said:

        I would suppose in general as GDP rises, so too does median income….

        Yet, the press hasn’t been pointing out how poor individual American’s situation has been in the US. It doesn’t point out how families fear their children will do less well than they have.

        But, GDP is rising. That means the policies of the US have benefited the well off.


        According to John F. Kennedy’s famous saying, “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

        We know now, however, that JFK’s claim isn’t necessarily true:


      • A relative if mine is in a union. He votes Republican. Has for decades. Thinks Obama is going to take his guns.

        Yes, he has lost ground. That’s his fault.

      • JCH,

        If one looks at the empirical data, and can rise above the partisan charade for just a moment, it is obvious that the screwing of the American working and middle class was a biparisan affair.

        Nothwithstanding the fact that both parties are equally culpable, somehow along the way the Republican Party got the reputation of being the party of the rich, and the Democrartic Party the party of the working and middle classes.

        So the Democratic Party, in addition to being guilty of screwing the lower orders of society, is guilty of the additonal sin of hypocrisy.

      • edbarbar,
        Apparently our constitution doesn’t prevent cronyism and socialism. Might want to permanently fix that next time.

  16. Victory! The country is well on its way to nominating and electing the first female president to have committed a felony. What could go wrong?

    • Glen, you said that “If one looks at the empirical data, and can rise above the partisan charade for just a moment, it is obvious that the screwing of the American working and middle class was a biparisan affair.”

      I haven’t read anything recently on the effects of automation and robots on the work force and how many jobs have been lost due to that. I know the mantra from the right is that other jobs open up and that is true to a degree, but the lag time can be serious in terms of an individuals ability to keep paying her mortgage. Have you read anything on this? Also the effects of AI will be extremely disruptive to the work force, especially for those with IQ’s in the 85 to 115 range. Those are the jobs that will get automated just as the routine jobs on assembly lines have become automated. They are ripe for it. Next will be computer programmers (I am one) who will find a shrinking job market if some mathematician somewhere comes up with a way to prove code. Once that happens there will be a quick move to AI Code generators that will have a specification for an input and will spit out code. Twenty to thirty years from now, I think, this will be a reality.

      But the larger point is that I don’t read anyone who acknowledges the increase in productivity due to automation but how that has contributed to stagnating wages and a loss of jobs. My bias is that regulation and taxation are the biggest factors but I’d like to factor automation in.

      This has been going on for over three decades. In the early 80’s I worked for a company that did DOD work building automated welding equipment used in the construction of nuclear submarines. This is when a 10 megabyte hard drive was as big as a washing machine and the computer went from floor to ceiling. Now my phone has more computing power. Amazing transition. And dislocation.

      Maybe I’m wrong but all those robots are doing things people used to do.

      • Daniel,

        If we assume GDP to be a legitimate measure of the worth of our nation’s production, then the size of the pie has inexorably increased.


        But labor’s share of the pie has inexorably continued to dwindle.


        Under the quasi-religious mythologies formulated by both Smith and Marx, labor’s share of the production pie is morally justified by the labor theory of value, or a derivative thereof. But if labor’s role in the production process is diminished by technology and machines, then the old moral justifications no longer work. The role of technology and machines, and of the capitalist class that owns the technology and machines, becomes greater and greater, and labor plays a lesser and lesser role.

        So obviously we need a new religion, a new mythology, and a new theory of value for our social world: one that justifies a more equitable distribution of goods and services.

        What we’re seeing with the Trump/Sanders revolution is probalby the beginning of the end of the old religion, mythology and theory of value.

      • Glenn, Re your answer…interesting, but I wonder why you cast ideas that are either philosophical or theoretical as religion or myths. That would seem to reduce everything that isn’t a statement of fact to myth. An odd casting.

      • Daniel E. Hofford,

        It comes from a critical analysis of the theories, including the history and origin of those theories, as well as a desire to look at those theories from outside the confines of one’s own fishbowl.

        For instance, here’s how Michael Allen Gillespie explains the history and origin of “the invisible hand” in The Theological Origins of Modernity:

        What actually occurs in the course of modernity is thus not simply the erasure or disappearance of God but the transference of his attributes, essential powers, and capacities to other entities or realms of being.

        The so-called process of disenchantment is thus also a process of reenchantment in and through which both man and nature are infused with a number of attributes or powers previously ascribed to God. To put the matter more starkly, in the face of the long drawn out death of God, science can provide a coherent account of the whole only by making man or nature or both in some sense divine….

        This is especially clear in someone like Kant who asserts that human beings are infinitely valuable ends in themselves.

        Such a view is only possible because of the transference of what hitherto were considered divine attributes to human beings. The Enlightenment (and post-Enlightenment) exaltation of human individuality is thus in fact a form of radical (although concealed) Pelagianism.

        Divine or at least quasi-divine powers reemerge although always in disguise. Nature is an embodied rational will; the social world is governed by an “invisible hand” that almost miraculously produces a rational distribution of goods and services….

        And if we take a look at “the invisible hand” through a critical lens, it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny:


  17. One thing about Obama, he believes in sharing the pain.

    All boats have sunk during his presidency. No racial or ethnic group has been spared the economic pain.


    The only group that has prospered under Obama is the .1%:




    • This appears to be another shot from the NeverTrump crowd.

    • Both left and right want to control our individual morality, libertarians say; “have your morality as long as it doesn’t harm another”. The problem with libertarians, Gary Johnson included, is that it requires both dems and GOP to make concessions to long held standards. The article pointed this out. The GOP will not give up it’s pro-life stance even though they lost this battle years ago and the dems think that they need to protect the population from themselves because we are all just too stupid, bigoted, greedy, and un-informed.

    • Seems to be well reasoned and researched. Johnson would hurt Hillary more that Trump. Heck they ought to join up with the Green party.

    • As a Libertarian by default (the party that promotes the most consistently the values of freedom) I’d say this is where the Party says goodbye to reality. I have watched with great dismay, the slide to the Left of the people at Reason. A once great magazine under the consecutive editorship of Robert Poole and Virgina Postrel, it has, since Postrel left, bit by bit, adopted many positions of the Left. Open boarders being just one of the most egregious. The people at Reason argue from ideological grounds rather than from fundamental principles. “Honesty is good, ergo, one should always be honest.” Good principle but when government thugs are knocking down your door and asking if you’re harboring any Jews (or guns) the principle breaks down. Following principles that are self-destructive is incredibly stupid, and if open boarders destroys the fabric of your culture, you’d be a damn fool to advocate for open boarders. One can only make the argument by definition, not by empirical evidence and this move by the Libertarians to Rationalism is painful for me to watch. Most of them don’t even seem to be aware of it.

  18. Trump’s hyperbole doesn’t bother me, I don’t think he is racist, a bigot, or a sexist. I don’t think he is dangerous. I also think that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about most of the time. That said, the social justice warriors on the left, who seem to want to divide the country in half by labeling everyone a bigot who doesn’t agree with their social justice agenda, are simply power hungry pied pipers who cater to the weak in our society by stoking the fires of resentment. Why not libertarian? Yes, there are some cooks and anarchist types but what is the problem with smaller government, more individual freedoms and more individual responsibility? Government needs to stop their micro-managing and let us as a collection of individuals make this country what it was founded to be.

    • +1

    • Eric, you say, “Why not libertarian? Yes, there are some cooks and anarchist types but what is the problem with smaller government, more individual freedoms and more individual responsibility? Government needs to stop their micro-managing and let us as a collection of individuals make this country what it was founded to be.”

      Yes, exactly so, and very LIbertarian, which is why I identify as LIbertarian. Because they stand (stood) for the freedom that I’ve always found the core value that needs a strong defense.

      So, why not Libertarian? Because the Libertarians have chosen Gary Johnson as their standard bearer. He’s a nice enough fellow, but I don’t see the fire in the belly, the resoluteness made of steel, the FU attitude toward the presumptions of the Left that would make him an effective leader of this nation, and though I probably have a lot more in common with the ideas of Johnson than with those of Trump, Trump is advocating a few fundamental ideas that need implementation that Libertarians are blinded to for ideological reasons and none of Trumps 16 challengers had a chance of bringing to fruition..

      Just as importantly, the person chosen by Libertarians or Republicans needs to have an alpha personality. Anyone who thinks this is a chess game between equally interested opponents where the only difference is the talent of each player and the outcome has no positive or negative impact isn’t dealing with a full deck, is ‘reality’ challenged.

      Everyone thinks that Hilarious Godham Clinton is a strong person…yet she has been moved to the Left by a tired, tiresome, old crank whose ideas are as poor intellectually as he is financially. Ergo, THE LEFT, will bring down a shitstorm on anyone proposing to change the way things are done. And as it happens, so will the donor class and the ‘establishment.’ That will take courage and strength of character to not bend under or be destroyed by.

      The Left is not the loyal opposition or just an alternative. To me they are evil. Not with a capital E like the Soviet Union or the Third Reich, but they are totally destructive of freedom. That they would vote for a lying, corrupt hag like Hilarious Godham Clinton is empirical evidence of that. That they want to gut the 2nd amendment, corral the 1st, and change the notion of rights from what it has been historically to that of government granted privilege is another. The violence in San Jose and Obama and his corrupt and lying administration another.

      What the country needs to do is shed the whole Leftwing cultural mindset. Trump may do that, not because he’s keenly aware on a philosophical level of all the ways this poisonous ‘world view’ has made us very sick as a country, (and considering the subject matter of this site, it’s no accident that all the scientists and people who push the CAGW meme are Leftists and they all have the most Draconian solutions and no patience for any ‘free market’ solutions…RICO? Really? If this isn’t proof of their obeisance to authoritarian collectivism, nothing is), just by stint of his personality and the way he’s constructed. As a Libertarian, you’d think I’d have been supportive of Rand Paul. I like Paul and agree with many of his thoughts but he’s no fighter. The Left would have buried him alive and chewed on his bones. The same would happen to David French or Gary Johnson.

      To sum up: It isn’t just Hilarious Godham Clinton that needs to be defeated but the whole vile, ugly, self-destructive, corrupt and fabulist ideology of the Left. Personally, I have no desire to compromise with these petty tyrants who seek to use the coercive power of the State for all manner of things that it should never, ever be used for. Personally, I’d rather go to war and fight the Left in the streets than compromise with these people who lie, cheat, steal and corrupt everything they come in contact with. (I have friends on the Left who are confused but not evil. However, politicians are not allowed the defense of ‘confusion.’ Nor the intellectuals who spout this vile ideology as seen at Vox, Salon, The Nation, Gawker, NYT, Washington Post etc.).

      Check out Milo Yiannopoulos on youtube for a Cultural Warrior against the Left, especially his interview by Sam Rubin, a Lefty who is beginning to see the rot on the Left.


      Or Ben Shapiro.

  19. As a doubter of settled science due to an inability to evolve, I would like to say …

    Me vote Trump
    him bring back Mastodon
    him not ban spear
    make tribe great again

    • What if Jose is a criminal and can we only control our borders to the extent that we can prove Muhammed is a terrorist?

      “If we truly needed more labor—a claim that is manifestly false—what made it necessary to import any of that labor from the Muslim world? From a region and a faith that is at best ambivalent about the societies that welcome them and at worst murderously hostile? This question has, until now, been ruled wholly out of bounds—illegitimate even to raise. Immigration to the United States—by Muslims or anyone else—is presented as a civil right for foreigners…” (See, “Toward a sensible, coherent Trumpism”)

      This fact—and it is a fact, observable in every corner of this country where mass immigration has overwhelmed, eroded, and de-Americanized formerly American communities—must be faced squarely. To my philosophic friends, I acknowledge that to most of you, this truth seems to go against the grain of everything you think you believe and everything you think we’ve been taught. But it is, on reflection, perfectly in keeping with what we learned… Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon (and so many others) are, not surprisingly, wiser than the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Machiavelli and Montesquieu (and so many others) further teach us that differing histories, laws, religions, habits, and even climates differentiate the peoples of the world in ways that are not so easy to change—and accustom to liberty some better than others. Our Founders and Lincoln recognized, and warned about, this fact as well… Equality means that we may not rule another without his consent. It does not mean that you can take anyone from anywhere and make him, overnight, a good American simply on the basis of his natural right not to be ruled without his consent. (ibid.)

    • Huffpo, as usual, is being very measured and objective

      ‘Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S’


    • A half-truth, biased Huff-po hit piece. The judge is hispanic and has political ties to groups that are very much anti-Trump. Trump has reason to be concerned over bias. There is plenty of ammunition to hit Trump with without resorting to this level of BS.

      • Eric,

        There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Curiel, due to his affiliation with the Chicano group the San Diego chapter of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, is a card carrying member of the PC Sensitivity Gestapo.


        The racist and separatist doctrine espoused by these Chicano groups never really took off in the broader Mexican American community. As Peter Skerry notes in Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority,

        In this period [1968-1972] the Ford Foundation…funded various Chicano activists in and around San Antonio, including a group that attained national notoriety with the political takeover of Crystal City, a rural town about an hour’s drive southwest of San Antonio.

        Such activities soon aroused the ire of local congressman Henry B. Gonzalez, who delivered repeated tirades against Chicano activists and their foundation sponsor on the floor of Congress.

        As Skerry goes on to note of Ernesto Cortes and the COPS organization he founded: “After years of failure by Chicano activists to rouse the West Side [of San Antonio] with leftist slogans or racial appeals, Cortes succeeded in organizing around mud and floods.”

        Of central importance to COPS was that it did “not pursue ethnic or racial goals,” and was “disdainful of Chicano activists and other practitioners of the politics of ethnic or racial consciousness.”

        Skerry adds that,

        But more fundamentally, broad affirmations of “Chicanismo” are not compatible with the concrete, “winnable” objectives pursued by Cortes and his collegues. Nor are they compatible…with the commitment of Cortes and his collegues to building, whenever possible, community organizations made up of diverse ethnic, racial, and religious groups.

    • @GS: The Global Warming Con — Fabricating Phony Fear Over Sea Levels

      You’ll be saying next that the global mean surface temperature won’t be anywhere near 3 degrees above preindustrial in 2130.

      Why? Because climate is “always changing”?

      Yes it will be “always changing”. And yes it will be 3 degrees hotter then. No inconsistency there.

      • David Springer

        Vaughn’s crystal ball is guaranteed, by the way. Right Vauhgn?

  20. Curious George

    It is fashionable to promise a change. Clearly the political (and legal) system is broken – it works only so-so. But it is a product of over 225 years of evolution. If we are to replace it with something else, it may become a little better – or much worse.

  21. How can such a mature and large democracy as America produce two such poor candidates?

    At least Trump might be able to reenergise the political process which is rife with hacks and cynical career politicians. I fail to see what Hilary brings to the party, just more of the same from a very mediocre politician ?

    Fortunately I don’t get a vote so can’t be blamed for the outcome, however it turns out.


    • “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
      Something about it being mature. Politicians get better at being politicians. They and the governemnt have become King George. With mature, think cash cow in the Boston Matrix. There is some new idea, a star. And some people are unhappy with the cash cow. Jesse Ventura appeared to be a star to his voters. Trump and Sanders also have done that. Successful stars end up as cash cows. In a business the cash cows ideally don’t fight with the stars. The cash cow profits fund the search for new stars. In this election, the cash cows are threatened and fought back, especially against Trump. The cash cows have profits, but they don’t have a star. They hang onto what they have, and if successful, prevent any stars from displacing them. This of course is detrimental to the country as a whole. We are stuck with mature if the establishment wins this one.

    • Tonyb, the same way the UK yielded G. Brown and D. Cameron.

      • Cap6097

        Dreadful politicians. The US does not have a monopoly of woeful leaders, In fact the west in general seems to lacks genuine leaders of quality.


    • Thats a good question. On Hilary’s side, its just Democratic ‘destiny’ after Biden decided not to run. What is amazing is how she struggled against Bernie. But she may still get indicted and carries a lot of Clinton Foundation baggage.
      On Trump’s side, its more complicated. Romney was classic RINO and lost. The Republicans are now split into several camps since about the 2010 election. Religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, tea party (small government, more local less federal), establishment. About the only Republican ‘unity’ is dislike of Obama. That’s why Ryan is trying to pull together ‘big ideas’; its a hunt for common ground. Trump took advantage of that fragmentation by appealing directly to the silent majority base that has not really recovered from the 2008 recession.
      I do have a vote, as an independent. It won’t be for Hilary (policies and honesty), and probably not Trump (temperment) unless major change in next 6 months. Voted for Colin Powell in 2008 rather than either McCain (Sara Palin, really) or Obummer (Cook county community organizer is an automatic disqualifier).
      You have a vote soon on Brexit. Choose wisely.

      • @ristvan: About the only Republican ‘unity’ is dislike of Obama.

        I’m not so sure. Giving the line
        “walter mellon” “ten best presidents”
        to Google turned up ten more presidents (all white males as it happens) to dislike, with Hillary’s spouse at the top of the list.

        It’s hard to see how anyone could dislike those ten and not Obama.

    • To explain why I think the Boston Matrix is helpful,
      In the past, renewables were dogs. They are now a question mark with a little bit of star qualities. Oil, and natural gas have been for a long time cash cows. They have some star qualities with innovations, like fracking. Renewables need to end up as first stars following a clockwise development, and then as cash cows.
      Trump has taken this same clockwise route to a star starting out as a dog. He may move to the final quadrant. It is fair to think of the establishment as mature and with most things, vulnerable to better ideas, vulnerable to evolving tastes and situations. The establishment does have things in common with Exxon. Saying Trump is dangerous, as we say grid instability is dangerous. Saying the problem is not government, it’s Trump. As we say the problem is not oil, it’s renewables. The mature establishment can’t even figure out how to stop Trump in the case of the Republicans anyways. I suggested it adapt and it is somewhat. The Republicans need to accept their own star, not fight with him. So it might reasonable to say that we need both things. Stars and cash cows. Trump can use both while the Democrats fight armed without a star. This isn’t quite fair to Sanders. He may be a star.

    • Hillary is a lot better than W was. She won’t have the neocon world view and the need to support Haliburton/Blackwater types in the military-industrial complex nor the Saudi oil “friends”. Trump we see is very paranoid about the world and anyone who judges him, and is spreading that paranoia as his policy. The root of his problem with the judge is his own paranoia which he justifies to himself in racial terms.

    • David Springer

      climatereason | June 8, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Reply

      “How can such a mature and large democracy as America produce two such poor candidates?”

      Stop drinking the PC Kool Aid. Trump will be a great president and so far he’s been a f*cking great candidate having vanquished 16 competitors who were the best the establishment and all its money could throw at him. And he vanquished them on a shoestring budget. Trump is unbelievable. I didn’t believe it until I saw it with my own eyes.

      • Danny Thomas


        Is this the money quote from your comment? “Trump is unbelievable.”?

      • David Springer

        Taken out of context it can have either a positive or negative connotation.

        Are you the type of intellectually dishonest person that takes short quotes out of context to mislead others?

  22. The point Trump should have made,
    Judge Curiel’s bias, not his ethnicity, is what may be suspect


    • David Springer

      This is a stupid distraction. Curiel is a card carrying racist. Fercrisakes he’s a member of a Latino political action group called “La Raza” which is Spanish for “The Race”. It’s the brown equivalent of a white supremacist group! Imagine the hew and cry across the land if a white judge was a member of a white supremacist group! Yet no one bats an eye when non-whites are members of racist groups. There’s a sucker born every minute and most of them in US are politically correct white people who fall for the politics of guilt.

