U.S. Presidential election discussion thread. Part XII

by Judith Curry

U.S. Presidential election, plus Brexit.

A few articles I’ve spotted this week to kick off the discussion.

Hillary Clinton, as awful as a find her, is a survivable event.  I’m not so sure about Trump [link]

The Trump nuclear bomb [link]

Hillary Clinton’s running mate [link]

Matt Ridley on Brexit [link]

Economists are divided over Brexit [link]

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: Corporate America’s best bet for President? [link]

 

 

585 responses to “U.S. Presidential election discussion thread. Part XII

  1. Pingback: U.S. Presidential election discussion thread. Part XII – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. We jetted through the Space Age, grew up in the Information Age, got lost in the Propaganda Age and next up… we soon will land in the Inflation Age!

  3. From the article:

    Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.

    The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.

    When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated

    • Thank you, Jim, for having the courage to post (and Dr. Robert Epstein the courage to report) Google censorship.

    • jim2

      You right.

      Who’d a thunk big brother would be a CEO of Google? However, if you google “big brother”, you will find out that it’s really a reality show, really…so, maybe he is…

      Will Orwell be remembered?

      • “Will Orwell be remembered?”
        I am reminded of Orwell’s 1984 EVERY SINGLE DAY.
        I use multiple new sources and it’s crystal clear that what the MSM reports on TV every night is Orwell’s “Ministry of Information” version of what is happening in the world.

        I’m constantly appalled and also angered by the bias.

    • I responded to a google recruiter last week that I thought their company was dispicable and that I would never want to work for them. Ha ha. Probably stupid but they are very EVIL.

    • I suspect facebook does more then suppress content. I think it promotes the more superficial and offensive content. It promotes and manipulates stereotypes.

  4.  
    “She [Shiela Dow] is not surprised that economists’ forecasts of the likely effects of Brexit are being widely discounted, because model-based forecasts are typically presented as definitive without any acknowledgement of their limitations, and often turn out to be wrong… ‘there needs to be more modesty, not least about quantification,’ [says Dow].” ~Yves Smith

    • The elites, including George Soros, are doing everything they can to scare the cr*p out of the Brits. They like centralized power because it is easier to influence or manipulate power at one central point, rather than have to deal with multiple sources of power, eg independent countries.

      They have created a sweet deal for themselves and are making money hand over fist while the rest of us see our prospects diminish.

      • The Eurocommies must nationalize long enough to inflate themselves out of their unfunded entitlements, reset their economies (otherwise, monetary policy no longer exists as a tool because the interest rate is zero) and rediscover that the productive need to be free to excel and not bled like ritual oxen.

  5. Thank you, Professor Curry, for having the courage to sail into troubled waters. There is, unfortunately, no easy way out. I encourage everyone to attend the London GeoEthics Conference on 8-9 Sept 2016:

    https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/

  6. Hordes of young Muslim males are making their way into the heart of a severely strained German Empire which is now interested in having its own police and army. And those Germans are still good buds with Turkey, both being very hostile to old enemy Russia.

    And we are wondering if Brexit and Trump are survivable?

    Wonder about the dodgy cartel of a German Empire. Wonder about Lyndon Baines Clinton and her stupendously generous donors in the Middle East and US arms industry.

    Forgotten fact: Not in its adventurism, but In its most critical struggles, the US has actually collaborated with Russia: American Revolution (yep!), Civil War (Union), WW1 and WW2. If these powers can’t find a way to collaborate now, what are the chances for peace? So sup with the devil (or the bear). So Trump, though he’s a punt. Better a punt for peace than just waiting for an angry, diseased drunk to start the fireworks.

    • David Springer

      In addition to angry diseased and drunk don’t forget lumpy, tent-wearing, and cr00ked. Especially cr00ked.

  7. From the article:

    In the wake of the horrific attack on an Orlando nightclub by a man espousing allegiance to ISIS, it didn’t take long for the Big Three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) to advance the preferred political line of the Democrats, in this election year, to push for more gun control. Beginning on the evening following the shooting, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt on June 12, sounded the clarion call for gun control: “Today’s terror attack brings national security and the debate over gun control to forefront of the presidential campaigns once again.”

    And for the next week, an MRC study shows the broadcast network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ratio of 8 to 1.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2016/06/22/exploiting-orlando-nets-advance-anti-gun-agenda-8-1

  8. article clip @jim2 | June 22, 2016 at 11:28 am dropped into moderation

  9. So now all of a sudden CNN takes an interest in the libertarian party. Looking at the Real Clear Politics polls, it appear with Johnson in the race,
    Clinton fares a bit better, but the results are within poll error. From the article:

    CNN will host a televised Townhall for the Libertarian ticket of Governors Gary Johnson and William Weld tonight at 9 pm eastern, the first time any non-major party candidates have been given this exposure.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/22/first-time-tv-cnn-host-libertarian-town-hall/

  10. America would not survive Hillary without serious destabilization and, likely, the rise of an extreme reaction.

    Here is Hillary (and Obama, the left’s) concept of America:

    Wilheim Reich (1930):