  23. Applicable to democracy in general, so I’ll stick my nose above the parapet.

    Democracy is all well and good, but . . .

    If you have 3 candidates for one position, and they attract 30%, 30%, and 40% of the vote individually, who gets elected? Not the 40% candidate, as 60% were opposed! Hardly a majority!

    So you bring in a preferential system. Creates even more anomalies. Even worse, maybe only a proportion of voters actually favour any of the 3 candidates, so the majority don’t even vote.

    The world’s oldest continuous democracy is possibly the Isle Of Man, so a democracy can last a thousand years or so. It’s obviously an exception. It doesn’t seem to have conferred any special favours on the Manx.

    Australia has compulsory voting, for better or for worse. Luckily, the ballot is always secret, and some voters cast informal (non counting) votes. Democracy, I guess.

    I wish your next President luck. It may be needed.


    • Good point, Mike.

      What I find particularly disturbing about democracies is their evangelizing tendency to impose their preferred system of government on countries better governed by other means. Rarely do we find more authoritarian regimes doing that sort of thing to their neighbors, other than as an outright declaration of hostilities of the kind we’ve seen in South Ossetia, Crimea, and more recently the Spratly Islands.

      Instead what you get if lucky is “We’re a democracy and we’ve come in peace to help you become one.” Omission of “in peace”, as with Iraq, signals less lucky, and then it’s hard to tell whether Iraq ended up any better off than South Ossetia.

      That’s not to say I have any complaint about democracies per se, any more than I do about Catholics, Muslims, or atheists. They’re not the problem, evangelism they impose from within on others, like IS and Richard Dawkins try to do, is the problem.

      • David Springer

        I figured you for a fan of Richard Dawkins, Vaughn. If you’re not I would be very surprised if you were ever vocal about it before becoming tenured. Maybe computer science is a different animal in academia. Engineers employed in industry have a great deal less confidence in blind watchmakers than the average bear. That’s because they actually know what it takes to design a watch and the vanishingly small likelyhood that Swiss watches and US space shuttles and Library of Congress self-assembled in a random dance of atoms.

      • @DS: If you’re not I would be very surprised if you were ever vocal about it before becoming tenured.

        Bigot: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.”

        You seem to fit the description to a T.

        I was tenured at MIT more than a decade before Dawkins started out on his antitheism rampage. What I was “vocal” about before tenure (in a report I wrote for the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) was that tenure was a bad idea. If you were coming up for tenure would you have stuck your neck out like that? Of course not, you’d have played it safe.

  24. From the article:

    The controversial San Jose, California, police chief who admitted that he kept his officers in formation instead of protecting Donald Trump supporters during a rally in San Jose last week has been linked with a Hispanic extremist organization that has openly denounced the presumed Republican presidential nominee on numerous occasions.

    However, the chief’s impartiality was called into question when it was revealed he had been involved with the National Council of La Raza, a far left Hispanic organization whose supporters have frequently clashed with Trump.


  25. Danny Thomas

    97 comments as of this post.

    Certainly a leaning against Clinton, much of which is climate oriented. A couple of fans of Johnson. Several indicate Trump will bring about change (sure seems I’ve heard that line sometime before but think the format was ‘hope and change’).

    Outsiders say change will come with Trump. Trump sells change. Yet behind that change, building a wall, and charging for the use of our military I still have very little idea what Trump actually plans to do and with whom by his side.

    Anybody? Sources? Specifics?

    Holding a nose and voting will be fewer than five months away as of today.

    • Donnygonefishing

      Nice low information summary from low information dannyboy.

      In the very likely event that you remain clueless over the next several months, dannyboy, vote for Colin Powell. It always works for rud.

      • Danny Thomas

        I’m certainly not a higher informed voter after such a helpful response.

        There used to be something known as a ‘platform’. This is what I’m asking of Trump. That we’re gonna win so much we’ll be bored with it while building a wall and disallowing Mexican and Muslims (and now maybe Chinese?…look it up) in the country I have no idea what this candidate plans to actually do.

      • Danny,

        We may not know what Trump plays to do once in office, but we do have a pretty good idea of what to expect from Hillary. If that doesn’t worry you then you are a low information voter.

        In this instance the uncertainty monster is our friend.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thanks for your viewpoint and some level of confirmation of the dearth of information. My request is an honest one and so far no one has a concrete response. Maybe, then, I’m not the only “low information voter”.

        I do not come here advocating for ANY candidate. The intent is to find out what it is that leads others to advocate for Trump. What I find (and it’s unfortunate) is only advocacy against others. Process of elimination seems a poor method and I (and many others) can find many reasons to be against any of the choices and there are many to be against Trump as there are to be against others. .

        We’ve just had almost 8 years of ‘hope and change’. This time around we’re being offered ‘change’ w/o indication as to change to what? If we’ve not learned from recent history that that may not be enough information on which to base a decision then shame on us. So I continue to ask.

        I do not disparage those who chose to decide based on faith. Personal choice. But framing it as being something different than what it is…………….

      • The simple fact is that if you are going to be renegotiating everything… the last thing you want to do is give your position away now, let them worry for a change. Take hope that a man with his ego gets to make the biggest deals of his life, something he loves to do obviously, plus he openly states his love of country. Keep em guessing and no deadlines. Maybe the last trump, for the NWO?

      • Danny Thomas


        Before I decide to take a trip I find it helpful to have a map. I like to know how I’ll be traveling, potential hazards, and indeed if that map winds up leading me to where I’d like to be.

        But that’s just me.

        It’s apparent that Trump is playing to ‘low information voters’ as there’s very little being offered. And as with other candidates a good portion of what is being offered is distasteful. Can’t quite decide if that says more about him or us.

        He might be the greatest prez ever. And he might not.

        Looking for reasons to vote FOR someone, but it appears this might just be another circumstance where we’ll may just be voting against someone else.

      • He is not going to change what has been giving him great success throughout his life now. You may or may not like the end result but you still need to pull the trigger. Where did eight years of Hope for change… get us?

      • Danny Thomas

        Can’t do anything about 8 years of hope and change. But sure should learn from history. Do we really wish to take on a similar experiment behind a different face? We had little to go on prior to the current administration and have even less to go on (other than faith things will improve but the alienation we’ve witnessed so far doesn’t lead to much in the warm and fuzzy category).

        I’m not the least bit concerned about what has led to his past success. I’m concerned about OUR sucess going forward.

      • Danny,

        First off I don’t understand why you apparently expect others to fill you in. Can’t you do your own homework?

        Or was the question simply rhetorical? In that case it really isn’t an honest question.

        But for the moment lets assume you are just lazy and try to answer your question. I don’t believe anyone knows what Trump’s policy positions are. Perhaps not even Trump himself. So yes, there is great uncertainty because we really can’t vote for him based on policy position papers. But how much does that really matter? I learned long ago not to believe anything a politician says, particularly one on the campaign trail. So why insist on them giving detailed explanations of what they will do in office? Shall we go down the list of all the things our current President said he was going to do? Or just list the ones he actually followed through on. The latter is a much , much shorter one.

        Another reason we have to not worry about specific policy positions from Trump is the sobering effect. Running for President is one thing. Being President is another thing entirely. Actually sitting in the Oval Office is a reality all its own. Then there are all of the briefings, where the new President finally finds out how the world and the Presidency really works. It is entirely possible that everyone of Trump’s preconceived plans get tossed or radically changed.

        A better indicator of performance for me is past performance. What is the track record of the candidate? (One reason I tend to prefer Governors over Senators or Congressmen – they have had to govern.) One might think Trump’s lack of previous political leadership would be a disadvantage. However for this election that may not be the case, as there is a large amount of frustration with existing political leaders. Then there is the fact that Donald’s lack of track record is probably preferable to Hillary’s record. I don’t see any ability to govern from her past. Hillary strikes me as the type to tell people what to do and expect them to do it because she’s smarter and better informed then they are. We’ve seen how that style of “leadership” works over the last 8 years.

        So we are back to the uncertainty monster. There is no good means to evaluate what Trump will do in any specific instance or how well his skill set will translate to the Presidency. That’s a monster I am will to face, if only to avoid the certainty Hillary will bring.

        And if that doesn’t work for you, fine. Perhaps you should look at how the establishment side of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party and the MSM have gotten their shorts in a twist and are wailing and teeth gashing over the possibility of the Donald becoming President. That alone is a solid reason for voting for the man. He must be doing something right to have all of those folks acting as they are.

      • Danny Thomas

        I’ve done my homework and the substance is not there. This has been acknowledged by multiple others right here on this thread and in fact you state as much in your comment to me here. Due to shortness of time must deferon the balance of your comment but owed you the respect of a (reasonably) timely response. I will get back with you.

        This is important to me and I would not wish to waste your time.

        Click here on the Israel link and tell me the substance. There is none. This was selected as it runs only 52 seconds long. 6th down, left hand column: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/

      • Danny Thomas

        Getting back to you.

        I’ve done and continue doing my homework. Heck, even you suggest that maybe no one, including Trump, has any idea what he’ll do (or should do). Is this an indication of laziness on my part for seeking his platform, or is it a representation of his inability to lay out concepts? Assuredly he’d be laughed out of his bankers office should he go to them requesting funding for some enterprise he has in mind but not offering a business plan on how he’ll proceed.

        I have no argument that the realities of actually being in office might vary tremendously from expectations. Having said that if there is no plan whatsoever then it should matter not who is awarded the office, right? All we need is a ‘game manager’ as opposed to a quarterback with a game plan and scripted set of plays to respond to whatever they come up against. Heck, winging it is ‘good enough’ (or so it seems that you’re suggesting).

        The question about analysis of Obama is a side show having nothing to do with the current election so I’ll just let that lay other than to note that why chose Obama? Why not toss out FDR (or any other)? That analysis would be equally as valid and hold no value.

        So let’s take your follow on suggestion and look at track record.
        Trump says he’ll stop U.S. companies from leaving or punatively tax (at 35%) their goods returned here. Not sure how that would address non manufacturing, but oh well. Yet Trump himself has had some of his manufacturing business conducted outside our borders. So do I uses his actions or use his words?

        I understand your choice to be anti Hillary. I get it. But that is far different that being pro-Trump.

        And that others ‘gnash their teeth’ matters not to me. If it’s a solid basis for your choice, more power to ya.

        While you see sufficient decision making material, I don’t. So when evaluating who’s being lazy about their evaluation, might I suggest a mirror is in order?

        When someone tries to sell me a good or service as a responsible buyer I research their offering, look for reviews from others, and compare and contrast. If it’s your choice to buy this product just because you have an issue with that one over there is an interesting approach. I, on the other hand, might just go with product number three (or four, or five……….libertarian? green?) based on a bit more analysis. But that’s what makes the world go ’round.

        If you wish to extend this further leave out future ad homs and insults and I’ll treat you accordingly.

      • Lot of words Danny to say you don’t like Trump as a candidate. And what makes you think Presidents go in with a plan or that any plan ever survives contact with reality?

        There are two choices in this election – Hillary or Trump. A vote for anyone else is effectively the same as not voting. Registering your opinion with a protest vote might make you feel better, but it is abstaining from the process.

        Monfort had it right from the start.

      • Danny Thomas


        Abstaining is what I’m trying to avoid. So not finding the resources I’ve been seeking, I posted here requesting assistance. And what I find is that you and many others don’t have the resources either because apparently Trump is courting low information voters by (surprise) providing low information. And the request for assistance is arm waved away and not being necessary? Really?

        You say I don’t like Trump? It might be of interest that on the very few topics he’s expanded upon I align with him on a good portion. Intrigued, I went seeking more and it ain’t out there. With more information I might appreciate his views. With some of the information he’s provided I certaintly do not carefor portions of it, but am receptive to further evaluation. (This applies elsewhere too).

        So, Tim, your protest vote: “There is no good means to evaluate what Trump will do in any specific instance or how well his skill set will translate to the Presidency. That’s a monster I am will to face, if only to avoid the certainty Hillary will bring.” you can justify yet you have an issue if I chose to do the same?

    • Danny, Does this help?
      “Donald Trump signed onto an open letter in 2009 asking President Obama and Congress to enact aggressive climate change legislation and greenhouse gas emissions limits… It was signed by dozens of business executives, including Trump and his adult children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka.

      • That was Trump09. The election is about Trump16. If he’s elected the country will be run by Trump17 starting in January. Three completely different people. Maybe 14 if you count TrumpFeb17 through TrumpDec17.

      • Like a normal human, Trump changes his assessment as new information comes in. You would have to be a real id0t not to do that.

      • Danny Thomas


        It’s okay if you’re not seeking what I seek w/r/t this candidate. Folks of all kinds make decisions daily based on faith and the power of personality of salespeople. Many of those decisions turn out quite well for the fortunate.

        I’m only asking for assistance to find what I’ve not yet been able to locate myself.

        With alternative candidates there is a publically available record of decisions and performance. Lacking this with Trump mostly all I can do is listen to what he says and compare that with reality.

      • Thanks to those emails that Clinton Inc. has done everything in its power to prevent the public from seeing, we know Clinton experienced a similar flip-flop, the only difference being her epiphany was in the opposite direction:

        Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal

        BACK IN APRIL, just before the New York primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign aired a commercial on upstate television stations touting her work as secretary of state forcing “China, India, some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.” She promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.’”

        The television spot…implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and abroad.

        But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world….

        The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine….

        The Global Shale Gas Initiative, Clinton’s program for promoting fracking, was announced on April 7, 2010, by David Goldwyn, the State Department’s special envoy for energy affairs, at the United States Energy Association (USEA), whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.

        In a widely covered event in Krakow three months later, Clinton announced that “Poland will be part of the Global Shale Gas Initiative,” and the State Department would “provide technical and other assistance.”….

        The State Department’s shale gas initiative “was clearly driven by the promotion of Big Oil’s expansion,” Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace USA, told The Intercept. “That it was one of State’s highest priorities undermines their credibility as leaders in the global effort to prevent the calamitous threats of climate change.”

        Clinton is a big fan of Big OIl (the international oil companies like Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell) but the sworn enemy of LIttle Oil (domestic oil and gas producers).

      • Love that answer Vaughan!
        I’m going to guess this was new information to you too. Here is proof that Trump (heck his whole family signed it!) supported an issue that you despise to your very core yet you can rationalize it away without a hint of doubt about your unflinching support for Trump. I’ll be the first to admit I have no idea what Trump will do as president but that’s not a reason to vote for him. Trump could turn out be to the left of Bernie because some kind of *new* information came in and he changed his mind again. You can’t prove me wrong.

      • Danny Thomas


        Thanks. Classic example. Coming around to thinking that this candidate has no idea himself what he plans to do.

      • Donnygonefishing

        That’s easy, jackieboy. The letter was before eyeopening Climategate revelations took effect. Don’t tell dannyboy.

      • Danny Thomas


        Ooops! Too late. I happened to over hear.

        Based on your responses so far, I’m working under the assumption that you cannot provide directly or a source for what was requested?

        It’s okay. Sometimes faith based decision making is the best approach.

      • Donnygonefishing

        You are not very bright, dannyboy. Trump is the source. He says he is going to do x, y and z. You are obviously not convinced. So play it safe and vote for Colin Powell. He won’t disappoint you. Ask rud.

      • Danny Thomas

        X? Y? Z? I cannot express how much I appreciate the specificity. Now that I have the specifics, I’m so much brighter folks around me are putting on their sunglasses.

        Um. And just so you’re aware, Mr. Powell isn’t running this time around.

        Looking forward to your further illumination which hopefully leads to an even brighter day!

      • DGF –

        Ever been in these parts before?

      • Donnygonefishing

        You keep proving that you are not very bright, dannyboy. I am not going to provide you with a list of what Trump says he is going to do. Go to youtube. Millions of people have watched Trump speeches. But you would rather spend your time engaged in useless yammering on a climate blog.

        Yes, we know that Colin Powell is not running this time. He has never run for public office. Maybe that is one of the undoubtedly good reasons that the sage rud votes for him.

        If you don’t like Powell, you could vote for George Washington. That’s a statement that would get the attention of the poll workers: “Hey, this clown threw away his vote on George Freaking Washington. Ha! Hah! Hah!”

      • Danny Thomas


        I cannot thank you enough for engagement in ‘useless yammering’. I grow more well informed by the moment due to your input. Obviously those of us not as bright as you might not have thought to go to u-tube.

        Were Mr. Powell to be a candidate I’d happily evaluate his platform. I’d (and just guessing here) expect a concise coherent platform readily available for evaluation. But since he’s not at this time I won’t spend time looking for it from him or Mr. Washington. Seeking that out now would be almost the same as trying to find one for Mr. Trump.

      • Donnygonefishing

        Are you a putz? I think that will help.

      • John Carpenter

        “DGF –

        Ever been in these parts before?”

        Joshu-a figured it out.

      • John Carpenter

        “Are you a putz?”

        Now its a dead give away.

      • David Springer

        God forbid someone becomes more aware of the actual data and changes their mind. I believe Curry was an alarmist until about 9 years ago. Better late then never. I never fell for it. When I had the time, after I retired from Dell in 2000 at the tender age of 53, I did my due diligence regards global warming and it didn’t take long to discover the emperor had no clothes.

      • David Springer

        Oops. Tender age of 43. Prematurely gray notwithstanding.

    • His trend is our friend.

    • I will try to answer your question Danny. I think you may, however, be looking for more details than are available today from a candidate who hasn’t had the benefit of seeing all of the data he needs to develop tactics to execute his strategy.

      Trump’s strategy:

      1. Get illegal immigration under control. If needed, put temporary blocks in place to protect national security. Secure our southern border using a wall (is this a literal or figurative wall is a good question).

      2. Improve national security. Strengthen, rebuild the US military. Adopt a stronger negotiation style with other countries, especially known enemies such as North Korea and Iran. Put the interests of the US ahead of other countries.

      3. Improve the economy. Renegotiate bad trade deals. Update the tax system to stimulate the economy while ensuring that high-wealth individual pay a reasonable share. Eliminate jobs-killing regulations put in place by the current administration.

      These are the big three. If you listen to Trump and look at his past actions I think you’ll find these among his core beliefs and strategy for the country. Try not to get lost in the detailed rhetoric, which is deliberately designed to get the media’s attention and to get him free press coverage. Think of Mohamed Ali – if you listened to the details of his bombastic proclamations you’d lose sight of the fact that he was the greatest fighter of all time and quite the human being as well. If all you did was focus on the rhetoric he was actually an egotistic bastard. Funny, though, how that rhetoric served to promote his causes.


      • And as a favor, Danny, would you please do the same for Ms. Clinton? I can’t for the life of me figure out what her priorities are other than to get elected.

      • Danny Thomas

        I truly thank you for a direct and respectful response. Currently in for a quick bite before having to head out again. Just wished to acknowledge.

        Ms. Clinton, if one agrees with her or not, has done a reasonable job laying out multiple issues via her website. One example: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/

        Lays out the issue. Shows what she’s worked towards in her past positions, provides a link for further detail at bottom of the page. And this is just one important topic.