    ” We have found the institutions in which the economic and the sexual interests of the authoritarian system meet. We have to ask ourselves how
    this comes about. This question is also answered by character-analysis, provided one does not exclude such questions from character-analytic investigation. Suppression of the [25] natural sexuality in the child, particularly of its genital sexuality, makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, “good” and “adjusted” in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief, the goal of sexual suppression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all misery and degradation. At first, the child has to adjust to the structure of the authoritarian miniature state, the family; this makes it capable of later subordination to the general authoritarian system. The formation of the authoritarian structure takes place through the anchoring of sexual inhibition and sexual anxiety.”

    http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

    Common Core (2016):
    “Across the nation, in public and Catholic schools, parents and teachers have found sexually inappropriate materials in the exemplars recommended by Common Core State Standards (CCSS).”

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/common-core-sexualizes-american-school-children

    • America would not survive Hillary without serious destabilization and, likely, the rise of an extreme reaction.

      Lol.

      • You have no problem with your children being molested in the name of anti-authoritarianism?

        Lol.

  11. Quelle surprise. CNN has been morally flexible since they made a deal w/ the devil, Saddam, to be allowed to stay in Iraq when everyone else was booted out.

  12. I use tape on my laptop and pad. From the article:

    Remember when FBI’s director James Comey was spotted using a piece of tape over the camera on his laptop? At the time, Comey noted that he started doing it after he saw a person “smarter” than him do it as well. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg apparently also puts a tape over his webcam

    https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/06/22/1516242/mark-zuckerberg-tapes-over-his-webcam-should-you

  13. Soros is just one of the many people making overblown claims about the perils of Brexit. The parallels to the climate debate is sometimes extraordinary with the powers that be claiming all sorts of things. They were thoroughly disgraced as forecasters by the economic crisis a few years back. As the queen said at the time ‘why did no one see this coming?’

    The reason is that their model based predictions are not very good and their predictions come from out of date or flawed information. The anti Brexit crew very much have a vested interest in trying to keep their very long snouts in a very big gold plated trough.

    Until several weeks ago I was convinced the remainers would win as the scare factor is high. A week or so ago there was an undoubted shit to leave, as Britons got thoroughly fed up with protestations of doom, many by failed politicians or annoyance at being lectured by such as Obama or Merkel.

    However, the death of the MP has caused a sea change. Part of the anti vote was due to extreme anger at the financial and political institutions and politicians in general.

    A thoroughly decent MP was murdered and sympathy swung towards them.

    Give it another week and the sympathy effect might wear off. However, I fear that Remain will win as the vote is only tomorrow and the undecided are likely to vote for the status quo.

    Whatever the result, the EU can not go on in the high handed manner it has.

    tonyb

    • Tonyb…There’s always war. Submitting like a nation of sheep to the totalitarians housed in Brussels isn’t a necessity, but a choice. If UK citizens decide to submit, then UK citizens have lost all connection to the UK of Churchill. That would be a tragedy…I hope they opt out of EU tyranny by vote and tell Juncker and the rest of that crew to stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine. So, this is a vote on the character of the people!
      In my country, the character of the people is also being measured. And so far, it’s an enormous fail. The UK and the US at one time possessed people of a moral character that were able to defeat a tyranny with global ambitions. Not on one front, but on two. And not once, but twice. They stood for freedom and all that entails. Today, in the face of another tyranny with global ambitions, they hem and haw, gnash their teeth over the irrelevant, and give support and comfort to a person with a character so vile it would scarce be believed in a work of fiction. And the newest generation to arrive on the scene doesn’t come with a clarion call to rid us of the stupidities entailed in all that is ‘politically correct,’ but instead to clamor for safe spaces from words and ideas.
      Are we on the door step of a new Dark Ages? Are we about to fall into the abyss of corruption, stupidity and fear, out of fear? If the UK and the US fail to step up to the plate and assert the right to self-determination, to freedom, freedom will be lost to the world and a modern tragedy will unleash itself like a whirlwind. China’s latest behavior puts an exclamation point on that, as does Iran’s.
      It sounds trite and cliched, but evil is about to be unleashed on the world and those forced to live with it will have plenty of time to ponder what we have done as they trudge through a Global Gulag of their own making.

  14. “We are just hours away from the opportunity of a lifetime: the opportunity to get our country out of the European Union and in doing so get our borders back, our democracy back and for us to embark upon an exciting future as an independent nation”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/21/nigel-farage-must-vote-leave-eu-referendum/

    • I love Nigel Farage’s speeches to the EU thingy. He’s an example of British Diplomacy at it’s very best.

      And he’s won!!!

  15. Although I’m a Leaver I’m betting on a narrow Remain victory. Any takers?

    • Oldfossil

      Also a leaver but fear remain will win comfortably after scaring everyone witless. The remainers have obviously been learning from warmists in ratcheting up the fear factor.

      Tonyb

      • Two roads diverging. Brexit, once Great Britain,
        throw off them chains! You did it before, you
        can do it again. Here’s hoping,Tony, all the best!
        A serf against slavery.