        As a counter example. Trump, on his main issues page does not even list veterans issues. While this may be an omission, as we know he’s given lip service to the topic, it’s his website and not shown at least here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/
        Disappointingly, his main header on this section is a self serving one regarding Trump U. This, IMO, is not an issue of political import for most of the country except as fodder.

        Of note, he still has a ‘self funding’ link which of course we’re aware he’s modified that stance.

        Much of what else he lists are sound bites lacking substance, IMO.

        Looking forward to engaging in further depth as time allows. I’ve listened to him, read his website, and tons of articles (which I recognize have slants depending on the source). If I’m a low information voter it is not due to my lack of effort but indeed is due to a low level of information being provided by him and his campaign.

      • Danny Thomas

        Getting back with you.

        1.) Immigration. From Trumps site. We must have a border, a wall, and stop illegal immigration. (57 second video)
        Noble concept, and I agree it needs addressing. Other than the wall no substance or plan. How will he get this done?

        As a courtesy to your request here’s Hillary’s comments: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

        2.) National Security. Not listed on Trump’s site. I’ll take your word for it on his stance.

        Hillary: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

        3.) Improve the economy. Hear, hear! I agree. Trumps site has 27 seconds saying we need to reduce $19T debt and he’ll do so by “reducing everyone’s taxes”. Pretty much that’s all he says. (Left hand column at the bottom). https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/

        He does talk of renegotiating bad trade deals. 1:32 of video about losing companies to other countries and ratcheting up trade wars and taxing (35%) incoming goods of companies that leave so they won’t.

        At least there is a bit of meat on those bones. However, his actions in his own business (simple google search) indicate several instances where he’s used out of country resources personally. So the track record of action vs. rhetoric are not aligned. So while you suggested to me that: “If you listen to Trump and look at his past actions I think you’ll find these among his core beliefs and strategy for the country. ” which are his ‘core beliefs’? What he says he’ll do as prez, or what he has done himself in actuality?

        Hillary: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/manufacturing/

        Again, the Hillary information is not as advocacy but to respond to your request. Finding what she states she will do is clear, detailed, and on a relative scale it is extensive. Sufficient to make an evaluation. Trump, on the other hand, not quite so.

        From your comment: ” I think you may, however, be looking for more details than are available today from a candidate who hasn’t had the benefit of seeing all of the data he needs to develop tactics to execute his strategy.”
        So how can we/I expect that he’ll do what he professes he will? Might he find that saying it is easy but implementing a bit more challenging if not undoable?

        I could say exactly as he does. I’m gonna fix all our country’s problems, and have no plan whatsoever on how to do so, vote for me.

      • Danny,

        Has it ever occurred to you that the reason Hillary has a website laying out all sorts of position papers and plans is because she is part of a professional political machine that knows what bullsh!t is needed to make voters think the candidate is a deep thinker? Do you think Hillary crafted any of those plans? Or more importantly that she intends to follow through with any of them?

        You haven’t been paying attention Danny. All your effort to determine policy particulars for Trump miss the main point. That a growing number of voters are tired of a small subset of elites who want to tell us how to think, or what we can or can’t say, while looking to advance their own welfare of agenda. Fed up to the point that they don’t care how much or how little Trump has immersed himself in the issues. Instead they are at the point to get behind someone that recognizes what is important to them, what they are worried about and who appears intelligent enough to maybe do something.

        Honestly, you sound like someone all kitted up for a deep sea exploration dive, who is wading around in the shallow end of the pool. At least you have lots of company – namely all of those opinion columnists who also don’t get it.

      • Danny Thomas

        Really? You chastise me for suggesting the possibilty I might vote outside the Trump/Clinton arena then you come up with this: “Fed up to the point that they don’t care how much or how little Trump has immersed himself in the issues.” to justify election of Trump as protest against the establishment?

        Prognosticator, evaluate thyself! Then get back with me.

      • Donnygonefishing

        Low information dannyboy has been yammering about this stuff for many months and he is just now making noises about getting himself informed on where the candidates stand on the important issues.

        Off a few minutes of perusing a couple of webpages he is most impressed with the propaganda conjured up by hilly-billy’s lavishly funded with Wall Street money team of about a thousand campaign apparatchiks. All that crap has been thoroughly polled and focus group tested to work on the low information voter, like our little dannyboy. That crap is about as credible as the hilly-billy team’s dismissal of the FBI investigation as a little ole security review.


        The truth is that the FBI is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State prompted by discovery of hilly-billy’s use of an unauthorized and therefore lawbreaking use of an insecure homebrew e-mail server to hide her government work related correspondence from Congressional oversight and the citizenry who were paying her freaking salary. It’s a counterintelligence operation. Exposing classified information is a crime. She’s busted.

      • Danny Thomas


        Insults are an indicator that the arguer has no real data. Suggest you stop showing your ignorance, but that’s up to you.

        This is not about reasons to vote against Hillary. This is about reasons to vote FOR Trump. Other than faith, what have ya got? There is very little information (as confirmed my many here) out there. Stop using so many degrogatory comments (unless that’s all you have “after many months”) and provide information.

        Asking you for information (not faith) to raise my level. Go for it!

        Or, alternatively, Capt. Dallas runs a fishing guide service. Maybe that’s an area of focus for which you’re better suited. Have a beverage on me.

      • Wrong again Danny.

        My vote for Trump is not a protest. Perhaps it is for others, but not for me. I personally preferred Kasich, Christy and Perry, in that order. But none of them is the Republican candidate. And when having to choose between the two candidates, I choose uncertainty over the certainty of Hillary. I am willing to bet on apparent leadership skills over a “do as I say” style of executive, who prefers secrecy. And when I see all of the venom and the incitement to violence against Trump and his supporters, I can’t help but think that he might be exactly what we need, if only to shake things up.

      • Danny Thomas


        It’s not me advocating voting Trump as a protest against others. So forgive if it appeared that that was your advocacy.

        Kasich was a preference of mine also as he’s an adult. Perry and Christie were not.

        And w/r/t “do as I say” style of leadership? You’ve obviously not paid attention to Trump. Has he not said our military leadership would do as he said regarding torture? Did he not say he’d self fund? Did he not say no muslim immigrants? Seriously? Do you as a high information voter (as oppossed to me) not hold him to his words?

        “Everything I say I’m going to do” http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/23/donald-trump-paul-manafort-ted-cruz-everything-say-im-going/#

        So much carp.

      • Danny Thomas

        Have a great day fishing D. ‘Cause obviously you’ve got nuthin information wise to offer. Insult away. I don’t need to say more, you own words tell others all they need to know.

      • Danny, re: Hillary’s web site: consider me unimpressed. On immigration she doesn’t address securing our border(s). Rather it’s “comprehensive immigration reform” which of course means anything she wants it to mean at any time she wants. The rest of the dreck basically says: “I’ll take better care of the illegal immigrants.”

        Well, that one’s not for me. How about we get our borders under control? Is that too much to ask? “Comprehensive immigration reform” has been talked about for years in DC to no avail. Both sides refuse to do it.

        So I’ll vote for the buy who will start by building a wall. Which, ironically, a Forbes journalist just found out people who live along the border actually want. Imagine that! If you live on the border, with the issues it cause, you actually want a wall. Amazing journalism there!

      • Danny Thomas

        That’s perfect and makes the point quite well. You derived sufficient information by comparing and contrasting the two sources, DT.com vs. HC.com. And your evaluation leads you to a reasonable decision.

        Now a request back to you. Please go to Trumps site and look at the Military (8th down, right column under issues) compare and contrast as you’ve done with immigration. (Clinton’s is under national security). IMO, in this case, hers is much more well rounded than his. Quite the opposite of the immigration issue.

        Again, I’m not asking you to vote either way, just discussing the differences between the information provided by each.

    • David Springer

      Have you tried looking, Danny?

      Maybe start here:


      I can spoon-feed you but if you make ugly faces and spit it out I will stop trying.

      • Danny Thomas


        Am I boring you to the point that you’re not actually reading or scanning to some level my comments? I’ve linked to DT.com numerous times.

        Are you suggesting Trumps entire platform is:
        TAX REFORM

        I count 31 items on HC.com.

        While I appreciate the detail on these 7 Trump position statements, can’t we agree there is so much more needing addressed? Adding in 9 more from the ‘issues’ portion of DT.com (I chose to exclude Trump U, political correctness, first day in office, et al as they’re really not ‘issues’) that ups the number of topics to 16. But those nine do not have detail so it’s generous to include.

        There are over 80 here: https://www.isidewith.com/polls and these guys aren’t even running for office. (Kinda makes the candidates look lazy, huh?)

        And a much lower funded candidate: https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/
        lists 12.

        Even here we find 11: http://www.jill2016.com/plan

      • Donnygonefishing

        I am going to put up a webpage with 172 items and low information dannyboy will vote for me. Keep working it, dannyboy. we are amused.

    • I’m not all that interested in whether you align with any of Trumps positions, sans the lack of details. Namely because I am not trying to influence how you vote. What I am trying to point out is the fact that you seem to be missing what is at the heart of the Trump phenomenon.

      And BTW, voting for Trump is not a protest vote. It is selecting between the only two real candidates and choosing which one I think may be less damaging to our nation. You would be correct in asserting that we have great uncertainty over just how much damage Trump could cause. But if it is certainty you are looking for, the certainty of what Hillary might try to do should be enough to choose a billygoat over her, unless you agree with most of her positions.

  26. Peter Skerry has an interesting interview on YouTube on immigration.

    Skerry believes an individual’s position on immigration is determined more by their socio-economic class than by loyalty to some ethnic or racial group. In other words, when it comes to Hispanics, material self-interest trumps solidarity with la raza.

    More affluent individuals benefit materially from open borders, so tend to support them. Less affluent individuals pay the price for open borders, so tend to oppose them. Skerry goes on to elaborate in the video.

  27. China sets regional ‘red lines’ to cut coal, water and energy use.

    Environmentalists say effectiveness of limits will rest on how clearly the regional targets are defined and how well they are enforced

  28. Distrust of the EU isn’t just a right-wing cause

    • In a matter of weeks, Britain could vote to leave the European Union.

    • The latest polls suggest the vote will be close, and some fear it could set off a domino effect among other European countries.

    • Data from the Pew Research Center published yesterday (June 7) polled over 10,000 respondents from 10 major EU nations. A median of 51% of those surveyed held a favorable view of the EU, and a median of 42% wanted more power shifted away from Brussels and returned to their national governments.

    • In the UK the push for nationalism is more a preserve of the right, but in Spain it is more a preserve of the left.


  29. Europe is paying a high price for the immigration crisis that Clinton played a key role in creating.

    Clinton took a wrecking ball to the Middle East, destabilizing the region in the same way she did Honduras.

    Europe Is Slamming Its Doors Shut to a Growing and Historic Humanitarian Crisis.

    Refugee numbers are surging.

  30. Trump Is Correct to Hit Judge for Latino Identity Politics

    “[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.”

    The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

    Translated, “la raza” means “the race.”

    Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

    Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals.

    And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

    Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism….


    But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?…

    If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus….

    But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

    Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable person might conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

    By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake.

  31. Trump and the judge – It’s not about race, but the rule of law

    • Watch any cable new show panel discussing Donald Trump, including MSNBC this week, and quite predictably you will hear that Trump is a racist.

    • Is this about race? Or judicial fairness?

    • Trump’s concern is instead about judicial impartiality. The judge in question, Gonzalo Curiel, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, a group that claims it is not affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, but which lists that group, strongly opposed to the Trump candidacy, on its website as part of its “community.”

    • To be sure, Donald Trump could have spoken more carefully and clearly, instead of initially referring to Judge Curiel, born in the USA, as Mexican.

    • So why would Donald Trump be concerned about the rule of law being applied fairly? Because it often is not.

    • This past week at his San Jose rally, an unruly mob violently attacked Trump supporters. The mayor had his police force stand down for fear of “further inciting the crowd.” So much for enforcing the law.

    • Instead Trump supporters were blamed for the violence of Democrats and other anti-Trump forces. The rule of law was ‘trumped’ over political concerns.

    • Beyond Trump, the law is frequently applied selectively depending on politics. Compare the treatment of David Petraeus and Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified material.

    • Donald Trump is simply echoing the perception of millions of Americans that Lady Justice is no longer wearing a blindfold, dispensing justice fairly and impartially.

    • Trump is one of few politicians willing to stand up to and call out those who place politics above the law.

  32. The Media’s Visceral Bias Against Trump

    Take of the case of the New York Times and its columnist Adam Davidson.

    I got a call from him several weeks ago for some quotes on Donald Trump’s trade policy. Before I could get two words out of my mouth, Davidson went on a rant about how he could never vote for Trump because of his stances on everything but trade—from the Great Wall of Mexico to Trump’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration.

    So how could Davidson possibly ever write an objective column about Trump’s trade policies with that kind of visceral bias? And why does the Grey Lady condone such a lapse?….

    Then, of course, there is the once unassailable Washington Post and its increasingly frequent anti-Trump diatribes. Exhibit A-plus is the shrill May 31 screed from David Ignatius propagating the Alice in Clintonland fiction that a “mercantilist” Trump “would cut deals” with Chinese President Xi Jinping “without worrying about human rights” and “put commercial interests above everything else.”

    On the face of it, this is just too funny. This is because the only presidential candidate with a proven track record for selling human rights down the Shanghai River is Hillary Clinton….

    My broader point, here, is this, and it is a simple one. If some of what are supposed to be the finest newspapers in the world are now regularly getting down in the gutter to heap propaganda on Donald Trump, what hope do we have for the rest of the mainstream media in covering this election in a manner less like the China Daily or Pravda and more like the American people deserve?

  33. NAFTA and the Angry Middle-Class Voter

    It’s anybody’s guess how many people in Trump’s audience were aware that a U.S. president lacks the authority to unilaterally impose a tariff or abrogate a treaty like NAFTA. But even those who did know were happy to have somebody fighting for them, fighting for the middle class.

  34. The black hole within Donald Trump

    [S]everal weeks after “Never Trump” started giving way to “Trump, I guess,” this better, more sober-minded Trump was nowhere in sight.

    And then came the meltdown this week, after Trump said the Indiana-born judge in the civil suit against Trump University should recuse himself because he’s of Mexican descent….

    The problem with this statement isn’t merely its racism. It’s that Trump’s philosophy….

    Trump’s white, working-class supporters identify with this rage; they find it cathartic. And Republican leaders are loath to push those voters away.

    But they also understand that the broader electorate will find the insults and bigotry increasingly reviling. The black hole, left unchecked, could swallow the party’s electoral hopes and leave no trace.

  35. Why do the Trump haters hate democracy so much?

    VIDEO • Hugh Hewitt: Republican Party Should Change Convention Rules To Dump Trump

  36. VIDEO • Diamond & Silk: There Is Still Room On The Trump Train For Bernie Sanders Supporters


    We saw for almost the last ten months how Donald Trump has supported us, the American people. It’s time for us American people to support him. He’s shown his appreciation, and now it’s time for us to show our appreciation.

    Donald Trump is the one who wants to help all Americans, not just a particular segment of it.

    So Bernie Sanders supporters, come over here and get on the Trump Train.

  37. Trump’s Actual Racism and How It’s Thrived.
    Why has it taken so long for Republicans and for the media to call him on it?


    Dana Milbank’s June 6 article in The Washington Post was aptly headlined, “Republicans finally discover that Trump is an actual racist.” Not a virtual racist, not a borderline or occasional or slip-of-the-lip racist, but a dyed-in-the-wool, consistent, reliable racist, a white supremacist who stereotypes with abandon and abuses vast categories of human beings for their whatever and wherever.

  38. Is Trump Being Racist About Judge Curiel?

    The mistake we made in interning the Japanese is now being made by practitioners of identity politics across the political spectrum in the United States and elsewhere. We are seeing our politics reduced to questions of identity, where it is assumed that people give priority to certain identities (often their race, but it could also be their gender, orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc.) and that these identities determine their political behavior…..

    Donald Trump is singled out as if he were the only person doing this, but Trump’s racism is little more than the vaunted anti-racism of contemporary identity politics reflected back at itself….

    Anti-racist racism has been a key tool for Clinton supporters, first against Bernie Sanders and now against Donald Trump.

    Hillary Clinton herself has openly argued that she would make a good president because of her identity as a woman, and those men who disagree are dismissed on the grounds that they must be disagreeing because they are men and as men they must have a strong male identity that causes them to defend male interests and argue against Clinton in bad faith. The term “Bernie Bro” was flung around for precisely this purpose–to dismiss criticism of Clinton from the left as concealed misogyny.

    The same thing is being done to Trump. He is being accused of racism and sexism, and quite a bit of it is deserved, but many of these accusations are themselves grounded in the very same racist and sexist paradigm. You are from group X, therefore you must identify strongly with group X, and your actions are attributable to your identity, therefore your actions are attributable to your membership in group X.

    This argument can be used to accuse anyone of being a racist or a sexist, but what is missed is that this argument is itself completely racist and completely sexist, because to allege that someone must identify with their race in such a way that their racial identity motivates their action is not only false, it is to reduce people to racial stereotypes.

    It diminishes all of us and reduces all of us to racist caricatures. Both Trump and Clinton are guilty of this, and we are effectively being asked to choose between two different faces of racism.

    The fuel that both Trump and Clinton are dumping on this fire has the potential to lead to a significant amount of racial violence. But it has also succeeded in distracting the vast majority of Americans from the interests they share in common–in a distribution of resources and opportunities that is fairer and gives all Americans a genuine chance to have happy, meaningful lives….

    So is Donald Trump being racist? Yes–but not uniquely so, and not in a profoundly new way. He thinks his racism will get him somewhere for the same reason Clinton thinks it will get her somewhere to claim that her gender is in itself a qualification–because both candidates are treating politics as a game of identity, because they’ve learned from the primaries that most voters are extremely responsive to this kind of politics.

  39. Beta Blocker

    Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency went into full meltdown last week, and the likely fallout will be a meltdown of the Republican Party, at least at the national level.

    Hillary Clinton will be elected president in November and Democrats will regain control of the Senate. The only question which remains to be answered is which party will control the House of Representatives.

    Chances are more than even at this point that Democrats will be in full control of the federal government in 2017. So we must ask the question, what will come next for America’s energy policies once Democrats have a clear mandate to follow their program?

    Democrats see wide adoption of renewable energy technology as the key to bringing good-paying manufacturing jobs back to the United States. This view is reflected in Hillary Clinton’s climate change agenda, which includes these major points:

    From: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

    Climate change and clean energy: Making America the world’s clean energy superpower and meeting the climate challenge.

    – Create good-paying jobs by making the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.

    – Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.

    – Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going.

    Meeting the 30% target requires that the Clean Power Plan be upheld in the courts; that massive incentives for the adoption of renewable energy technology be enacted (i.e., tax breaks plus massive direct and indirect subsidies); that strong energy efficiency incentives be enacted; that numerous and widespread energy conservation measures be adopted; and that strong disincentives against the continued use of fossil fuels be enforced by government regulatory agencies.

    As ivory-tower, graduate-level academic thinking goes, Clinton’s energy plan is Policy Wonkism 501. Achieving the 30% reduction target by the time she leaves office in January 2025 requires that all parts and pieces of her plan be adopted whole hog early in her presidency, and that they all work flawlessly together in machine-like fashion for most of the eight years she is in office.