      • Tonyb ” after scaring everyone witless. ” So, what does it say about the character of a people who can so easily be frightened or a people so willing to act out of fear? What has led to the decline in courage in the modern world? Is it the existence of wealth and a life of leisure that ‘pussifies’ mankind and makes it susceptible to fear mongering by totalitarians? One wonders.
        I guess the old maxim is true: One gets the leaders/country they deserve.

      • Daniel

        I think the leavers-mostly older-are made of sterner stuff and the scare stories would tend to make them more determined to vote out.

        However there are many younger people -and the still undecided- more likely to vote for the status quo especially when everyone is telling them that the wrong vote will result in pestilence, plague, famine, earthquakes, mass extinction, personal ruin and the end of the world.

        In that respect I suspect the remainers have been taking a leaf out of the warmists book, in as much they lose touch with reality with their claims.

        tonyb

      • Tonyb

        Congratulations…freedom lovers have a 4% edge. Perhaps for homo sapiens decadal wars are necessary to keep perspective on what it means to live without freedom. The soft life seem to create a somnambulism of the soul.

        I’m not a serf but I am repulsed by slavery and the people who think enslaving some for the welfare of others is a perfectly moral thing to do.

        Briits should be proud! But there’s still a long road ahead. Two years to negotiate an exit? I expect a lot of revenge to bubble up from the Junckers and his crowd. This will be an exciting negotiation!

    • The Oligarchs will never allow Brexit.

      • “The Oligarchs will never allow Brexit.” What a tragedy that that rolls off the tongue as a truism while ‘The People will never submit to Brussels Tryanny’ causes laughter.

    • Both of you, good luck with the vote tomorrow. I would vote Brexit if could. See reasons below, finally out of moderation.

  16. Danny Thomas

    Re: Trump Nuclear Bomb.

    Well sure. Folks care about immigration. Folks care about the economy. Heck, folks even care about having a discussion about 2nd amendment issues.

    Don’t think anyone suggests he’s not intelligent. Now if we could just get him to lay out the plans between point A and point Z we might find the information helpful.

    • Hillary is trolling for war with Russia but somehow Trump is the nuclear threat? Newspeak.

      http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/trolling-for-war-with-russia/

      • Hanson’s piece (Victor, not Jim) has nothing to do with nuclear threat. It was a phrase used to describe his impact on political discussion here in the US.

      • Tim56

        Oops true.
        At least Dr Hanson is sort of coming around, but he still is mired in the ‘acting correctly’ morass that the neocons layered on as their censorship tool when they took power.

    • Trump is thinking aloud about issues where the liberal establishment thinks they already have the answers. Topics the Republican party has consistently gotten rolled on to the point they don’t resist anymore.

      There is so much bad official policy and bureaucratic group-think that there is plenty of room for improvement. At least Trump is forcing people to think about policy.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        I truly do not understand why there is so much resistance to my request that he provide a road map. Even here you suggest you appreciate his ‘making folks think about policy’ yet if I chose to hire him it’ll be because of what HE thinks about it. And I don’t know, and other than telling us where we have problems (duh, even I can do that so vote for me) he’s not telling us HOW he’ll address them. C’est la vie!

      • I’m fine with him giving some general guidance on what he is going to do.

        Hillary can produce finely detailed papers (and has) on how she is going to screw with the internal politics of other countries.

        Hillary will do about half of what she says, then lie about it and claim she did it all. We have about 55,000 pages of emails that tell us all we need to know about Hillary.

        If Trump gives some broad strokes and follows through, I consider that a win.

        I’d rather have Trump than Hillary. I prefer the more honest candidate and in this case there is no contest. Safire warned us years ago that the problem with the Clintons is genetic and won’t change.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,
        And that’s absolutely reasonable. But my request is no less reasonable.

        “If Trump gives some broad strokes and follows through, I consider that a win.”

        “If” is a big word. Please go to his site, click issues, and click on his video on Israel as one example. He loves Israel. And that’s about all he says. Not even a ‘broad stroke’ there. And that he puts Trump U as the biggest box heading the page is even more disturbing as to his priorities.

        Doing deals? If he’s trying to sell me, and he is, I have him leave his literature so I can absorb and evaluate and get back to him. My problem with him is he doesn’t have any literature to leave. And that just doesn’t cut it. But that’s me. I guess I’m not an easy sale.

      • Gee, without a detailed top secret security briefing anything he says about Israel is bullsh*t anyway.

        It sounds like you will vote for whoever blows in your ear the hardest.

        Hillary has the advantage of the top secret briefings, and after Benghazi we know she is going to screw it up anyway.

        Trump is just going to be flabbergasted when he gets his briefing, will assume correctly that his predecessors were idiots, and get us a better deal. America has been treated like an apprentice, that role won’t wear well on Trump.

        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-israel-2016-netanyahu-213748
        The general thinking seems to be that Trump will be pro-Israel, but will be mindful of American interests.