    If any shortfalls in any part of her plan develop, the 30% target can’t be met. Who, if anyone, will be held accountable in November 2024 if the reduction was 15% rather than 30%? (Or if there wasn’t any reduction at all?)

    And if we look beyond 2025 towards President Obama’s long-term goal of an 80% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, it is impossible to achieve his goal without a substantial commitment to nuclear power.

    But the Clinton plan continues and expands upon a policy which forces high-capacity baseload generation, coal and nuclear alike, off the grid in favor of Variable Energy Resources (VER’s) — wind and solar backed by natural gas. My personal prediction is that under the Clinton energy plan, from one-quarter to one-third of America’s nuclear capacity will have been retired by about 2030.

    The ultimate impact of the Clinton energy plan is that any part of rural America not covered by gas fracking wells will be covered by windmills and solar panels. Is this what we want for our country?

    • Maybe some unexpected storage technology will come along and save her bacon.

      • That unexpected storage technology is more likely to be conventional storage in Hilly’s case. Conventional as in federal prison.

    • David Springer

      You keep telling yourself that, dopey. Clinton was barely able to beat Crazy Bernie, a raving socialist who isn’t even a registered Democrat. And she’s not nominated yet despite the unilateral declaration of victory. Meanwhile Trump sent 16 of the most experienced and well funded Republican politicians in the world to embarrassing defeats and he did it with little effort and little money. Cr00ked Hillary is going to lose in a populist landslide.

      • Beta Blocker

        David Springer, you don’t have a clue what Donald Trump will do as president, nor does anyone else including Trump himself. He is a blank slate on which people such as yourself are writing their wish list.

        If he is elected president, the position he holds on any given issue on any given day is likely to be the one that was being pushed by the very last person who happened to be in his office the previous afternoon.

        If by some miracle of divine intervention Trump is elected president — there is no other way it could happen — he is just as likely to do something you don’t like as he is to do something you do.

        For example, suppose he abandons the Obama Administration’s climate action plan, but then the environmental NGO’s and the activist state governments sue the EPA to begin enforcing strong regulatory action against all GHG emissions, not just those associated with coal.

        Suppose further that the activists win in the courts and the EPA is forced to develop a comprehensive anti-GHG regulatory scheme which all states must adopt.

        By far the simplest and easiest way to gain buy-in from the individual states would be to encourage them to put their own stiff price on carbon, as much as is needed to achieve their own GHG reduction targets.

        For those states which don’t get on board, a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax might be imposed, but with the revenues being assigned to the states.

        In this way, a powerful incentive is created for every state government to begin using energy consumption taxes as a means of greatly enhancing their revenue stream.

        Would a future President Trump put up a strong fight against this kind of scheme if he knew that by adopting it, the climate monkey was off his back and that over time, the power and influence that inevitably follows the tax money would flow away from the federal government back towards the states?

        If climate change activists actually do want to see a substantial reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions, and if putting a stiff price on carbon is the only realistic way to get there, is it possible a Trump presidency offers the best chance of success?

  40. VIDEO • Hannity to Newt Gingrich: Maybe Washington Republicans Should Have Fought Obama They Way They Fight Trump

  41. Mark Levin: Why Won’t GOP Establishment Attack Democrats 1/100th As Hard As They Attack Trump?

    On his Tuesday radio program, Mark Levin addressed how members of the Republican Party establishment are responding to Donald Trump’s statements regarding the judge hearing the Trump University case.

    “So Donald Trump makes this stupid comment about the judge who’s Mexican … and then he’s under attack by Bob Corker, and Newt Gingrich, and Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan. The very people he says he gets along with,” Levin said.

    “You can’t trust these establishment guys,” Levin said. “I’m thinking to myself, did they attack Barack Obama 1/100th as much as they attack other Republicans?”

    • Trump faces the same problem that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did: his was a hostile takeover of the party, one which the party’s conservatives, including the party’s reactionary wing based in the South, could never get over.

      Trump is up against the same kind of reactionary, right-wing extremists within his own party that Roosevelt was:

      The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values….

      It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord….

      Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.

      It is best not to straddle ideals.

      In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.

      It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.

      I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time.


    • Another Roosevelt who staged a hostile takeover of his own party was Teddy Roosevelt:

      The Republican Roosevelt — GOP moneyman Mark Hanna called him “that damned cowboy” — was the first president to seriously grapple with the excesses of the Gilded Age….

      Roosevelt, of course,thrilled to the fight.

      Urban bred, Harvard-educated, TR chose foes who wore the diamond stickpins of “economic man” — the organizers of the great trusts, the stockjobbers, the “malefactors of great wealth,” and the “criminal rich.” They were people to be scrutinized, not admired….

      The turnabout was extraordinary. Although Bryan had lost his political battle in 1896, within six or seven years many of his ideas and issues [e.g., federal income tax, popular election of senators, publicity of campaign contributions, woman sufferage, etc.] were marching forward again — and even winning — under more sophisticated Progressive leadership….

      William Allen White, the Kansas editor, aptly remarked that Progressive leaders “caught the Populists in swimming and stole all of their clothing except the frayed underdrawers of free silver.”…

      The irony was that some of Roosevelt’s own leading supporters had come from Wall Street — Morgan partners like George Perkins and Frank Munsey, partly commited to restraining the candidate, but also well aware that it might take Progressivism to head off socialism.

      — KEVIN PHILLIPS, Wealth and Democracy

    • David Springer

      Gingrich walked back is initial comments in an interview I watched yesterday or the day before. I wish like hell Newt was the VP pick. He’s got the political knowledge and discipline that Trump is lacking. Trump has the heart and street smarts that Newt is lacking. It’s a perfect match.

      • They really are a perfect match. They both have been married 3 times and both have shown a real knack for inflicting psychological pain on their ex-wives. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

      • David Springer


        You want to attack marital relations making Bill and Hillary fair game in that regard?



      • I’m not voting for Hillary.
        I’m not calling Trump or Gingrich names.
        I just point out relevant issues that may give insight into the candidates ability to show good judgement. A case in point was Trump’s endorsement of Obama’s climate policy in 2009. Now a complete flip-flop without offering a logical justification.
        As to Bill and Hillary all one can say at this point is they work together well and they made a rational decision they were better together than apart. Maybe the question I really want to know is do they love each other despite the scandalous behavior of Bill? It’s possible. I have known other couples who have made similar choices.

      • @jacksmith4tx | June 10, 2016 at 10:31 am |
        “I just point out relevant issues that may give insight into the candidates ability to show good judgement. ”

        Unbelievable! The Clintons together or separately are an anathema to good judgement.

    • David Springer

      Mexico is a nation. Mexican is a nationality not a race. In the US it’s a demographic category. This whole thing is ridiculous but fortunately I can cling to my guns and religion for comfort. The guns and religion remark, by the way, was directed at another demographic; white male Americans without a college degree. In other words: rednecks. Many consider disparaging remarks directed at rednecks to be racist.

      I hate double standards and the people who hold them.

  42. Experts in body language will say that a shoulder shrug, at certain times, indicates that a person is telling a lie. I watched the Clinton interview on Fox yesterday and it looked to me as though her shoulders started shrugging quite a bit as soon as they got to the email questions. There was even a bit of lip moistening at the end (another sign of stress due to lying). But I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions…enjoy!

    • Voters Will Be Left Hanging by State Department’s Clinton Email Slow-Walk

      The State Department is poised to wait until after the general election to publish informative emails sent and received through a private server by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as top US diplomat.

      • Yes, it never seems to end. Imho, once President Clinton was forgiven by democratic voters, it opened Pandora’s box. Because they know that the dem voters will overlook almost any transgression, the scandals have steadily grown worse until, at this point, we have a presumptive nominee under FBI investigation. It really is unbelievable, but we simply have too many voters who believe that the ends justify the means.

        I wouldn’t be surprised to see this attitude spread to the GOP, too. Wouldn’t that be great?

      • “once President Nixon was forgiven by Ford, it opened Pandora’s box.”
        That was the day for me. Never trusted government or the press since.

    • David Springer

      I make it a habit to turn the channel or turn off the TV when Cr00ked Hillary appears. We should all do our part in training the networks by rewarding them with eyeballs when our boy Trump is on the tube and punishing them by tuning out when he isn’t.

  43. Evan Jones

    I’m not worried about a 30 reduction. That won’t happen. (Unless fusion, or whatever, in which all this is moot.) I am worried about a 15% reduction. If things fall bad that could happen. And it would be bad.

  44. India Overtakes Japan as World’s Third Largest Oil User After US, China

    India, Asia’s second biggest energy consumer since 2008, has overtaken Japan as the world’s third largest oil consuming country in 2015, supported by an 8.1 percent year-on-year increase in daily consumption to 4.159 million barrels, data released Wednesday by BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2016 showed….

    The region’s economic powerhouse China retained its position as Asia’s top oil consumer last year, registering 6.3 percent growth to 11.968 million barrels per day and accounting for 12.9 percent of global demand despite a slowing economy as well as a shift from an industrial to a service-driven economy.

  45. Danny Thomas

    Not asking for a prediction at all. Only asking what his intentions are and his plan to go about reaching those goals.

    Which big words are you having difficulty with. Maybe I can tone them down for you allowing for an improvement of your comprehension.

    • Danny – The only thing we really have to go on for any politician is what he says he will do and what we know about their history.

      The politicians now in power, even though we know their history, have in too many cases lied to us. But in Trumps case, he is saying things the other politicians won’t. That shows he has qualities that the others don’t. And I am very much for most of what he says. Immigration, the economy, the languishing middle and lower classes are all very serious problems that need to be addressed.

      Finally, stop with all these disingenuous questions. You have the same internet I have, so use it.

      • Danny Thomas

        What about the question is disingenuous? I stated clearly I was finding a lack of detail and asked what I was missing (as sometimes I do). Responses are that maybe even Trump doesn’t know what he plans to do (or along those lines) and somehow that makes my question less than honest?

  46. New poll from Fox News with Clinton and Trump still in a statistical dead heat, but Johnson coming on strong:

    • Johnson……….12%
    • Trump…………..36%
    • Clinton………….39%


  47. Are the race card and the gender card the only cards the Democrats have?

    VIDEO • Elizabeth Warren: Trump a ‘thin-skinned, racist bully’

    • I should have said: “Are the race card and the gender card the only cards the establishment has?”

      It’s pretty clear by now that the establishment is bipartisan, and that the charges of racism and mysogeny are coming from both sides of the aisle.

  48. Four million a year for being an “honorary chancellor.” Not a bad gig if you can get it.


  49. Fox News poll shows Trump and Clinton in a statistical dead heat.

    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 42, Trump 39 Clinton +3


    • And this even after Trumps poking of the PC bear this week!

    • T-Rump down 6 points from last poll. Trending in the wrong direction.

      • As the NeverTrump Redimowits fall into line, this will reverse. He lost some Redimowits, they don’t have anywhere viable to go.

    • Donnygonefishing

      That 42% is consistent with other polls and is a very bad number for granny at this stage of the game. The captive Demo party-line block of low-information voters is around 47% of the electorate. Granny’s trajectory is down. The more the folks see of little disingenuous granny and her Armani tent-pantsuits the less they can stand her. No enthusiasm for poor granny. The hilly-billy duo are holding their campaign rallies in high school gyms and fast food joints.

      Trump has had another week where he has been hit hard from left, right and center declared unfit for polite society and dead (again) as a viable candidate, but he is still right there. If he can cut back on the foolish unforced errors, he will very likely be sitting in the White House.

      Odds are that developments on several important issues will benefit The Donald:

      The Obama-granny economy is not looking good. Latest jobs report terrible. Business investment stagnant. Small business creation negative. GDP growth rate under Obamanomics pathetic. Is this all we get for the gazillions in deficit spending and Fed QE shenanigans ? Krugman is a clown. Keynes is dead. We need to bury the rascal.

      Obamacare non-profit exchanges almost all failed and the for-profit companies suing the government for promised but unpaid loss covering subsidies, pulling out of the market or seeking yuuuge rate increases. Gruber better leave the country.


      Bad news at the border. More illegal aliens, drugs, crimes. Build that wall!

      Obama-granny’s legacy on peace and order in the world very likely to not improve. More Islamic terrorist attacks. Ferguson effect violence increasing in Democrat controlled big cities. BLM-Alinskyite-anarchist “protests” in both convention cities. American flags burned by Mexican flag waving “protestors” trying to shut down Trump rallies with intimidation and violence. Stoopid thugs are creating a lot of Trump voters.

      There’s more stuff like that, but the big enchilada is the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into granny’s crimes. Best case scenario for Trump and Republicans is Obama squelches the well deserved indictments. Everybody will know that the fix is in and it won’t go over well with the folks who care about justice. Granny will still get her 42%. And it’s disaster for Democrats and affiliated low-information voters, like dannyboy.

  50. Well again, it looks like the race and gender cards are pretty much the only cards the establishment has to play. The Republicrat establishment certainly can’t run on its track record.

    VIDEO • Biden blasts Trump’s ‘racist’ attack on federal judge

    • Billary has been pushing the “historic moment” when a WOMAN!! has been nominated for President. This will no doubt be her theme until the election (if she can stay out of prison, that is). The good thing is that it will get old as we have 5 more months until the election.

      It’s my impression that the Dimowit sheep actually consider it a plus that Billary is a cheat, liar, and criminal. They can relate to those traits and it helps illegals since Billary doesn’t care about something so trivial as the law of the land – made obvious by her own actions. Kind of like the La Raza San Jose police chief who failed to enforce laws concerning assault and destruction of property at the Trump rally. It’s scary that people like this are in a position of power. He should be fired then sued.

  51. VIDEO • Anti-Trump Republicans seek last-ditch ‘delegate revolt’

  52. jim2 | June 10, 2016 at 8:45 am | Reply
    dropped into moderation

  53. Why do Dimowits hate the Kochs so much? From the article:

    The new 60-second commercial initially will air on news programs and expand to sports and entertainment shows, said Steve Lombardo, who oversees communications and marketing at Koch Industries. It opens with images contrasting a stately white mansion with a trash-strewn neighborhood as a narrator talks of a country “divided between success and failure, with government and corporations picking winners and losers.”

    It goes on to hit themes Koch has pursued for years, arguing that the criminal-justice system is rigged against the poor and that government regulation thwarts business growth. Print versions of the ads will appear in several national newspapers Monday.

    “The world is changing. … We’ve got to change at least as fast as the world, hopefully faster.”
    -Charles Koch

    A new website, EndTheDivide.com, highlights what company officials say are their efforts to “promote equal justice and a free and open society,” such as the company’s decision to stop asking potential employees about their criminal histories on job applications.


  54. jim2 | June 10, 2016 at 8:49 am | Reply
    dropped into moderation

  55. Gender provides no qualifications for the job.
    Honestly, integrity, empathy, a sense of fairness, respect of the law … all of these things matter far more than gender.

    And in all of these things Hillary is sorely lacking.

  56. From the article:

    The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home for self-defense made one thing clear: only Donald Trump can save our gun rights now.


  57. From the article:

    There appears to be no limit to what Hillary will do to destroy her perceived enemies,’ Dolly Kyle writes in her new bombshell book

    Kyle began sleeping with Bill Clinton after high school and their affair didn’t end until he moved to the White House

    ‘Billy was a sex addict; I was a codependent,’ she admits in memoir that rips the lid off the power couple

    Bill was undone by Wilt Chamberlain’s claim to have slept with 20,000 women – That’s ten times more than I’ve had!’ he told Dolly

    Dolly says Bill told her he and Hillary – who he called ‘The Warden’ -needed to have a baby ‘so we can appear to be a normal couple’

    ‘We need to do something serious to take attention off the Warden’s lifestyle,’ Bill said and Dolly suggested he sleep with Hillary

    When Dolly met Hillary – May 28, 1974 – she wore a ‘misshapen, brown, dress-like thing that must have been intended to hide her lumpy body’
    The garment ‘stopped too soon to hide her fat ankles and her thick calves covered with black hair’

    ‘Thick brown sandals did nothing to conceal her wide feet and the hair on her toes,’ Dolly said, adding that she was embarrassed and staring


  58. SOUNDTRACK • Deepak Chopra: Trump ’emotionally retarded’

    Deepak Chopra, alternative medicine advocate and guru of the New Age movement, had this to say about Donald Trump:

    He is unfortunately, and you know I would never say this unless I believe it to be 100% true, but he represents the racist, the bigot, the one who is prejudiced, the one who is full of fear and hatred, the one who represents the emotional retardation of a three-year-old and yet he is so popular because he has given permission to our collective psyche to express their darkest demons.

  59. Roseanne Barr thinks Trump better than Hillary.
    Saw this interview over on Reason blog.
    Best quote about the state of our political system:
    “voting doesn’t matter at all. And if it did, they wouldn’t let you do it.”

  60. 100% identity politics, 100% of the time………

    Clinton hits Trump on women’s issues

  61. Elizabeth Warren’s Facebook Fans on Clinton Endorsement: Noooooooooooo!

    A quick sampling of the comments that appeared on Warren’s latest Facebook post Thursday afternoon:

    • By endorsing Hillary Clinton you are now a big reason for the corruption in our country. I should have known all along that you were a sellout since you never endorsed Bernie Sanders. #BernieorBust

    • If you endorse Shillarry and accept the VP position that will be two women I won’t vote for. One a criminal and the other a sellout.

    • An endorsement of Hillary Clinton will undo everything for which you have stood. An endorsement of Hillary Clinton will undo my faith in you as a person with integrity.

    • ….shame on you for backing clinton….. another pseudo-progressive we must vote out of office.


  62. Trump SLAMS Obama: First Time Ever a President of the United States has Endorsed Somebody Under Criminal Investigation

  63. John Costigane


    Three facts can be ascertained at this juncture:

    Donald Trump wants to be President,
    The Republican Party wants to run the country,
    The American people want a change.

    A fourth, climate skeptics, such as I, want to see a toxic consensus overturned.

    Donald Trump has a family of notable children, which is a credit to the man. He may very well have had their futures in mind when deciding to run for office. This is how political dynasties are formed.

    The Republican Party should back Donald wholeheartedly and guide his policy choices. The Hispanic community also drawn into the fold. Ted Cruz can be an asset here. I note that Ted has returned to his work.

    I have called for a Republican victory in previous cycles, and felt the loss. This has to be a better opportunity, though it pains me to oppose a female candidate for President.

  64. The Republicrat establishment flops down yet another race card.

    Oh well, if Romney, Hillary and Deepak Chopra said it, then it must be true.

    Romney says Trump will change America with ‘trickle-down racism’

    • Romney has already lost once. I guess he trying to be a two-time loser.

    • For Trump supporters, trickle-down racism is a plus. They want more people to be persuaded to think like them, and Trump’s leadership would allow that. So that is not the way to draw his support away from him. Instead he needs to be seen as the privileged person who never struggled for money, acting like a spoiled child that has never been disciplined, and conning poorer people for his own profit. He has never been on anyone’s side except for his own personal promotion. Why would he change?

      • ==> Instead he needs to be seen as the privileged person who never struggled for money, acting like a spoiled child that has never been disciplined, and conning poorer people for his own profit. He has never been on anyone’s side except for his own personal promotion.

        But as we see in these pages, those inclined to support him will not be swayed by evidence of any of that. In fact, they remain firmly committed to the vision of Trump as some truth-to-power speaking, straight-shooting working class hero enemy of the “establishment.” It doesn’t matter how preposterous that vision is, or how divorced it is from the relevant evidence.

        The point isn’t to address his supporters. It’s to make sure that people who recognize that he isn’t their advocate, get to the polls.

      • As Romney points out, Trump said he could get away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and his people will still vote for him. However, he won’t release his taxes, even previous years to the audit, because he fears that is somehow harmful to his vote, presumably.

      • There is no racism in Trump, but you assert there is. It’s a lie, JimD.

      • No, I think in his case it is a sense of inferiority and persecution, but it comes across as racism from the way he rationalizes his feelings.

      • Now Jim D is a psychoanalyst

      • Trump gives a lot of material. Quite a piece of work there.

      • David Springer

        So Jim… may I assume you have made up your mind to not vote for Trump?

        I understand. Here’s the thing though. He hasn’t done anything that compares to Hillary. His taxes are being audited. If he cheated the IRS will take care of him just like if Hillary broke the law with that email server the FBI and Justice Dept. will take of her unless Obama tells Justice to stand down. I know Trump hasn’t made state department deals with Honduran thugs to take over the country and brutalize the people such that a million women and children, or worse just children, fleeing north hoping to get to the US then Hilly telling her pal the president of Mexico to shut it down in any manner necessary so they can’t flee to the US. I know Trump didn’t leave any of our ambassadors in Benghazi to be murdered. I know Trump doesn’t need to feather his own nest because he would be “broke” like Hillary claimed she and Slick Willy were when they left the White House.

        I was an adult during the Clinton years. I know all about the stained dress, Whitewater, Vince Foster’s suicide, Travelgate, Troopergate, the impeachment.

        Nothing Trump has done compares to any of that. The worst the libtards can do is claim he’s a racist and misogynist and thin skinned.

        The first two are demonstrably not true. Thin skinned, maybe. I was taking political science in college when Reagan was president. I lived in California then and while he was governor too. We called Reagan “Trigger Finger”. Big deal. A US president needs to project an image of don’t f*ck with the US or you’re dead meat. Like Reagan. Reagan ended the cold war. I grew up in the cold war.

        I figure about half the voters in the US have no experience or knowledge of the Clinton’s first occupation of the White House. They need to be brought up to date on the above. It took old Trigger Finger to end the cold war. We need another like him to end the terror war.

        I’m a New Yorker so Trump’s rough edges don’t bother me. He imprinted on people like Archie Bunker. Archie was beloved by America and had a heart of gold underneath the “racist” exterior. That’s about the worst I can say about Trump he’s Archie Bunker the construction company billionaire in Manhattan instead of Archie Bunker the loading dock foreman in Brooklyn. Big deal.

      • Trump has victims taking him to court. These are real people with grievances about fraudulence. He made a quick buck off people who could barely pay. Now he has turned to conning America into thinking he cares about people other than himself.

  65. Green Groups Fund-raise Against Trump’s Climate Stance

  66. The revolution in Britain is gaining steam (Tony B!!). Hope you limeys can pull it off!! It will be a blow to centralized power – something dearly needed in this day and age! From the article:

    The campaign to take Britain out of the EU has opened up a remarkable 10-point lead over the Remain camp, according to an exclusive poll for The Independent.

    The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points). These figures are weighted to take account of people’s likelihood to vote. It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for The Independent a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned.


  67. Google definitely helped the Obummer campaign with Google Analytics. From the article:

    Julian Assange: Google Is In Bed With Hillary’s Campaign [VIDEO]


  68. More evidence that Clinton is the “paid liar and bumsucker of the lords of capital” like Google founder and former CEO Eric Schmidt.

    • This should have been in reply to jim2

      Julian Assange: Google Is In Bed With Hillary’s Campaign [VIDEO]

  69. Another nail in the coffin containing our right to privacy. This time for the “War on Drugs.” This is why drugs should be legalized.

    From the article:

    DEA Wants Inside Your Medical Records to Fight the War on Drugs


  70. The Clinton Campaign Continues to Help Trump Ensure That Policy Won’t Matter in This Election

    The Democrats are nominating someone who believes fundamentally that nothing matters unless it’s about race, ethnicity, gender or religion. She won’t change, even if she actually ventures beyond a rope line in Ohio or Michigan or Indiana and talks to a few blue-collar workers who were laid off because their manufacturing plant closed, and now work for half of their old income and receive no benefits. Some of them have voted Democratic all their lives. And now they think Trump might be their savior.

    So they’re considering voting for him, despite, rather than because of, his “Build the Wall” and “Ban Muslims.” They know about the-judge-is-biased-because-he’s-Mexican. They think it’s ridiculous. But it’s not what they care most about….

    Trump says, “Jump.” And everyone does. But especially Clinton does, because Trump knows what to dangle in front of her, and exactly when to dangle it….

    Even that Japanese WWII soldier still hiding in a cave because he doesn’t know that the war has ended knows about the latest ethnic or racial or gender insult by Trump. But not about much else, because Trump and Clinton and her campaign, along with the news media, partner to ensure that.

    There’s a reason that Clinton can’t run on policy.

    Despite Beverly Mann’s remoteness from reality, or her spin doctoring, Clinton is as dirty as they come. Trump’s transgressions pale in comparison to Clinton’s,

    Hillary University: Bill Clinton Bagged $16.46 Million from For-Profit College as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back

    And Clinton’s track record on the economy and foreign policy?

    The only way Clinton can win is by keeping the election focused on identity politics — race, gender, ethnicity, LGBT issues, etc. — because if a harsh spotlight ever gets shown on her track record in other areas, she loses.

  71. Donald Trump isn’t the only one talking about the democracy deficiency of supranational governance:

    Understanding The European Union’s Facade Democracy

    “The cost of non-Europe” may have been calculated but nobody has yet estimated the cost of non-democracy that is already helping to undermine public support for European integration….

    It’s no coincidence that the Commission tends to favour technocratic solutions. The ECB works without any clear democratic control or supervision; the same goes for most of the European (regulatory) agencies. Even inside the legislative process the Commission pushes for technocratic methods involving so called experts chosen by itself, relying on the so called “comitology” process, hundreds of expert groups and advisory committees, most of them not very transparent….

    [F]or some years now, the Parliament – the so-called heartbeat of European democracy that should always side with those forces pushing for more democracy – has changed sides and voluntarily accepts quite undemocratic procedures… This is a clear setback for democracy….

    It is no wonder that the legitimacy of the European Union has been shrinking in recent years: trust in the EU swiftly slumped from 57% in 2007 to 31% only 5 years later. The impression of European citizens that “my voice counts” fell from 39% in 2004 to 26% in 2011…. Eurobarometer 82 states that a majority thinks that “the worst is still to come”.

    The drop in legitimacy, the ever-declining participation rate in European elections with the lowest point reached in 2014 (just 42.6% compared to 61% in 1979) simply reflect real moves towards less democracy.

    Democracy is not regressing because turnout is shrinking. On the contrary, the reason for diminishing participation lies in the off-putting behaviour of EU institutions: a college of commissioners…focussed more and more on collaboration with consultancies, think tanks, lobbyists, expert groups etc. and was less and less interested in democratic debates….

    As long as the proponents of European integration do not come up with a clear vision or at least some ideas on how to achieve democratic progress, the legitimacy of EU institutions and processes will further decline.

  72. WOW! Just WOW!

    Third World Watch!

    Clinton has certainly learned her lesson well from Mexican politicans. She knows how to do third world politics right. Carlos Slim must have given her and Bill some lessons.

    VIDEO • How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board

    Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

    The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

    Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

    This sounds like something straight out of The Perfect Dictatorship, where the reality of Mexico is more absurd than farce:

  73. More on the racist ideolgy evangelized by La Raza and Chicano groups, like that which Judge Curiel is a member of………..

    Founder of Judge Curiel’s Group: Whites Should Go Back to Europe, California To Be ‘Hispanic State’

    Mario Obledo was a co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the La Raza Lawyers of California bar association, and he formerly served as California’s Secretary of Health and Welfare.

    A 2010 Snopes report asserts that the first-listed co-founder of Judge Curiel’s group, Obledo, made the statements. They reported:

    Obledo: “We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.”

    Caller: “You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?”

    Obledo: “I did. They ought to go back to Europe.”

    The statements were also reported by the New York Times in their 2010 obituary for Obledo.

  74. More and more, La Raza sounds like the Mexican version of the KKK.

    • Danny Thomas

      Kinda agree with that. Folks should say the don’t know who Obledo even is. That tactic has work in the past for those who don’t know who David Duke is.

    • jim2,

      La Raza is more like a reaction to the KKK.

      But notwithstanding, it is a reaction that would not meet with the approval of assimilationists like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

      To meet hate with retaliatory hate would do nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe. Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begests a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love; we must meet physical force with soul force. Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.

      — REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., An Experiment in Love, The Montgomery Circle, September, 1958

      María Elena Martínez traces the origins and history of the doctrine of La Raza in Genealogical Fictions: Limpieza de Sangre, Religion, and Gender in Colonial Mexico. As she notes, the multivalence of racial doctrines stems from their

      defnitional ambiguities as well as from the chameleonic and parasitic nature of race, from its capacity to adapt to new circumstances and attach itself to new social phenomena while retaining shades of its past incarnations.

      No racial discourse is ever entirely new; as social and historical conditions change, race builds on old beliefs, tropes, and stereotypes.

      Towards the end of the colonial period in Mexico, the monopoly of political and economic power which had been enjoyed by the Spanish and creole elites was overthrown by the mestizos. This is the subject of the novel La muerte de Artemio Cruz by Carlos Fuentes.

      Thus, as Martínez goes on to explain, the end of the colonial period was marked by

      the emergence of a Mexican vision of a Catholic mestizo patria, one that simultaneously recognized the favored place of the native people within New Spain’s spiritual economy and betrayed the creole elite’s privileging of Spanish bloodlines and whiteness.

      That vision and all of its ambivalences toward native and especially black ancestries would survive independence and continue to haunt Mexican political imaginaries throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and beyond.

      That vision of a mestizo patria would play an overwhelming role in the thought of Jose Vasconcelos (1882-1959), who was among the most important and influential Mexican intellectuals of the twentieth century. He called his vision of the mestizo patria La Raza Cosmica — The Cosmic Race.

      Vasconcelos developed a profound suspicion of Americans, whom he viewed as crassly pragmatic, arrogant, shallow, aggressive, and lacking in spirituality.

      Undoubtedly, he was also offended by the fact that many Americans continued to endorse ideas like those espoused earlier in the century by their compatriot Joel Poinsett.

      Like certain other Latin Americans of the turn of the century…Vasconcelos’s thought developed in part as a reaction against North America and its materialistic values. He felt that Latin Americans must avoid imitating American culture…

      In this spirit, he argued that the Latin American mestizo constituted a new race, a “cosmic race,” which combined the virtues of Indians and Europeans. This, Vasconcelos believed, would be the race of the future.

      While Vasconcelos’s theory turned the white supremacist racism of the day on its head, it remains at heart a racist theory.


      Active in the Mexican revolution from its earliest days, Vasconcelos would serve as Mexico’s secretary of education, and his ministry’s department of fine arts sponsored the work of some of Mexico’s greatest modern artists, including the muralists Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros, as well as musicians Manuel M. Ponce and Julián Carrillo.

      Although Vasconcelos fell out of favor with the Mexican government after 1924, his racist theories would live on in the Chicano and La Raza movements which took place in the United States beginning in the 1960s:

      Aztlán [the U.S. Southwest] belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to foreign Europeans….

      We are the Bronze People with a Bronze culture….

      Our cultural values of life, family, and home will seve as a powerful weapon to defeat the gringo dollar value system.

      — El Plan espiritual de Aztlán, adopted in March 1969 at Chicano Youth Conference in Denver, Colorado

      Emilio Aguayo, Somos Aztlán, 1971, Ethnic Cultural Center, University of Washington, Seattle

  75. Not all of them.

  76. Mr. Pena sounds hispanic. He is fighting the good fight. Bully for Mr. Pena!
    From the article:

    LIBERTYVILLE, Ill. — American corporations are under new scrutiny from federal lawmakers after well-publicized episodes in which the companies laid off American workers and gave the jobs to foreigners on temporary visas.

    But while corporate executives have been outspoken in defending their labor practices before Congress and the public, the American workers who lost jobs to global outsourcing companies have been largely silent.

    Until recently. Now some of the workers who were displaced are starting to speak out, despite severance agreements prohibiting them from criticizing their former employers.

    Marco Peña was among about 150 technology workers who were laid off in April by Abbott Laboratories, a global health care conglomerate with headquarters here. They handed in their badges and computer passwords, and turned over their work to a company based in India. But Mr. Peña, who had worked at Abbott for 12 years, said he had decided not to sign the agreement that was given to all departing employees, which included a nondisparagement clause.

    Mr. Peña said his choice cost him at least $10,000 in severance pay. But on an April evening after he walked out of Abbott’s tree-lined campus here for the last time, he spent a few hours in a local bar at a gathering organized by technology worker advocates, speaking his mind about a job he had loved and lost.


  77. “Free trade makes us freer as individuals. It makes us better off as consumers. It makes us more productive as workers and producers, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty around the world and spreading democracy, human rights and peace around the world. That is the story we must tell.” – http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/making-case-free-trade
    We have an idea what Trump’s foreign policy will be. A decline in the world GDP leading to less stability and success. Some people don’t seem to want to be free and they don’t want U.S. citizens to be free, or people in poorer countries to be free. And their poster child is a displaced worker. Does it take a little more than some unemployment to sell out the idea of freedom? Who said freedom was going to be easy? There will be some failures. Trade barriers are government programs in the same league as welfare. Paying people not to meet a certain level of productivity. Welfare branded as Patriotism. If you want to wear a three cornered hat, I am fine with that. Why do I have to wear one? We as a nation will wear three cornered hats, lower our national standard of living, lowers the world’s standard of living and wave flags. But don’t confuse any of this with freedom.

    • First, put on your oxygen mask. Only after that, take care of those around you.

    • And personally, I don’t want to give up my job so someone in India or China can have it. You might want to give up yours though.

    • Donnygonefishing

      When some countries’ markets are more open than others, it ain’t free trade. When some countries use non-tariff barriers, subsidies , currency devaluation, intellectual property piracy and all the other tricks in the mercantilist book to gain advantage, it ain’t free trade. Try to use your little head.

    • I am not sure I want to save anyone. The illusion attempted by Trump and Sanders and other politicians is that they need to save us or victims from free trade. That’s like saying people need to be saved from low energy prices. They need to be saved from people who like shopping at Walmart. We’ve got it too good. Consumer prices are too low, look at poor Joe over there who is unemployed. Look what China did to him? We are going to make China pay for that or renegotiate with them so Joe will not have to work at Walmart and then we will have to pay higher consumer prices. Joe could suck it up and get a job at Walmart, but it’s beneath him. Lots of us have had career set backs, tolerated things, reduced spending, adapted. Trade mitigation is not the option of the adaptable or the thriving. It’s building an economic bunker. And let’s leave to congress or the president as to who gets admitted.

      • What do you find so repulsive about FAIR trade, Ragnaar? Fair instead of free.

      • By “fair” I assume you don’t mean what is best for the consumer.

      • Donnygonefishing

        Explain how yuuuge trade deficits in perpetuity with countries that game the system and don’t allow fair access to their markets is good for the U.S consumer? We get cheap crap untill we go broke?

        Free trade means that everybody goes by the free trade rules. Anybody who thinks we have free trade is not very bright.

      • Jim2:
        I am afraid fair trade doesn’t have a wiki page that I could find. In its place, those wiley gatekeepers write about some coffee scheme that may have poor results. Let the common man drink coffee I say. The arbiter of a fair price I think is the individual. My interpretation of being libertarian.

      • I’ve changed my position on NAFTA. Alert the press. Why thousands of pages of agreements, benefiting farmers for one, when it could be just one page? We will lift all trade restrictions. Duties on Chinese steel do not help steel using industries in the United States. It’s similar to you owning a company that builds houses and complaining about cheap wood imports from Canada. Fair is often interpreted by politicians. Some industries will win and others will not. I can ponder how not to do free trade. A company makes cold rolled steel. They are given government money in exchange for selling the steel outside their county in a timely manner. So it looks to me like China giving our steel using industries China’s money, and movement towards our having an advantage with steel using industries. If we do want production of other goods here, cheap steel can help with that.

      • It is a similar issue with Trump “bringing back the jobs”. He wants to remove Buick and Ford from China where at least they are competing with the Japanese and Germans on an even playing field. He hasn’t thought it through or talked to the actual industries before making it a talking point of his speeches. It would be a disaster for their place in the global market (same for Apple).

      • “Fair” means we play tit for tat with other countries when it comes to trade. They slap a tariff on us, we slap one on them. They remove a tariff, we remove a tariff. Simple and effective.

      • Here’s the US steel consumers of which Ragnaar is so proud. What’s that China line doing? Hmmmm … looks like Free Trade is really helping them. Not so much us though.


      • David Springer

        Why should I care about Ford and Buick auto plants located in China?

      • ==> It is a similar issue with Trump “bringing back the jobs”. He wants to remove Buick and Ford from China where at least they are competing with the Japanese and Germans on an even playing field. He hasn’t thought it through or talked to the actual industries before making it a talking point of his speeches. It would be a disaster for their place in the global market (same for Apple).

        You forgot that Trump will balance the market through massive tariffs. Yeah, that will work. Lol.

      • We could look at the past 35 years of the S & P 500 index. Just about every industry and its workers are going to try to play our government.
        “It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.” They will argue and appeal to improve their situation.

      • DS, exactly! Why does Trump care so much about American companies doing business abroad. It has been OK up till now. You don’t care. I don’t care. Trump, your candidate, does. Defend him.

      • Jim D asks-

        “By “fair” I assume you don’t mean what is best for the consumer.”

        Are you sure what is best for the American consumer? Isn’t the US consumer better off if they have to pay a bit more for products but a higher percentage of the population has access to obtaining jobs associated with manufacturing companies?

      • Americans don’t need any more of those low skill, low paying jobs. They prefer to have the cheaper products that come from them.

      • “Americans don’t need any more of those low skill, low paying jobs. They prefer to have the cheaper products that come from them.”

        The best way to get a better job is to have a job. It gives you the opportunity to prove you can show up on time, do your job and stay out of politics. Having a job, any job, also tends to have health benefits, not health insurance, but for some reason not sitting on ones ass improve mental and physical health. Some American’s may not think they need a “menial” job, but they really do.

      • We tend to subsidize those jobs because they are below the poverty level even if done full time. It is not clear that they are a net plus to the economy until a decent minimum wage gets them above the poverty level. With a decent living wage more people would be willing to do them.

      • JimD, “We tend to subsidize those jobs because they are below the poverty level even if done full time.”

        Right, at $7.5 an hour the gross for full time would be $15,000 a year with matching employer FICA they contribute about $2250 to SS and Medicare and now they have to pony up about $90/mo for obummercare which is $1080 in addition to paying state an local taxes on consumables (primarily sin taxes, higher interest rates if they can get a loan and higher insurance rates etc.) without paying much if any actual income tax. So out of the roughly $5000 they pay in federal, state and local they get subsidized to the tune of perhaps $2300. Very, very few actually make the national minimum wage more than a 90 day probationary/training period.