        Hillary is unabashedly pro-Israel and has been Israel pandering. Which is funny because Democrats in general embrace terrorists like a tree-hugger hugs a tree.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        Great quote: “It sounds like you will vote for whoever blows in your ear the hardest.” At least when someone ‘blows in my ear’ I expect to feel something as opposed to having to provide my own mental image of what it should feel like.

        Just two examples of issues which have not been ‘solved’ for decades are Israel and illegal immigration. So we (if we’re paying a modicum of attention) might be aware these are areas with challenges. Most certainly the ‘how’ to involve ourselves in them can make things better, or make them worse. Being informed that they are areas with problems (duh) is not what will earn my vote.

      • PA “Trump is thinking aloud about issues where the liberal establishment thinks they already have the answers. Topics the Republican party has consistently gotten rolled on to the point they don’t resist anymore.

        There is so much bad official policy and bureaucratic group-think that there is plenty of room for improvement. At least Trump is forcing people to think about policy.”

        Exactly so!

        +1

      • danny, “Just two examples of issues which have not been ‘solved’ for decades are Israel and illegal immigration. So we (if we’re paying a modicum of attention) might be aware these are areas with challenges.”

        Why did you use “solved”? There aren’t any solutions to lots of problems, well except for physics. Do you think politicians suffer from physics envy?

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.

        Fair question. Isn’t that what Trump is selling? Solutions?

        I’m not quite sure as all he’s communicated w/r/t Israel is he ‘loves’ that country.

        Clearly, however, he’s selling a solution to ‘the immigration problem’. In this area he’s actually put forth some detail including wall building, expanding ICE in the interior, and hiring more Border Patrol. Yet he’s done so while alienating republicans.

        With a bit of looking one finds a recent bipartisan effort (gang of 8) that gained no traction. Bipartisan is key. How well will he do with not even having support from his ‘team’?

        So the one area for which he’s provided a road map to ‘solutions’ he’s starting off in the hole. Guess the good advice that one should stop digging no longer applies?

        Physics envy might be an issue. Who knows for sure? :)

      • danny, “Clearly, however, he’s selling a solution to ‘the immigration problem’.”

        I believe he is selling enforcing the laws instead of making laws. The Office of the President is the executive branch so what he is selling is a bit foreign to most voters :)

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.

        Trump’s plan is a combination of both.

        Yes, enforcement is key. But that takes funding and the Legislative Branch (different from the Executive Branch) has that control. Making friends in high places?

        Increasing ICE from 5000 to 15,000, e-verify, increasing H1B wages, requirements to hire ‘Americans’ first, specifically excluding ‘muslims’, etc. all take money or legislative cooperation (lawmaking) unless we’re suggesting EO’s as a tool. (And we love us some EO’s). https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

        No indication of increasing the number of B.P. agents. Gang of 8 would have increased that number by +/- 40,000.

        vs. here: (gang of 8 reference again)
        “In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have strengthened our communities, our economy, and our country’s future. Representatives from both sides of the aisle have voiced their support for comprehensive immigration reform, and Americans across the country haven’t wavered. And yet, House Speaker John Boehner and House leadership refused to even bring the bill up for a vote.

        That’s why President Obama is taking action where he can to help fix our broken immigration system, strengthen our economy, and protect our communities and families.”

        And to be clear, Clinton doesn’t discuss the enforcement side much at all and this is a major shortcoming IMO. (Her’s requires looking at a combination of Immigration Reform and National Security on her site).

      • btw, Trump gets a lot of grief thanks to hypothetical situations. Trump: If abortion is illegal, there should be some punishment for violating the law.

        Liberal: How could he punish a poor confused young woman!!!

        Trump: We need to try and stop illegal immigration.

        Liberal: How could he be so racist!!!

        Trump: We need to ban Muslim immigration until we get this figured out.

        Liberal: Islamophobia! Islamophobia!

        After he said that btw, a number of moderate Muslims mention that Islamists, those are the ones that cannot separate Mosque and state are the ones that might not be good to introduce into a country founded on separation of church and state.

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.

        Hm. Must be evidence that I’m not a liberal then. I don’t care about the PC conversation or portrayals of Trump along the lines you’ve suggested. But I do care that he’s selling that we have problems and offering very little about actual solutions.

        I don’t care for the concept of selecting out one group of folks ‘until we get this figured out’. Who’s next? Stop it all, restrict equally, or improve on the go. I don’t think that kind of selectivity is within our national values. Heck, some of our founders were a generation or so removed from being immigrants to this very land and indeed were not Americans but Colonialists. Yet they in some part were not for unlimited immigration either. Immigration currently is a mess IMO.

        I’ll state again, I think I could vote for Kasich (or even Jon Huntsman….write in?). I’m asking for reasons to vote FOR Trump and pretty much all folks say is they’re angry (I’m not exactly thrilled) and will vote against Clinton no matter the alternative. Yet, other than faith, almost no one has put forth an cohesive argument to vote FOR Trump.

        Folks can make choices any way they like based on anything they like and I don’t have issue with that. In fact, I support is as it’s part of our Heritage.

      • “Who’s next?” I don’t know, perhaps they are on the no fly list? Right now anyone with a single agenda is considered “suspicious”.

        While you might not like the way Trump said it, his statement did inspire a bit of soul searching. Take the Hispanic-America judge for Trump U. He is/was a member of la raza, a single agenda organization, which highlights the Hispanic part of his hyphenation. Would a Klan member judge be questioned? I am sure the judge is fine, but with the lawyers on one side being la raza supporters and the judge having an affiliation, I would have mentioned it, and Trump’s comment isn’t completely out of line. Poor choice for a politician, but not a bad move for a defendant.

        Perhaps the one’s that are next are the ones emphasizing the hyphenation and not the American part?

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.

        Eh. Judge shopping. An age old tactic and one he’s used before. 2011, 2009, 2007. Yawn.

        But as another example: “The presumptive Republican nominee has also raised the prospect that a Muslim judge may treat him unfairly in court because he has proposed a temporary ban on allowing foreign Muslims into the country.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/2011-effort-remove-judge-shows-130307263.html
        (Picked yahoo as the source out of concern for MSM being labeled biased).

        What American sub group is acceptable? The La Raza label is just an excuse and a form of pouting since what Curiel decided wasn’t in Trump’s favor.

      • danny, “The La Raza label is just an excuse and a form of pouting since what Curiel decided wasn’t in Trump’s favor.”

        How can you have political change without excuses?

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | June 23, 2016 at 2:02 pm |
        danny, “The La Raza label is just an excuse and a form of pouting since what Curiel decided wasn’t in Trump’s favor.”

        How can you have political change without excuses?

        Trump has no more cause to complain, than a black businessman has to complain about unfavorable rulings from a white judge that attends Aryan Nation barbecues.

        We all know that judges are objective and their social activities don’t impact their rulings…

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        Very interesting. So is the suggestion that all who must appear before a judge be able to select that judge (even by process of elimination)?

        Would it be okay for Obama to select the Judges he’d prefer?

        When asked about Curiel: “”Look, he’s proud of his heritage, OK. I’m building a wall. Now, I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics.””

        Sounds like Trump expects his vote. Why should he expect Curiel’s rulings to be any different than oriented his way?

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | June 23, 2016 at 11:00 am |
        danny, “Just two examples of issues which have not been ‘solved’ for decades are Israel and illegal immigration. So we (if we’re paying a modicum of attention) might be aware these are areas with challenges.”

        Why did you use “solved”? There aren’t any solutions to lots of problems, well except for physics. Do you think politicians suffer from physics envy?

        The Israel/Palestine question is one of those issues where reality takes a hike.

        Fundamentalist Christians have some odd belief that the rapture will come when Israel controls all of Palestine (I’m sure I got some details wrong but the insanity falls along that line).

        The precautionary principle demands that part of the occupied territories be given over to absolute Palestinian sovereignty.

        The right of return is a joke. We see how well “return” is working in Europe and they don’t even have a right to move to countries that their ancestors wanted to invade, they’re just being allowed.

        The concept that keeping Israel’s neighbors unstable promotes Israel’s security needs to be staked through heart and the body burned.

        We’re paying Israel $3 billion a year in military assistance that they use to do things we don’t want them to do. This seems crazy to me.

      • PA, “We’re paying Israel $3 billion a year in military assistance that they use to do things we don’t want them to do. This seems crazy to me.”

        Israel is one of the few good military investments. They get one billion a year for weapons R&D and have really fine tuned “smart munitions”.

      • Danny,

        What you are seeing is not ” resistance to my request that he provide a road map”. Some of us have been trying to point out that your request is a bit like a search for the Holy Grail. As in what you are looking for not only doesn’t exist, but is not necessarily needed. Go back and read the Victor Davis Hanson article to get a sense of how a Trump Presidency might work. Trump says something non-PC to over the top outrageous. People are shocked (or pretend to be shocked). But then those people in his administration with subject matter expertise and Republicans in Congress start to work on the details to address the issues Trump raises. In a sense they can do so below the level of acute media attention. Because Trump has drawn the media away from the people doing the work and onto him. I believe the term is “lightning rod”.

        Also, it doesn’t help when you go off on a tangent like these two comments:
        “Yet he’s done so while alienating republicans.”
        and
        “With a bit of looking one finds a recent bipartisan effort (gang of 8) that gained no traction. Bipartisan is key. How well will he do with not even having support from his ‘team’?”

        What does his alienating republicans have to do with a map? And what makes you believe bipartisanship will be key to his goals? As you point out, the previous bipartisan effort on immigration “gained no traction”.

        The Presidency is as much an ocean as it is a interstate highway system. Having a detailed trip plan can mean nothing when you have to tack suddenly in one direction or the other. Whatever plans Bush the 2nd had were tossed in the shredder after Sept 11. And however radical or innovative Obama’s road map for the Middle East was, it ran up on the shoals of current events, to the point that it is a sinking ship.

      • Danny Thomas

        Tim,

        “What does his alienating republicans have to do with a map? And what makes you believe bipartisanship will be key to his goals?”

        Ever heard of Barack Obama?