        If you want to get into the fairytale financial impact, every dollar they spend will generate another plus by being less obese and generally healthier they have lower healthcare impact.

      • Danny Thomas

        While we’ll find agreement in that there are pros and cons to increasing (even having one, in fact) the minimum wage, “Very, very few actually make the national minimum wage more than a 90 day probationary/training period.” there’s not much step up after that time. $.25 per hour is still pretty insignificant.

      • kinda funny, but considering flows instead of nets tends to give advocates to use fairytale on one side and nightmare on the other side of just about any equation. Something is pretty much better than nothing in most cases.

      • These people would not be under Obamacare, they would likely be under Medicaid or the Medicaid expansion (if in a state that has that), which is fully or mostly government paid. Also probably qualify for food stamps and energy assistance. Remember these are full-time working people, and they need this extra government assistance to live because their employers don’t pay them a living wage.

      • JimD, “These people would not be under Obamacare, they would likely be under Medicaid or the Medicaid expansion (if in a state that has that), which is fully or mostly government paid. Also probably qualify for food stamps and energy assistance.”

        If they are head of household with kids yes, then they would get closer to $5000 for a wash financially but gain the benefits of being an otherwise productive member of society. Anything they earn though reduces the amount of “subsidy”. There are a lot of exclusions allowed for ACA, but $10,500 I believe is the threshold for single.

        The biggest problem with these programs is the shock a few thousand in income can have. At part time minimum wage plus a little under the table supplemental income, it doesn’t pay to go full time. The US isn’t as bad as the average EU country, but we have roughly 9% of GDP in gray market unreported income or about 2 trillion last year. That is a lot of your subsidy right there.

      • David Springer

        Jim D as usual talks out of his ass. About full-time minimum wage workers being qualified for medicaid this time.


        Things he doesn’t know include:

        1) 19 states don’t offer medicaid at all to single adults

        2) $7.82 per hour disqualifies single adults in 29 additional states

        The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour so a 9% raise in hourly pay above federal minimum would disqualify the person getting the raise in those 29 states.

      • Those people you count as disqualified are in Republican states opposed to the Medicaid expansion, and are among those left uninsured even after Obamacare now insure 20 million more people than used to be. Maybe you prefer them to be unqualified and using the more expensive emergency room route, but that is exactly what was wrong with the old system. It is just another inefficiency of the old system that you end up swapping in without even noticing.

      • JimD, emergency room visits haven’t really changed much.


        This might be why there is a bipartisan effort to change ACA to something that might work. Something that might work will need to deal with the huge cost differences between states and the ridiculous amount of administrative overhead.

        You know there is a ridiculous amount of administrative overhead in education also. It is almost like the more government tries to regulate things the worse it gets :)

      • Allowing a public option (Medicare for all) would be the most efficient and cheapest, but we are not allowed to mention that because it upsets the insurance and drug industries.

      • Danny Thomas

        If we’re gonna follow the pathway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare

      • Most people understand Medicare. The system is in place for expansion.

  78. Most people probably know if they’re doing OK financially or not, and don’t need some spin doctor to tell them.

    Don’t listen to GOP leaders. The economy’s not so bad.

  79. Neocons on the attack. The reactionary extremist warmongers just can’t get over the fact that they lost.

    The Republican party can’t count on Divine intervention of either sort to save it from Donald Trump, the con man who is the party’s presumptive nominee. Republican leaders now know they’ve been played for marks. They’ve awakened to the con.


  80. The message of the San Jose violence

    What does it add up to? A realization that democracy itself is under assault….

    The real story of this election is the assault on democracy and the question of whether it can be turned around.

  81. More neocons on the attack. The reactionary extremist warmongers just can’t get over the fact that they lost.

    David Brooks: People Will Be Sick Of Trump And Vote For Hillary, “She Will be Competent And Normal”

  82. Another Neocon Endorses Clinton, Calling Her ‘2016’s Real Conservative’ and ‘the Candidate of the Status Quo’.

    Wall Street has thrown its weight behind Hillary Clinton. Some of the biggest names in the U.S. right-wing establishment have also expressed support for her.

    Another neocon added his name to the pro-Clinton list on Thursday. James Kirchick penned an op-ed in The Daily Beast titled “Hillary Clinton Is 2016’s Real Conservative—Not Donald Trump.”

    “Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss,” he says….

    Trump is “a brashly authoritarian populist,” Kirchick continues—a “charlatan, a gruesome amalgamation of the Monopoly Man and Elmer Gantry,” who is transforming “the Republican Party into an ethno-nationalist populist movement.”….

    “In the center remains Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her manifold faults, is the only candidate promising some form of economic, social and political continuity with the present,” Kirchick concludes.

    Clinton is “the clear conservative choice,” he maintains, the only one who can preserve the status quo.

    Kirchick is a hawkish pundit and fellow at Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank where leading neocons Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan sit on the board of directors.

    Kagan, who served as foreign policy adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign and has been described as “the neoconservative movement’s chief foreign policy theorist,” has also strongly come out in support of Clinton….

    Kirchick and Kagan have joined numerous right-wing confrères in endorsing Clinton for president.

    Max Boot, a hard-line war hawk and self-declared “American imperialist,” lauded Clinton in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in May.

    “Clinton would be far preferable to Trump,” Boot wrote, describing her as “a centrist Democrat who is more hawkish than President Obama….

    Fellow neocon Bret Stephens also expressed support for Clinton in May, in an op-ed titled “Hillary: The Conservative Hope.”…

    As secretary of state, Clinton pushed the U.S. to join NATO’s catastrophic bombing campaign in Libya in 2011, which plunged the oil-rich North African nation into chaos. Thousands of people have been killed since the U.S.-backed regime change operation, extremist groups have flourished and ISIS has carved out its largest so-called caliphate outside of Iraq and Syria.

    In addition to her role in pushing for the war on Libya, Sec. Clinton wrote off diplomacy in the war in Syria, instead calling for backing the “hard men with the guns.”

    These extremely belligerent policies, along with Clinton’s support for the illegal invasion of Iraq, the U.S. drone program, Israel’s far-right government and more, led The New York Times to dub her “the last true hawk left in the race.”….

    Clinton, Kirchick argues, is the candidate that will prevent “large and indefinite” changes; she is the candidate of reaction, the president who will resist “systematic change.”

    Like liberal elites, Kirchick also condescendingly writes off Trump’s working-class supporters as “too stupid,” writing, “he long ago preemptively humiliated any purported ‘intellectual’ supporter when he declared his ‘love’ for ‘the poorly educated’ voters flocking to his campaign, the kind of thing tin-pot dictators believe but don’t say for fear of offending their base.”

    “The fate of the Republic hangs upon” defeating Trump, Kirchick concludes, imploring conservatives to support Clinton.

  83. From the article:

    Subscribe to this topic
    mit robots stores hotels parking lots knightscope k security robot x
    Stay current with a recap of today’s news from Digital Trends.

    If you have yet to see a robot patrolling a parking lot or moving along the sidewalk, don’t feel left out. Security, surveillance, hospitality, and delivery robots aren’t a common sight, but it won’t be long before they are. Robots are already on the job providing extra service and security in a growing variety and number of locations, according to the MIT Technology Review.

    Silicon Valley startup Knightscope, Inc. has two mobile surveillance and security robots, called the K3 and K5. The company refers to them as Autonomous Data Machines, or ADMs, because as the robots make their rounds, they can either follow prescribed paths or just wander within a determined area. While on the move, the robots continuously collect and transmit more than 90 terabytes of data per year.


  84. Danny Thomas

    Not sure if this is an original slogan or not, but suggest it be used in this current campaign. Let me know what ya’ll think. Here goes.

    “I am a UNITER, not a DIVIDER!”

    See: “UNIFYING THE NATION” (7th down, right hand column)

    Since political correctness is a waste of time this is fine: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/10/bill-maher-mocks-reagan-s-alzheimer-s.html

    This is good too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/11/trumps-no-apologies-campaign-tour-hit-hard-on-romney-warren.html

  85. David Springer

    Wow. Hard to choose between those VPs. I had wanted Condi for VP for both McCain and Romney. Gingrich is my favorite political egghead and on my shortlist too. I don’t know much about Sessions. Condi turned down McCain and Romney if I recall correctly. I wanted Gingrich over Romney in 2012 primaries. I voted libertarian instead of either Obama or Romney in 2012.

    “Trump, who also held a rally Saturday in Moon Township, Pa., told supporters that former GOP House Speaker Rep. Newt Gingrich, Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions and former Secretary of State Condleezza Rice appear popular choices to be his running mate.”

  86. David Springer

    “Don’t Be Evil” is Google’s corporate logo. They need to start following it.


    Looks like someone at Google has been altering the “auto complete” choices for most popular searches where Hillary is part of the subject line. Scrubbing things like Benghazi, file server, and Cr00ked.

    Interestingly enough and perhaps prophetically evil scrubbing of search engine results was a theme on the uber-popular HBO comedy sitcom series “Silicon Valley” created by my fellow Austinite Mike Judge who also created among others “Beavis and Butthead” and “King of the Hill”.


    Hooli, a fictional high tech Google-like search-engine company run by an evil president and CEO, Gavin Belson. One of the evil things he did was order search results of himself and his company scrubbed of references to spectacular Hooli failures.


    Life imitates art.

    • Steven Mosher

      The word “crime” is scrubbed from ALL auto complete if it is prefaced by a persons name. Try Bill Cosby Cri, or dennis Hastert cri
      or Dennis hastert indi

      Google policy for all personal names.

      • David Springer

        Mosher is as usual speaking out of his ass.


      • David Springer

        You didn’t even bother to try it out first, did you?

        Interestingly enough it doesn’t work for the names you mentioned but it works fine for “Donald Trump cri” and :Hillary Clinton cri” both. It appears to be a little more nuanced than you were led to believe, dummy.

      • Steven Mosher

        yes Einstein. if you first google hillary clinaton crime a few times, then you will get trump crime. But If you Start by trying to test others first ( like cosby crime, Trump crime, OJ simpson crime, then you will get Hillary Crimes.

        I bet you tried hillary crime First..

      • David Springer

        I didn’t actually google any of them, dummy. All I did was type in the address bar to see what auto-fill suggestions come up. I suggest you try the same before shooting your stupid mouth off again.

  87. Billionaire Wall Street maven unleashes attack on Trump. The establishment wing of the Republican Party can’t articulate the real reason it doesn’t like Trump, which has to do with protecting economic interests:

    Meg Whitman likens Trump to Hitler, Mussolini

  88. Donald Trump keeps hammering away at his enemies within the Republican Party. Good for him. If he were to reverse himself now, he would be betraying all the millions of working-class people who brung him to the dance.

    Trump laments lack of GOP unity — but keeps up criticism

  89. Romney tears into GOP for not criticizing Trump

    Romney is such a pathetic, insipid looser. The only thing he knows how to do is this:

    How Mitt Romney Got Rich Destroying American Jobs and Promoting Sweatshop Capitalism

    • Obama And Romney Both Favor A System That Kills American Jobs

      Either way this election [2012 Romney vs. Obama] turns out, American jobs are going to continue to get slaughtered by the millions. During this campaign, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have both attempted to portray each other as the “outsourcer in chief“.

      Unfortunately, they are both right. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both participated in the outsourcing of American jobs, and both are openly admitting to the American people that they favor the emerging one world economic system which will continue to destroy millions of American jobs.

    • David Springer

      Vulture Capitalist Mitt Romney

      I voted libertarian in 2012 because of Romney and only because of Romney. I would have voted Republican for Gingrich or Perry no problem.

  90. Donald Trump’s Opponents Call for Violence At Rally: ‘Fascism Wants Us to Peacefully Resist’

    The Left and the establishment right have jointly and incessantly smeared Trump as a racist, sexist, Islamaphobic, demagogue, Hitler, subconsciously Hitler, not Hitler but Mussolini, and that his working class white supporters along with their communities “deserve to die.”

    Creator of Dilbert and neutral observer of the 2016 presidential race Scott Adams warned that the Hillary Clinton campaign was signaling it’s “morally justifiable to assassinate” Trump.

    At an earlier rally in San Jose, criminals leapt on top of cars, chased down Trump supporters like prey, stalked and mobbed other supporters, stole Trump signs and hats from supporters and destroyed them. Many of them were masked and waving Mexican flags, and burned American flags.

    Screaming and violent demonstrators shut down a Chicago rally and launched similar attacks against supporters and police, also while waving Mexican flags.

    Countless death threats have been levied at Trump as the media celebrates them, even giving a sympathetic interview a wannabe killer who rushed Trump.

  91. This is a fascinating article.

    Oil money flows for black and Latino Democrats

    It is an example of the elite-network politics Peter Skerry wrote of in Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority.

    As the article points out, the environmental movement in California is made up of people who are predominately

    1) White, and
    2) Affluent

    The environmental movement has almost no rank and file members who are working-class, black or Hispanic. But it has deep pockets.

    Skerry describes elite-network politics as a scheme by which wealthy Anglo elites buy politicians in largely Mexican-American districts. Skerry called these districts “rotten buroughs.”

    Rotten buroughs are populated by a constiuency which is transient, compliant and unattentive, and with many immigrants who can’t even vote. But due to the Voting Rights Act, these non-voting immigrants are counted in the population statistics used to draw up district boundaries. The net cumulative effect is that politicians from these rotten buroughs are not accountable to the people who live in them, people who either can’t vote or don’t vote.

    In elite-network politics, the Mexican-American politicians are lavishly funded by White Anglo elites from outside the district. The elite-network Mexican-American politicians do not put the economic or cultural interests of the peope who live in the districts they “represent” first, but those of their elite Anglo benefactors.

    The environmental movement is now learning that two can play the game of elite-network politics. The oil companies have deep pockets too, and it is the oil companies which represent the economic interests of the people who live in these rotten buroughs.

    • The picture is not complete, however, without pointing out another type of politics Skerry defines — protest politics.

      This it the domain of the La Raza and Chicano groups that are also lavishly funded by wealthy Anglo elites: the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the MacArthor Foundation, etc.

      The La Raza and Chicano politicians, like the eltie-network politicans, also lack a constiuency in the larger Mexican-American community. The wellspring of these protest politicians is the rarified academic and cultural milieu of California’s elite universities, far from the largely working-class rotten buroughs.

      Protest politicans cooperate in a symbiotic relationship with the elite-network politicians. They create the appearance that the elite-network politicans have a popular constituency in the Mexican-American community. But as Skerry points out, neither the elite-netwok nor protest politicians have any constituency in the Mexican-American community to speak of.

      And both protest and elite-network politicians represent the interests and values of their wealthy benefactors, not the interests and values of the largely working-class denizens of the rotten Mexican-American buroughs.

  92. From the article:

    The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

    Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

    Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

    The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

    Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

    The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.


  93. This appears to be all about Donald Trump. This is what he does. It (TFT) is the best tactic and he is using it. From the article:

    Axelrod initially solicited strategies from other game theorists to compete in the first tournament. Each strategy was paired with each other strategy for 200 iterations of a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, and scored on the total points accumulated through the tournament. The winner was a very simple strategy submitted by Anatol Rapoport called “TIT FOR TAT” (TFT) that cooperates on the first move, and subsequently echoes (reciprocates) what the other player did on the previous move. The results of the first tournament were analyzed and published, and a second tournament held to see if anyone could find a better strategy. TIT FOR TAT won again. Axelrod analyzed the results, and made some interesting discoveries about the nature of cooperation, which he describes in his book[30]

    Being “nice” can be beneficial, but it can also lead to being suckered. To obtain the benefit – or avoid exploitation – it is necessary to be provocable to both retaliation and forgiveness. When the other player defects, a nice strategy must immediately be provoked into retaliatory defection.[33] The same goes for forgiveness: return to cooperation as soon as the other player does. Overdoing the punishment risks escalation, and can lead to an “unending echo of alternating defections” that depresses the scores of both players.[34]


    • Jim2

      Yesterday you mentioned the Brexit poll. I suspect this was an outlier as basically this is breaking new ground and the pollsters have no proper sampling method. The one in the Sunday Times today feels more realistic with Brexit having a one point lead,.

      I suspect this may reverse as the possibility-for the first time-of an out vote is likely to spook the markets. A substantial fall on the stock exchange and the currency is likely to give people food for thought.

      There is much similarity to the climate change debate with the nonsensical predictions of doom and gloom by the remain group if we should dare to reassert our sovereignity and leave. Their campaign has been dubbed ‘project fear’. Project fear vigorously promotes every sort of dire consequence if we don’t remain, from financial collapse to war.

      Lets see what the situation is this time next week and whether the markets get spooked


      • Tony – the markets have been artificially propped up by all kinds of shenanigans. Negative interest rates being one of the more idi0tic ones. The markets are due a fall Brexit or no. Also, China is soft and some South American countries are imploding, making some other developed countries’ markets look relatively good. It’s just a matter of when the whole house of cards tumbles down.

      • jim2

        negative interest rates are nonsensical and very dangerous as it just causes people to go out and borrow and the whole cycle starts again.

        In this case though the idea of brexit is likely to cause an immediate fall that otherwise wasn’t on the horizon.


      • As Prof. Trump has said, it’s a buying opportunity!
        Excluding pension funds and institutions the top 10% of the population already own about 80% of the equity of all US corporations. I wonder how much of the London SE is in small investor’s hands, I’m guessing a similar amount. Anyway, I doubt they will be selling much. They may go short for awhile while the common citizen is traumatized by the media and the internet. After the crash don’t be surprised to find out the they will end up owning even more of the nation’s wealth.

      • Tony, the markets have known about the Brexit vote for some time now. Since whatever happens won’t be some sort of surprise, the markets will have prepped for it. The big money will hedge more than usual or take outright positions based on their take on the outcome. Any market dislocation due to this one factor will be temporary, although the market is due a drop – this could be the excuse.

        But I don’t see Britain’s exit from the EU as a long term bad thing – long term, I believe it will be good because you guys will be able to adjust your financial matters to your needs and lights rather than someone elses.

  94. One Mexican billionaire succeeds in stopping Trump

    Carlos Salinas Pliego antied up $16 million to get the PGA to move the tournament to Mexico.

  95. It’s the worst mass shooting in the United States ever — 50 dead and 53 wounded.


  96. It’s Time To Bury “Economic Anxiety” Once And For All as a Campaign Issue

    • Despite an economy that has, by most conventional measures, improved by leaps and bounds since President Obama took office, Donald Trump and, to a lesser degree, Bernie Sanders have successfully tapped into a deep well of anger and fear about the country’s economic direction.

    • But that anger is concentrated among whites; many minority voters, as the Pew survey shows, are far more optimistic.

    • “Economic anxiety” as a campaign issue has always been a red herring.

    • You can cherry pick here and there if you want to make the case that whites are losing ground to minorities, but this is not backed up by the evidence. [You can say that again. Blacks have gotten pummeled worse than anyone by the Obama “recovery.”]

    • If you want to get to the root of this white anxiety, you have to go to its roots. It’s cultural, not economic. It’s demographics, not paychecks. [There’s that race card again.]

    • Really, we just need to give up on the whole “economic anxiety” argument. When something only affects whites and lacks any real economic motivation, race is a whole lot more likely to explain things than jobs. [Can the race card trump the economics card? That’s certainly what the Republicrat estabishment is counting on.]

  97. The Republicrat establishment needs to tell these folks how wonderful they’ve got it:

    The Brutal Journey Back to Work for Millions of Americans.

    Job-market casualties drive a sense of betrayal in this election year.


  98. FBI criminal investigation emails: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says



    An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.

    The emails that are at the heart of the FBI’s criminal investigation are 2011 and 2012 messages between U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and their State Department superiors in D.C., in which the officials approved drone strikes.

    Clinton’s aides forwarded some of these emails to her personal email account, on a private server in her home in suburban New York.

    The White House acknowledged in a press briefing on Thursday that the FBI probe into Clinton’s handling of classified information is a “criminal investigation.”

    Pakistan is the site of more U.S. drone strikes than any other country. The Obama administration has carried out more than 370 drone attacks in Pakistan, killing as many as 1,000 civilians, including up to 200 children, according to data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

    The exact number of civilians killed is unknown, because the U.S. is very secretive about its program, and because it essentially redefines militant to mean any man of military age in a targeted area.

  99. Does anyone else consider this to be in poor taste?

    The bodies aren’t even cool yet, and Trump is already making political hay out of the situation.


    Furthermore, we don’t know what the shooter’s motives were yet. Isn’t Trump jumping the gun in assuming this is “radical Islamic terrorism”?

    • So far as I know, every time Trump has been accused of jumping the gun, he has turned out to be right. I think he is right to jump on this while it is current. His point is very valid.

      • Pretty PC if you ask me – Here, let me show you how a Texan does it:

        Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick tweeted this a few hours after the massacre: “Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

        This verse from the Bible — Galatians 6:7 — may have its appropriate context.”
        You LGBT folks get it now?
        Nail meet hammer – bam!

      • Danny Thomas

        “Regarding this morning’s scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night’s tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday.” http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php

        Coming back and suggesting that the above statement is inaccurate would indicate Patrick is lying. Lying is sin. Sins and stones and all.

      • jacksmith4tx,

        I’m from Texas. Here’s what one of my friends posted on their facebook pages:





      • So far the only examples we have of the public using AR-15’s to their full potential are these cases. This is de facto their main use in society.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The major difference between an AR 15 and any other semi automatic rifle is the appearance. The size of the clip matters. The type of round matters. The appearance might matter for a fear effect but that would be about all. If I wanted to slaughter masses of defenseless people I would take a 12 gauge shotgun with a 30 round drum. Note the part that matters.

      • An AR-15 hasn’t been any more use than a handgun and is a lot less easy to carry around. Usually when you take those with you, you are on a mission. Make a case for needing to be able to shoot 30 rounds in 30 seconds in self defense. Perhaps you envisage a granny with poor eyesight who is just a bad shot? Gang warfare? Police raids? ATF agents? SWAT teams? Commandos?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t have an AR 15. I don’t really see the point. I just wouldn’t fool myself into believing I had accomplished something by banning them.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Thanks for clearing that up.

        Considering that Houston elected an openly lesbian mayor (In office
        January 2, 2010 – January 2, 2016) I don’t see Texas as being on some anti-gay jihad.


      • Danny Thomas,
        I did see that he deleted the tweet and claims it was ‘scheduled’ before the shooting. Who in the h*ll schedules a tweet?

        I finally see the light! He is the Prophet – Alleluia & Hosanna Dan Patrick

      • Danny Thomas

        Who schedules tweets? Only those wishing to remain consistently ‘top of mind’.

        Just providing the link and what DP (or his ‘people’) stated.

      • Texas Monthly weighs in:


        Shortly after news of the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando broke on Sunday, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick published a Tweet and a Facebook post quoting a Bible verse that pretty much made it seem like he thought God was justifiably punishing the LGBTQ community.

        According to the Orlando Sun-Sentinel, 50 people were murdered in the club, making it the deadliest mass shooting in recent U.S. history. “Do not be deceived,” the verse says. “God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

        The backlash against Patrick on social media was swift, condemning the post as insensitive and hurtful, according to the Texas Tribune. Patrick deleted the social media posts by eleven a.m., and a spokesman released a statement saying that the post was unrelated to Orlando and had been “designed and scheduled” last Thursday.

        A little later, Patrick released a more complete statement that was one-third non-apology, one-third soapbox sermon and one-third travel postcard. “I’m actually on an island. The Internet is slow,” Patrick wrote in the statement. “…Let me be clear, I didn’t pull down the FB post & tweet because God’s word is wrong. His word is never wrong…I took it down to stop the hateful comments and the misinformation being spread of God’s message to all of us—straight or gay.”

        Remember, this is coming from the guy who is currently leading a campaign based on fear and misinformation in an attempt to keep transgender people from using public restrooms.

      • Jim D,

        What do you know about an AR-15 or any other firearm?

        As for your dumbass leading question. Why don’t you ask the Korean shop owners in Compton during the riots how effective a semi auto rifle can be? The veneer of civilization is thin. Any breakdown in the things we take for granted, particularly things such as electricity, running water, functioning government services, allows those who have no compunction against preying on others to do so. Who ya going to call Jim D, when 911 gets you a busy signal?

    • Also, Obummer didn’t waste any time blaming the shooting on easy access to guns. You might want to email Obummer about that. But be sure you’re ready for an IRS audit first.

      • True that.

        One of my friends pointed that out to me via facebook.

      • Jim2, in countries that make access to guns difficult this article shows the following annual gun deaths per 100,000 population.

        Australia 0.94
        Canada 1.97
        France 2.83
        Germany 1.01
        Italy 1.31
        Netherlands 0.58
        UK 0.23
        Ukraine 0.24

        Countries that might be expected to have more gun deaths include

        Nicaragua 4.68
        Paraguay 7.76
        Mexico 7.64
        Costa Rica 7.50

        According to last year’s Gallup poll a majority of the US population favors stronger gun control. But because the government is in the pocket of the NRA the demands of a vocal minority that apparently includes you has the following result.

        US 10.54

        Your attempt to shift the blame for gun deaths in the US to Islam is disingenuous. With the recent influx across the Mediterranean from Syria, there are vastly more Muslims per capita in Europe than in the US. If you were right about Muslims there should be more gun deaths in those countries than in the US. Instead the death rate from guns in the US is more like that of a failing third world country.

        Guns are far easier to come by legally in the US than in any European country. How else can you account for the fact that the average American is over 40 times more likely to die by gunfire than the average Brit, or even Ukrainian? The latter is particularly notable for a country under violent attack by Russia.

      • stevenreincarnated

        America has a high rate of suicide with firearms. Perhaps we are just too fat and lazy to walk to a high cliff to jump off of. Regardless, it skews those statistics drastically.

      • Grabbing all the guns won’t work, too many in circulation and a well made gun will last 100 years anyway. But this seem a bit more doable, try banning most deadly ammunition calibers, re-loaders, primers. It will take decades to deplete the existing stockpiles or wait till the ammo degrades but it will bend the curve down. It’s constitutional too. Article II make no mention of ammo.
        Personally I would start with the networks. Wall off the internet into small local zones and go back to land lines for everyone not a employee of the state. Probably not a complete solution but it will give the FBI/CIA the advantage again for a few years.

      • Vaughn Pratt.

        Mexico hasn’t had a homicide rate that low since 2007, and I would think almost all homocides are commited by guns.


        The homocide rates in the other Latin American countries listed are also higher than the gun deaths you indicate, so it looks to me like there’s something wrong with your numbers.


      • Vaughan – I would have to see violence in all its forms accounted for and how many of the homicides were actually committed in self defense, not just a partial picture.

      • Vaughan Pratt,

        And if we look at gun death rates and compare them to gun ownership rates, there isn’t much of a correlation.

        The formula,
        more guns = more gun deaths,
        doesn’t seem to reflect reality very well.

        There clearly are other factors at work that are more important than the number of privately owned small firearms per capita.


      • Looks like my choice of Wikipedia as a source for gun deaths by country wasn’t a great one—the article’s talk page says as much and nothing seems to have been done about it.

        Is there a single comprehensive source of such data that we can all agree on when comparing by country etc?

        At the risk of seeming biased, may I suggest my own alma mater’s extensive research on this subject? While I can’t vouch for its accuracy, having spent some time browsing through its many categories I can at least vouch for its comprehensiveness. If you can suggest an even more comprehensive source, go for it!

      • vaughan pratt, “Is there a single comprehensive source of such data that we can all agree on when comparing by country etc?”

        The homicide only stats seem to be a bit better at least for the “developed” nations.

      • There was a ban on government funded research into gun deaths in the US shortly after studies reported things like that people with a gun in the home are more likely to die from shooting, and that guns in the home are more likely to be used on a resident, so we haven’t had official research on that for a decade or so.

      • David L. Hagen

        Vaughan Pratt
        You highlight gun deaths of 10/100,000.
        Why silent on the ~800/100,000 deaths by doctor? ~ 1 million/year killed by abortion.
        Abortion Statistics
        > 58 million since 1973.
        Consequently a similar ~58 lost by missing parents.
        So about> 117 million killed/missing in America since 1973.

      • At the risk of being labeled racist, perhaps Vaughan Pratt should try looking at Department of Justice crime data.

        Fact: Remove a certain subsection of the US population from the figures and the US homicide rate per 100,000 drops down to the EU average.

        Fact: US homicide rates have been falling while those in Europe have been rising. Perhaps it is only correlation that the rise has coincided with the increase in minority populations within European countries.

        Nice try Vaughan, but that whole Europeans are safer because of tough gun laws won’t hunt. The factors leading to violence are many, with gun laws being far down the list in level of impact.

      • jacksmith,

        Obama tried doing that. He ordered what he thought was a little known program where spent brass from department of defense training was made available to the public to be terminated, with the government instead offering it up to the Chinese. It was one of the fastest backtracks he has made in his 7 1/2 years in office.

        It would be a very difficult Constitutional argument to make to say access to ammunition could be limited by the government. Not to mention the political flack. Instead Obama appears to have decided on a different tactic. Drive up the cost and increase scarcity. Why else do you think the EPA included several million rounds of ammunition in its budget. Check just about any federal agency and you will see large purchases of ammunition. Note this is simply speculation. But hey, if it is considered de jure in climate science, why not use it on gun control.

      • Vaughan,

        As I mention above, go to Department of Justice. They have the most comprehensive data.

        Jim D,

        Is there any topic where you are not clueless on? That study you refer to was in the New England Journal of Medicine. Very prestigious. It received tons of press and has been repeatedly referred to. It has also been debunked. A poor paper which provided the results the authors were looking for. If you are going to base arguments on it, realize you are building on quicksand.

      • There used to be many studies. Here’s another one. It takes less than a minute of Google searching to find these.
        A more recent report.
        and that’s just the top two Google hits.

      • The largest impact Australia’s gun law had was a reduction in gun related suicide. Suicide by hanging is on the rise though so that gain is being lost.


        I wonder if the greatest threat to humankind ever meme has any impact?

      • timg56,
        I was just trying to offer a less draconian top-down solution. I’m afraid government will eventually just turn to a technological solution that will be far less selective when it filters down to the average law abiding citizen. So far all the people killed in these incidents have been nobodies and that’s why the NRA can still intimidate our politicians. We forget the victims names as soon as the next massacre happens (but not the killers names). But if they start knocking off the really famous and rich people like the Buffets, Waltons, Koches, A-list celebrities and sports heroes then the hammer will come down and the governments will turn to technology to fix the problem. Cheaper than martial law and depending of the tech solution selected much faster too.

      • jacksmith said: I was just trying to offer a less draconian top-down solution. I’m afraid government will eventually just turn to a technological solution

        I’m afraid that ship has already sailed, Jack.

    • David Springer

      Not in poor taste and exactly right. Why don’t you tell us what a mewling wimp would say?

    • David L. Hagen

      First check timing. NY Times (~ 7 AM) had already clearly laid out that the shooter had pledged to ISIS to 911 BEFORE the shooting. Trump was just reading and reporting the headlines.
      Gunman in Orlando Pledged Allegiance to ISIS Before Attack
      See former muslim and american Nabeel Qureshi

      How do we not react against all Muslims despite the fact that Islam has always taught such violence? My answer is simple: truth and love.

      • David,

        Obama didn’t waste any time either in making political hay.

        And compared to our Lt. Governor from the great state of Texas, both Trump and Obama are paragons of sensitivity.

        So maybe I’m being over sensitive.

      • David L. Hagen

        Overly sensitive. The USA was established not only by appealing to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”, but also by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”. Those are the foundational standards we need to address.

      • Danny Thomas

        Or maybe just concerned about an violent attack on AMERICANS.

      • Danny Thomas


        Reading here about issues with media and bias, is ‘reading and reporting’ the headlines really the best approach for one who wishes to be to be top boss?

      • David Springer

        If by “is that the best approach” you mean gathering facts reported by the press then making a comment about it then I’d ask what other approaches you might suggest are appropriate.

    • Trump is hilarious.

      First he calls for a Ban. Then he says that he didn’t call for a ban. Then he says that he was right for calling for a ban.

      Although, I have to say that as amusing as he is, watching his supports twist into pretzels to convince themselves that he actually stands on any principles, or anything other than political expediency, is twice as hilarious. He does, indeed, now how to take advantage of the willingness of many to be his toadies.

  100. “A Fox News survey released Thursday found presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton leading with 39 percent support, followed by Trump, at 36 percent, and Johnson, at 12 percent.
    But among independents, Trump leads, at 32 percent, followed by Johnson, at 23 percent, and Clinton, at 22 percent.”
    After many months of extensive coverage, the libertarian Johnson a footnote, an after thought polls well. Trump uses the establishment line of calling Johnson a fringe candidate. Put me to sleep with that one. With independents, the Democrat machine has been spinning its wheels, accomplishing a draw against Johnson. What is here, and I don’t know how it would be done, is to merge the libertarians with Trump.

  101. Globalization Is Good for You!
    “According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, 28 percent of all U.S. companies started in 2011 had immigrant founders—despite immigrants comprising roughly 13 percent of the population. In addition, some 40 percent of Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants or their children.”
    Similar to CO2, globalization does everything. Good things.
    Dollars aside, in a world of terrorism, nuclear weapons and few truly wigged out leaders in other countries, a kind of alliance of traders is a calming influence. It’s probably one of the best foreign policies. I don’t understand all the arguments made against globalization. I don’t think any idea has been so attacked from so many quarters. If you are a victim I would suggest the most likely cause of that is globalization, based on the arguments made against globalization.

    • Everyone in the US is an immigrant. Even Amerindians came from either Asia or Europe. So what?

    • From the article:

      As social and political upheaval and civil unrest have spread across the globe, it has become clear that the problems facing Western countries are neither transient nor temporary. Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States share a common set of problems over and above economic decline and sovereign debt issues linked to problems of the global financial system. The issues surrounding civil unrest comprise a lack of economic opportunity, political disenfranchisement, erosion of individual rights, a systematic lack of accountability from local authorities to national leaders, deteriorating credibility of political and financial leaders and disintegrating national government legitimacy. The reason that the above problems are common to Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States is that they are all linked to globalization.


      • From the article:
        ‘Globlization, as opposed to promoting sustainable,
        economic communities, advances an agenda of
        central economic planning designed to optimize
        global output’… Globalization has become the buzz-
        word for something converse to what you might think
        re expanding horizons and opportunities.

        *The converse of the ancient Athenians taking to the
        seas to come into contact with other cultures and
        recognize that customs and laws are not god-given.
        The converse of the Venetians, in the Dark Ages after
        the fall of Rome, emerging from the salt marshes to
        trade with Constantinople, enabling the development
        of Italian cities and The Italian Renaissance.

        *The converse of Thomas Sowell’s study, ‘Wealth,
        Poverty and Politics’ of the stultifying effects of
        geographic isolation – mountain hill-billies, tribes cut
        off from creative fizz by impassable deserts or oceans
        … Kinda’ like the EU brand of globalization, extending
        centralized global governance by unelected Brussels
        men, proliferating regulations, one rule, one currency
        fits all, no room to innovate. Utopianists love it.

      • beththeserf,

        Yes indeed. The globalists are without a doubt “utopianists.”

        Hera describes the Grand Canyon that sits between reality and the globalists’ utopia as follows:

        As globalization progresses, it leaves in its wake political disenfranchisement, reduced individual rights, unaccountable leadership, illegitimate governments and the potential for violent oppression. It is perhaps a profound irony that the positive vision of a unified, global human collective is one of harmonious, peaceful cooperation, without warring nation states.

        This is not the first time, however, that the globalists have attempted to impose their utopian vision upon the world:

        [S]ome economists believe that “globalization” of trade and investment had achieved slightly higher percentages under British auspices in the late Victorian and Edwardian years than it had again by 2000.

        The notion that Britain did this through laissez-faire rather than government activism is a Victorian fairy tale.

        From 1845 to 1870, laissez-faire dominated British domestic policy in the sense of denying any role for government in aiding the masses or ameliorating poverty.

        Globally, however, Britain spent huge sums on the principal supervisory force that watched its world commerce — the Royal Navy. Steel development had more than a little to do with the navy; India was run by mercantilist precepts; the Bank of England was charged with maintaining th pound sterling; and the British government subsidized transatlantic steamers and telegraph cables and bought half the shares in the Suez Canal Company.

        With that kind of laissez-faire, Britain built an empire and projected the globalization regime of open sea-lanes, open ports, and (relatively) free movement of investment.

        — KEVIN PHILLIPS, Wealth and Democracy

        What is the price paid annually — in both blood and treasure — in the attempt to impose the globalists’ utopian vision upon the world?

  102. From the article:

    Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US secretary of state.

    Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is under FBI investigation to determine whether she broke federal law by using her private email in sending classified information. A new WikiLeaks release of Clinton emails is likely to fan a controversy that has bedevilled her campaign and provide further ammunition for Donald Trump, her Republican presidential rival, who has used the issue to attack her.

    Assange’s comments came in an interview on ITV’s Peston on Sunday. “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct,” Assange said.He did not specify when or how many emails would be published.

    WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive in March of 30,322 emails and email attachments sent to and from Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents are from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014, and 7,570 of the documents were sent by Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.


    • Danny Thomas

      Transparency is a good thing. Assange, should bring ’em on.

      • interesting logic:

        ==> I suppose a Politically correct FBI will do nothing. witness how they
        they handled the Orlando shooter.

        1. The FBI evaluates how to handle security issues on the basis of what is “politically correct.”

        2. The FBI handled the Orlando shooter in a particular way because of political correctness.

        The 2nd one is particularly beautiful. So they had him under surveillance, and they interviewed him twice, because they were being politically correct.

        Not that’s, too funny.

    • Since the State Dept was hacked anyway, what difference does it make at this point if Hillary had her own server?

      • stevenreincarnated

        The bank burned down right after the robbery. No point in punishing the bank robbers since the money would have burned anyway.

      • There were no consequences to Hillary’s choice before, and now there’s even less than that.

      • stevenreincarnated

        No consequences hasn’t saved anyone else so I’m not sure why some people should be above the law. I reject the premise that it matters. It certainly doesn’t matter according to the law just as arguing incompetence and lack of intent isn’t an excuse to break the espionage laws. I would say the intent was almost certainly there. The consequences are more difficult to ascertain but my understanding is that she had the names of CIA operatives in her emails and not the ones that were being introduced by their husband at Washington DC parties as a CIA operative but actual in the field in harms way operatives. The point being there may have been huge consequences and it may never be unclassified in our time.