      • PA,

        Where did you come up with this gem:

        “The concept that keeping Israel’s neighbors unstable promotes Israel’s security needs to be staked through heart and the body burned.”

        The US has spent a lot of money and effort keeping Saudi stable, even more keeping Egypt stable. We tried to keep Lebanon from slipping further into instability when we landed a Marine Battalion Landing Team. The invasion of Iraq was primarily to establish a stable Arab democracy.

        Don’t let the US’s incompetence get confused with actual policy goals. Libya? Incompetence. Syria? Maybe not incompetence at first, but looking like it now. (Though to be fair, Syria is a mess that we didn’t create and not one offering easy solutions.) Iraq? Repeated incompetence, first by Bremmer, allowing the country to slide into chaos and then by Obama, by ignoring it and hoping the problems went away.

      • timg56 | June 23, 2016 at 3:51 pm |
        PA,

        Where did you come up with this gem:

        “The concept that keeping Israel’s neighbors unstable promotes Israel’s security needs to be staked through heart and the body burned.”

        That is mostly an Israeli concept. But we at least tacitly let them do it.

        I’ll have to get back up to speed on my middle east history before I go too much further. But in any fair solution to the Jewish/Palestinian both sides should lose.

      • PA,

        Right after I commented, it occurred to me that it was Israel’s policy you might have been referring to. On that score I’d agree with you.

      • Danny Thomas | June 23, 2016 at 10:51 pm |
        PA,

        Very interesting. So is the suggestion that all who must appear before a judge be able to select that judge (even by process of elimination)?

        Would it be okay for Obama to select the Judges he’d prefer?

        Impeachment proceedings don’t allow that as an option.

        http://research.lawyers.com/well-recuse-me-when-a-judge-shouldnt-try-a-case.html

        Removing a judge for bias is done. But since people normally say horribly prejudicial things in the presence of like minded individuals and courts don’t track plaintiffs by their views on immigration there probably isn’t anything Trump can do about it since proof will be hard to come by.

        Judges recuse themselves all the time. A recent supreme court case had 3 recusals. Normally I expect a judge would recuse themselves before it gets to the point of the litigant filing for disqualification.

        Someone more legal might weight in on this.

    • Danny,

      I think you missed the point of Hanson’s article.

      Besides, it should be evident that politicians who lay out detailed plans are generally playing the voters for suckers. It is 90% show and maybe 10% substance.

      • “Besides, it should be evident that politicians who lay out detailed plans are generally playing the voters for suckers.”

        Indeed.
        They are saying “THIS is THE answer”.
        Trump, OTOH, is saying “THIS is the problem – we need to come up with a way to fix it.”
        He then gets pasted for not having specifics – he never SAID he had specifics, he said there was need for talk about it and need for a solution to be found.
        Now if he is also brave enough to insist the any proposed solution has easily verified success and failure criteria and that anything that fails (by it’s own pre-defined standards) will be removed and another proposed solution tried, he would be a shoe-in, IMO, I think most people realize that the issues are hard and the solutions are hard too, so mistakes are likely – they just don’t want to hear crap like “It didn’t work because it didn’t go far enough”, or “oh, that’s because X happened” etc. Make a plan, set targets, if targets gets missed by pre-defined margins, it a FAILURE and should be scrapped. Rinse and repeat until you you find someting that WORKS.
        Trump has the advantage in this, coming from a business background, not politics. He knows this is how it should be. He just needs to sell it to the public.

      • There are enough specific for this analysis. 3.5 million less jobs, ballooning debt, trade deficit and recession. When he even calls himself King of Debt, he is not kidding. So far none of his own people have come up with alternatives to this projection, which is probably because the policies were not intended to be added together in any way, being more like just a snake oil sales pitch, as he does so often for his regular job.
        http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/u-s-economy-would-be-diminished-under-trumps-economic-plan-new-analysis-says/

      • Danny Thomas

        Tim,
        Thanks. I’ll leave this one where it is as I think you and I disagree on methodology. Sorry, but it’s a ‘thing’ of mine that I need more substance.

      • Danny Thomas “Tim,
        Thanks. I’ll leave this one where it is as I think you and I disagree on methodology. Sorry, but it’s a ‘thing’ of mine that I need more substance.”

        Consider that your ‘need’ has many negative features. It seems kinda obvious and was well said by kneel63.

        But it bears repeating:

        1. To deliver solutions means that you’ve got a one sized fits all plan. Bad right out of the chute.

        2. To give lots of detail is to muddy the waters when your opponents pick it apart and quote it out of context and you end up spending great gobs of time for what might be dropped in the first attempt at implementation.