      • We don’t see consequence for people naming CIA operatives to reporters, let alone in private emails. By accounts, the State Dept computer system was primitive at the time, and I would guess much more at risk due to the large number of people on it. Wikileaks and Ed Snowden show that inside jobs are the main risk, and the larger the user base, the more likely that is to happen along with other ways in.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        “By accounts, the State Dept computer system was primitive at the time, and I would guess much more at risk due to the large number of people on it.” sounds like an after the fact evaluation. If she broke the rules that needs to come out.

        It’s not up to the government employee to determine which policies are to be followed due to ‘the state of the art’.

      • Apparently no one thought it important enough to pursue at the time. Not sure why it is suddenly more important now.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Not sure why it is suddenly more important now.”

        Just guessing that you do. But the timing and the political usage in the current campaign is a secondary issue independent of the first.

        If rules were broken this should come to light. Period.

      • I think they already found that there were some rules back then, but it is less clear if anyone was enforcing them.

      • Danny Thomas

        “I think they already found that there were some rules back then, but it is less clear if anyone was enforcing them.”

        Doesn’t matter. Rules are rules. Tribalism does not support wronging if it is/was occurring.

      • Rules are internal bureaucracy, and not necessarily law.

      • Danny Thomas

        No disagreement. But still doesn’t make it right. Surely you’re not advocating the breaking of rules Jim.

      • Tough to figure out the rules sometimes in a world of transitioning technology and growing hacking.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        “Tough to figure out the rules sometimes in a world of transitioning technology and growing hacking.”
        Sounds more and more like you are advocating breaking the rules, or justifying them having been broken in the past.

      • Nobody seems to have cared at the time. Can’t have been important.

      • Jim D
        You wrote –

        “Not sure why it is suddenly more important now.”

        Why am I not surprised by your lack of knowledge? Have you thought of asking someone more knowledgeable than yourself?


      • I think I can guess because no concerns predated her candidacy.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Since the State Dept was hacked anyway, what difference does it make at this point if Hillary had her own server?”

        Officer, I know i ran the red light, but there was no accident
        Officer, I know my BAC is .18, but I’m 3 blocks from home
        Officer, I know I fired the gun at him, but I missed

        what difference does it make, you ask



        The point isnt her own server so much as it is the gross neglect when handling classified material.

        1. Material doesnt need to be marked to be classified. There once was a stupid co worker of mine who tried to walk out of the building with documents he forgot to classify. FBI didnt care. he had a duty to know
        classified material on sight and protect it even if it isnt marked. This is
        made clear when you are “read into” a program.
        2. Some material did in fact have classified markings.

        I suppose a Politically correct FBI will do nothing. witness how they
        they handled the Orlando shooter.

      • Maybe they can argue that their server was, in retrospect, more secure than the State Dept’s. Not saying they will though. They probably knew the State Dept computing was rickety, but whether they based their decision on that is unknown.

      • Need to distinguish breaking rules from breaking the law.


        She broke rules but evidence is not so clear she broke the law.


        From the article

        Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton’s gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn’t an indictable offense.

        The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn’t authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

        So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn’t. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

        Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated “top secret” — but they weren’t classified when she sent or received them.

        Second, did she “willfully communicate” classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didn’t, and there’s no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.

        Third, did she remove classified information “with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location”?

        “If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don’t think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,” a former top government lawyer told me.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Mishandling classified information is a law, not a rule. There are rules designed to help people keep from breaking the law. When you break the rules designed to prevent you from breaking the law you end up breaking the law.

      • stevenreincarnated

        “We don’t see consequence for people naming CIA operatives to reporters, let alone in private emails. ”

        There was a special prosecutor.

      • Yes, I think Scooter Libby even had to be pardoned, but that was a direct naming to the press. You can write private emails with names, I believe, otherwise everyone at CIA is in a world of trouble.

      • Speaking of consequences… We should charge any government agent who let terrorists slip through their hands with being accessories to murder. Make them prove they weren’t negligent in court. How come we always blame the just the terrorist? The terrorist are already criminally insane by definition.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I would imagine that the Secretary of State was writing about how cute the operatives kids looked in the wading pool but I haven’t been trying to find out. Perhaps there was something more important included. I haven’t checked into the stories that she was authorizing drone strikes by email either. I suspect if I had done similar things I’d already be putting chalk marks on walls but who knows, maybe she is just innocent as a new born babe. I’ll wait for the FBI report and recommendations. I will say I have a tough time believing anyone in her position could avoid classified information as well as she claims so I do have a bias towards believing her to be guilty. If she is guilty it is because she broke the rules that were established to prevent exactly this sort of situation.

      • “This situation” being what exactly?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Whether or not a candidate of a major party for the Presidency of the United States should be indicted on multiple felony charges. This isn’t parking ticket type charges we are talking about.

  103. Danny Thomas


    Trump should keep doing what he’s doing if he wishes to keep his current job.

    • He is not working at his regular job, today he is enjoying his great adventure and he is having a blast while he thinks about his retirement. It’s been made clear by our previous office holders that they currently have the best retirement program in existence anywhere around the globe. The monthly contribution to their plan must be a bear for them to pay.

  104. Adolf Reed on “the unbelievable use of identity politics to undermine a class-based argument” — the “swift-boating of class-based arguments, using race to the detriment of black people.”


    Until well into the Black Power movement there was a general understanding that improving the condition of black Americans in the society hinged as much on having a full employment economy and expanding social state and a vibrant industrial union movement as it did on ethnic discrimination laws….

    What’s happened now, and I think that this largely was consolidated by the Clinton administration…is a disconnection of the notion of social justice from economic inequality and economic security….

    And that’s a notion of racial justice that first of all fits very comfortably with the people in elite colleges…because they’re all expected to be part of the upper class…

    And this takes us back to the fault lines in the current race, that…has given us two choices. And one of them is a party that’s committed to Wall Street and to neoliberalism and is deeply and earnestly committed to a notion of diversity and multiculturalism, and a party that’s committed to Wall Street and neoliberalism and is deeply opposed to multiculturalism and diversity….

    [T]he deeper problem is that they’re both actively committed to maintaining and intensifying economic inequality….

  105. EU referendum: Poll reveals a massive 10-point swing towards Brexit

    It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for The Independent a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned.

  106. Why I am voting to leave the EU

    Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error….

    Nobody has ever been held to account for the design faults and hubris of the euro, or for the monetary and fiscal contraction that turned recession into depression, and led to levels of youth unemployment across a large arc of Europe that nobody would have thought possible or tolerable in a modern civilized society. The only people ever blamed are the victims.

    There has been no truth and reconciliation commission for the greatest economic crime of modern times. We do not know who exactly was responsible for anything because power was exercised through a shadowy interplay of elites in Berlin, Frankfurt, Brussels, and Paris, and still is. Everything is deniable. All slips through the crack of oversight.

    Has there ever been a proper airing of how the elected leaders of Greece and Italy were forced out of power and replaced by EU technocrats, perhaps not by coups d’etat in a strict legal sense but certainly by skulduggery?

    On what authority did the European Central Bank write secret letters to the leaders of Spain and Italy in 2011 ordering detailed changes to labour and social law, and fiscal policy, holding a gun to their head on bond purchases?

    What is so striking about these episodes is not that EU officials took such drastic decisions in the white heat of crisis, but that it was allowed to pass so easily. The EU’s missionary press corps turned a blind eye. The European Parliament closed ranks, the reflex of a nomenklatura.

    While you could say that the euro is nothing to do with us, it obviously goes to the character of the EU: how it exercises power, and how far it will go in extremis.

  107. The similarities between the situaiton in the UK and the situation in the United States are amazing.

    PETER HITCHENS: The British people have risen at last – and we’re about to unleash chaos

    I think we are about to have the most serious constitutional crisis since the Abdication of King Edward VIII. I suppose we had better try to enjoy it.

    If – as I think we will – we vote to leave the EU on June 23, a democratically elected Parliament, which wants to stay, will confront a force as great as itself – a national vote, equally democratic, which wants to quit. Are we about to find out what actually happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

    I am genuinely unsure how this will work out. I hope it will only destroy our two dead political parties, stiffened corpses that have long propped each other up with the aid of BBC endorsement and ill-gotten money….

    It has been a mystery to me that these voters stayed loyal to organisations that repeatedly spat on them from a great height. Labour doesn’t love the poor. It loves the London elite. The Tories don’t love the country. They love only money. The referendum, in which the parties are split and uncertain, has freed us all from silly tribal loyalties and allowed us to vote instead according to reason. We can all vote against the heedless, arrogant snobs who inflicted mass immigration on the poor (while making sure they lived far from its consequences themselves). And nobody can call us ‘racists’ for doing so….

    If Zambia can be independent, why cannot we? If membership is so good for us, why has it been accompanied by savage industrial and commercial decline?

  108. Orlando shooter was armed guard for security firm G4S, was interviewed by FBI for declaring support for militants

    He was described as quiet with friends and had been interviewed by the authorities in recent years for suspected sympathies with Muslim extremists.

    He also had worked for G4S, the world’s largest security services firm, since 2007, and carried a gun as part of his duties, the company said on Sunday.

    “He was an armed security officer,” said G4S spokesman David Satterfield. G4S said in a statement that Mateen had been employed by the company since Sept 10, 2007.

    G4S provides security to federal buildings in Florida.

    Another spokesman said Mateen had undergone screening by his employer in 2007 and 2013, with both checks revealing nothing of concern.

    “Mateen underwent company screening and background checks when he was recruited in 2007 and the check revealed nothing of concern,” a company spokesman said in a statement. “His screening was repeated in 2013 with no findings.”

    The company learnt in 2013 that Mateen had been questioned by the FBI but that the inquiries were then closed, the spokesman said. The firm was unaware of any alleged connections between Mateen and terrorist activities, or any further FBI investigations, she said.

  109. The shameless Hillarymongering of the NY Times harkens back to the days of the Iraq War, when the warmongering Times was deeply implicated in promoting the greatest foreign policy debacle in United States history in 2002-2003.

    Is the Election ‘Rigged’?

    “The system is rigged” — has long been a refrain of African-­Americans; this campaign season, it’s also the mantra of Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump, yin-and-yang candidates with restive and largely [lazy!] white voting bases.

    Bellowing the charge from lecterns in their New York accents, Trump and Sanders play up their outsider status and channel their supporters’ unease.

    “Millions of Americans are giving up on the political process,” Sanders said at a Democratic debate in February, “because they understand the economy is rigged. They are working longer hours for low wages.”

    Trump, with his ear for populist rhetoric, spoke in a similar key. “If you think about it,” he said at a campaign event in April, “the economy is rigged, the banking system is rigged, there’s a lot of things that are rigged in this world of ours, and that’s why a lot of you haven’t had an effective wage increase in 20 years.”

    Calling the economy “rigged” generates outrage without saying who, exactly, is at fault, or how to take away their power. It’s a vaguely anti-­authoritarian sentiment that Trump and Sanders have effectively turned against the Republican and Democratic parties. Both men invite the angry conclusion that they’re being disadvantaged by the same establishment forces they blame for dooming their constituents.

    Worth remembering is that the guy who threw the NY Times an economic lifeline and is its largest stockholder is the Mexican billionaire, pictured here at an event sponsored by the Clinton Foundation last year in El Salvador with you know who.


  110. Clinton Frames First General Election Ad as ‘Choice About Who We Are as a Nation’

    Clinton’s politics are like those of the Spanish Conquistadores:

    So their Highnesses are kings and lords of Tierra-firme, and some have received and served their Highnesses, as lords and kings, in the way that subjects ought to do, with good will, without any resistance, immediately, without delay, when they were informed of the aforesaid facts.

    Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, as superiors and lords and kings of Tierra-firme, and we shall receive you in all love and charity. And, besides this, their Highnesses award you many privileges and exemptions and will grant you many benefits.

    But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him.

    And we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us.

    — Spanish Requerimiento of 1513, read to the indigenous peoples of the New World by the conquistadores

  111. Interesting post on a Supreme Court ruling over tobacco advertising that, it looks to me, could serve as a precedent for the efforts of the Twenty Attorney Generals and Twenty Climate Scientist who want to bring legal action against ExxonMobil for fraud.


    Clarence Thomas argued in the concurring opinion that the First Amendment protects political speech—including, importantly, political speech that is false — and that this protection should extend to commercial speech (commercial advertising) as well.

    Corey Robin, with a tortuously erroneous reading of Hannah Arendt, argues the opposite, that First Amendment protections should not apply to commercial advertising.

    • Ironic, seeing as our entire culture is one big advertisement thanks to the Rockefeller, Fords and others who have been manipulating/social engineering America since they learned how to do so in the war. The rank and file of the OSS all fled straight into these machines.

      I guess the point is WHO gets to socially engineer America.

      • nickels,

        I think that’s right, “the point is WHO gets to socially engineer America.”

        Seemingly unbeknownst to Robin, Arendt was much more concerned about the state’s “engineers of consent,” backed up by the state’s monopoly of violence, than she was about private industry’s propagandists.

        In addition, Arendt believed that the power of propagandists to manipulate public opinion was not absolute: the people are not mere putty in the hands of the engineers of consent. According to Arendt:

        Under normal circumstances the liar is defeated by reality, for which there is no substitute; no matter how large the tissue of falsehood that an experienced liar has to offer, it will never be large enough, even if he enlists the help of computers, to cover the immensity of factuality…

        This is one of the lessons that could be learned from the totalitarian experiments and the totalitarian rulers’ frightening confidence in the power of lying — in their ability, for instance, to rewrite history again and again to adapt the past to the “political line” of the present moment or to eliminate data that did not fit their ideology. Thus, in a socialist economy, they would deny that unemployment existed, the unemployed person simply becoming a non-person.

        The results of such experiments when undertaken by those in possession of the means of violence are terrible enough, but lasting deception is not among them.

        — HANNAH ARENDT, Lying in Politics

        Arendt cited the Vietnam War, where all the government’s horses and all the government’s men, using all the latest science and technology in mind control, couldn’t sell the war to the American people. The “public-relations man” had convinced himself that “manipulation is the ruler of the people’s minds and hence the true ruler of the world,” and was therefore shocked to find out that his “doctrines do not change the way people form opinions or prevent them from acting accoring to their own lights.”

        The left’s claim that the Corporate sector’s engineers of consent can lead us all around by the noseses, like a bunch of trained goats, is just another exercise in the politics of fear.

      • ‘ the people are not mere putty in the hands of the engineers of consent.’

        That’s where the work of Marque de Sade, William Reich and the Rockefeller funding of Kinsey come in. The sexual revolution.

        Get people far enough into their animal passions, evaporate God and morality, and then they become putty.

      • Glenn,
        I wonder if we might have won the Vietnam war if we had social media? I would have loved to see Nixon tweet the My Lai Massacre

      • nickels

        William Reich? I am guessing you meant Wilhelm Reich.

        Probably the only person ever to be persecuted by Nazis, hated by the Communists, and arrested by the United States government who burned his books.

        Quite a trifecta!

      • Yes, JC, thanks for the correction.

        A wretched human being, responsible for much of the pain in our modern era.

  112. Brutal Realities

    Islamic law, after all, is crystal clear on homosexuality, though the various schools of sharia prescribe a range of penalties: one calls for death by stoning; another demands that the transgressor be thrown from a high place; a third says to drop a building on him. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, as well as in parts of Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq, homosexuality is indeed punishable by death.

    Nor do Muslims magically change their views on the subject when they move to the West….

    Many on the left (and some on the right, too) refuse to face these facts. In 2004, when gay activist Peter Tatchell urged London’s then-mayor Ken Livingstone to rescind an invitation to Koranic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi—who supports the death penalty for gays—Livingstone issued a report calling Qaradawi a liberal and Tatchell a racist….

    Incredibly, many gays still don’t get this—or refuse to get it. They cling—mindlessly, one wants to say—to leftist ideology, which tells them that Muslims, like gays, are an official victim group, and thus their natural allies. They see Christians as their enemies—though even the most aggressively antigay Christians in America, namely the “God hates fags” crowd at the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, don’t go around killing anybody…..

    On this day of horror, let’s hope that the jihadist massacre of 50 people in a gay club in Orlando finally awakens gay Americans to the brutal reality of Islam’s hatred for them.

  113. So now it appears the Islamic Mayor of London is using “body shaming” as an excuse to remove pix of sexy women from public transport. In fact, the sexy pics go against their beliefs. Welcome to London run by Islam!

    From the article:

    Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, announced Monday that “body shaming” advertisements will no longer be allowed in London’s public transport.

    “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said.


    • American standards for commercials (print or TV) are already rather Puritan by British standards.

  114. In other news, the Brexit hysteria of the elites has reached a fever pitch – the END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION!! Makes me think Brexit is a good idea, I mean after all, how stupid does he believe the common man to be?

    From the article:

    “As a historian, I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilization in its entirety,” says one high-ranking official.


  115. VIDEO • Donald Trump to LGBT community: I’m a ‘real friend’

    Trump went on to label the attack a “strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation” and an “assault” on people’s ability to “love who they want and express their identity.”

    The comments may do little to help Trump appeal to LGBT voters — the leader of a top gay rights group told CNN the speech was “shameful and disgusting.” But the rhetoric stood in stark contrast to the response of many other top Republicans who expressed sorrow and promised prayer, but rarely noted that the LGBT community had clearly been targeted.

  116. Four Mexicans have been confirmed among the dead in Orlando.

    Asciende a cuatro la cifra de mexicanos muertos en el ataque de Orlando

    La cifra de víctimas fatales mexicanas del ataque perpetrado la madrugada del domingo en un bar en la ciudad estadounidense de Orlando ascendió a cuatro, informó hoy la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) en un comunicado.

    “En seguimiento a los hechos ocurridos en Orlando, Florida, la Cancillería confirma la identidad de una cuarta persona mexicana fallecida con motivo de los trágicos eventos del día de ayer”, señaló la SRE.

  117. A look at the entries on the Real Clear Politics blog this morning speaks volumes as to the ideological divide that splits the United States. The cleavages are as great on the issue of national security as they are on CAGW.


  118. How Orlando divides America

    The bodies were scarcely cold by the time the shouting began. On the Sunday talk shows, people sounded as if they were talking about two entirely different events. “ISIS VS. US” blared the headline in the New York Post on Monday, invoking the spectre of a global jihad. The Daily News blamed guns. “Thanks, NRA,” it shrilled….

    For all the blood and treasure shed since 9/11, we seem no closer to figuring out how to stop terrorist attacks against the West – and in some ways we seem farther away than ever. The other difference between then and now is that Americans can’t even discuss the problem without yelling past each other.

  119. Obama proclaims Trump is ‘DANGEROUS’.

    Still not sure if the Oligarchs are really up for letting this election go through or not.


  120. Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies

    Glenn Greenwald is a gay writer that, unlike Obama and Clinton, actually has some legitimacy and credibility to bring to the table.

  121. Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton, warns Assange

    Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange warns more information will be published about Hillary Clinton, enough to indict her if the US government is courageous enough to do so, in what he predicts will be “a very big year” for the whistleblowing website…..

    Assange said the leaked emails revealed that she overrode the Pentagon’s reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that “they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country.”