        3. To give detailed solutions is to accept an invalid framework, which again, is wrong headed right out of the chute. It assumes a group of experts behind closed doors propose a solution that is then a finished product and handed to the world. Nonsense. First define a problem…that is the biggest issue. Define it and clarify it. Get to the heart of it. That’s difficult enough. It’s obvious that the country needs more economic development and more jobs. But that’s hardly the end of it as far as those two problems go in analyzing and delineating what the problem is. Many people seem too damned impatient and want a solution, right now, with copious details to show that the solution makers are serious and responsible people. And they want it without caring to spend the time to ask why there is a problem, what caused the problem and how many of the causes are addressed by the solution. More often than not, the solutions proposed, ignore or confuse the causes and instead of being cleaned up they are just papered over with mountains of rules and regs which do nothing to solve the problems and everything to make it appear as though the problems are being solved. We end up with a mountain of trash that no one understands and wonder why the economy keeps grinding towards HALT! The process of solutions should be thrown open to everyone, where everyone is invited for input. It should be discussed until everyone has a sense that they are dealing with reality and not just another of Washington’s endless fictions. Then when the solution EMERGES there will, hopefully, be enough support to carry it through. The idea is to have an open PROCESS for solutions and not a closed one where all the fighting takes place over what the experts and the pols created who want to ramrod THEIR solution down everyone’s throat.
        4. I’d sooner see your talents, and everyone else’s, used in helping to define the problem rather than in nitpicking it or approving/disapproving a pretend complete solution.
        5. What Einstein said of science, “The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skills. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science,” is true for politics and government as well. It’s about creativity, engagement and emergent properties and far more important to be an open process if politics is the game.
        6. But this process is not to be confused with ‘compromise.’ As Robert Redford’s character, Henry Brubaker says, in the movie Brubaker, ‘Compromise on strategy, maybe. Never on principle.’ (paraphrased)

        We’ve spent seven years with many fictions and no solutions and no discussions of that the problems are. I think we could take the time to have a dialog and see where the people in the country would like to go. Not the elites, but the most important class of people in the country, the middle class.

      • Danny Thomas

        Daniel,

        Much to work with there. (too long to recopy all so excerpts)

        1. To deliver solutions means that you’ve got a one sized fits all plan.”

        That’s how it works. There are not different laws/policies/programs. We’ll all conduct ourselves under the same rules.

        2. First attempt at implementation of what, exactly?

        3. Framework? Reverting back to the Israel section of Trumps site. He says he loves Israel. I’m missing how that defines ‘a problem’ much less a plan or even a goal.

        On Immigration he does better, but both Israel and Immigration are long life issues.

        4. Immigration is more readily a definable issue and I give Trump (some) credit for a more thorough attempt at a game plan. Israel is above my pay grade by a wide margin but he’s asking for the job, not me.

        5. “to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances ” Yep, yep, yep. Aren’t we hiring (or not) that imagination? I’d love to see it.

        ” I think we could take the time to have a dialog and see where the people in the country would like to go. Not the elites, but the most important class of people in the country, the middle class.” Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I’ve suggested for as long as I can remember that a few lawn chairs, appropriate beverages, and us regular folk can likely get thru a lot of things to some level of mutual agreement. The political theatre we see in D.C. is not what I perceive that ‘we the people’ would prefer. Completely with you here.

      • Daniel and kneel, excellent comments.

      • Daniel E Hofford | June 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm |

        Consider that your ‘need’ has many negative features. It seems kinda obvious and was well said by kneel63.

        It is worse than that. On the foreign policy side, laying out your real plan in detail makes it “your” plan that you now have to sell to the other parties. They have no investment in your plan and will resent having it forced down their throats.

        Any candidate that lays out his foreign policy plans in detail should be rejected out of hand because he has painted himself into a corner.

        As far as the economy is concerned. If you look at the civilian participation rate for the last eight years and add notations for when the major government actions and legislation took place, it is pretty clear why we have economic problems.

        If Trump goes golfing and spends zero time in the office the economy will do better than it has the last eight years. The minute he takes the oath of office the greatest single impediment to economic growth will be gone.

      • Watching this excuse-peddling for a lack of coherent policies is hilarious.

        What makes it even funnier is that y’all actually have your self convinced that the reason for Trump’s lack of policy outlines isn’t simply fact that he has no coherent policy ideas.

        He simply says that things will be great, and his toadies fall right in line.

        Just shows that you don’t need a sophisticated plan to run a con when people are so “motivated” to be conned.

      • Joshua | June 23, 2016 at 4:56 pm |
        Watching this excuse-peddling for a lack of coherent policies is hilarious.

        Hillary is a foreign policy wonk who dabbled in healthcare.

        Her foreign policy efforts (Benghazi, “Reset”, etc.) were failures and Obamacare is a major contributor to anemic economic performance.

        Hillary outlining detailed plans for failed policies is impressive. This just tells us if we elect her we are doomed to 4-8 more bad years. Coherent but bad policies are not a strong selling point. All coherence buys you with bad policy is you know you are going down the drain and the direction is consistent.

        Trump is more knowledgeable than Hillary about real economics. Hillary really doesn’t understand economics. He is going to protect the border and cut regulation. Hillary will do neither.

        The Obama “punish our friends and reward our enemies” foreign policy with a strong dash of bowing and apologizing for American has been a failure and Hillary was instrumental in that.

        Trump loves America. He wants to put America first. I’m not sure Hillary loves anything.and she always puts herself first.

        Given that the alternative to Trump is guaranteed failure he doesn’t have to prove much to me.

    • Danny,

      Some thoughts on “providing a road-map.”

      Why should he? Any specifics will offend someone, and the press will step on it even to the point of warping what he says. Trump is very good at letting people fill in the blanks with their own thoughts. It’s a good technique if you want to get elected president.

      Bringing up issues is a very good start in my view. It is “Do you like where you are, and where we are heading?” If the answer is “yes,” vote for Hillary. If the answer is “No,” vote for Trump.

      I don’t know, but I would suppose the way Trump works is at that level, and he has good people who figure out the “How.” Trump therefore multiplies his capabilities through others. That’s what leadership is about.

      • Joshua…confused as usual. “What makes it even funnier is that y’all actually have your self convinced that the reason for Trump’s lack of policy outlines isn’t simply fact that he has no coherent policy ideas.”

        What did I say that was a defense of Trump. Trump wasn’t my first choice…Trump has a lot that he can be criticized for…but I will vote for Trump and I would express an enormous amount of gratitude to him for his killing off of the PC meme. That alone is golden. His refusal to be cowed by Leftist epithets hurled at him has been a delicious thing to watch.

        I would prefer a candidate with the moral constitution of Winston Churchill and the speaking skill of Abba Eban. With the intellect of Thomas Jefferson and the humor of Ronald Reagan. Fantasies are wonderful things.

        The real world, the world of adults, the world where evil exists and is active and would eat your a** for lunch is a different place. This is a world where voting for a dead, vile, corrupt hag who spews politically correct speech that she’s as connected to as the Andromeda Galaxy is to the gravitational field of our sun is juxtaposed to voting for someone who says, ‘Where we are is a lot of shite and we need to rethink all this stuff.’ Not eloquent, and certainly lacking detail, but holding promise for an open system of dialog about what the problem is and what solutions are possible. It’s not religion. It’s not a God speaking in absolutes. And I wouldn’t want that.

        So, I can certainly make a case for the superiority of Trump as President over Hilarious Godham Clinton, whilst standing on my head, and on any subject that a President would have a legitimate interest in. But that wasn’t what I was doing.

        I was orthogonally criticizing the manner and method of the Obama administration in particular for their lies and crony deals, total lack of transparency and BS, and the way things have been done generally. And suggesting there was a much better way. My thinking was along the lines of the Swiss model and what Xenophon, a Greek general, did when he and 10,000 Greek soldiers saw their leadership wiped out by Persian trickery and they had to get out safely, being 2000 miles from home. He had the wisdom and insight to be clever and engage the cleverness of his men and he got them out. He thought outside the box, and so does Trump. Doesn’t guarantee success at anything, but when you’re dying of lung cancer and your solution is to light up another, you’re not worth talking to. And that’s Clinton.

  17. Ridley makes an articulate case for Brexit. Obama being for Remain is another reason to vote Brexit. Remain does not make positive arguments because there are none. It only makes negative arguments about Brexit, most of them just hyped ‘fear of the unknown’. The three substantive issues of unrestricted immigration from Eastern Europe, unelected and unaccountable EU bureaucracy/mandates/rulemaking, and a stagnant Europe with a long term impossible Euro situation (Greece being the canary in the coal mine) are all positive Brexit arguments.

  18. Curious George

    Survivable is the key word. We no longer hope to live better; now we hope to survive. A modern American dream.

    • Yes.
      In times of instability of old at least one got to fight for death and glory.
      With modern technology it is just a slow roast, an inescapable suppression.

  19. The Social Security Trustees Report for 2016 has just been released. It indicates that the General Fund is subsidizing Social Security and Medicare $401 Billion. Huffington Post and the entire Democratic apparatus deny these programs add to the deficit. They also maintain they are in good shape for years to come. They also believe in Global Warming and the Tooth Fairy.
    This is the takeaway statement from the Trustees Summary.
    “In 2016, the projected difference between Social Security’s expenditures and dedicated tax income is $73 billion. For HI, the projected difference between expenditures and non-interest income is $9 billion. The projected general revenue demands of SMI are $319 billion. Thus, the total General Fund requirements for Social Security and Medicare in 2016 are $401 billion, or 2.1 percent of GDP. Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury. When the unified budget is not in surplus, these payments are made through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”
    In 2015 the General Fund subsidy was $362 Billion. As the Baby Boomers retire the level of deficits caused by these programs will only get worse.

    • Bait and switch? Medicare has a separate report and trust fund. Medicare may be a financial black hole but Social Security (OASIDI) is solvent and will remain so for about 20 years without any changes. The only way you can make it look bad today is by pretending that prior over-payments into the system (the Trust Fund) should not generate interest and should be unavailable to supplement current fiscal year cash flow. In other words, steal money from Grandma.

      Total expenditures in 2015 were $897 billion. Total income was $920 billion, which consisted of $827 billion in non-interest income and $93 billion in interest earnings. Asset reserves held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew from $2,789 billion at the beginning of the year to $2,813 billion at the end of the year.

      If you like scary climate change scenarios for 2050, you’ll love 75 years solvency projections for Social Security.

      • The difference between SS expenditures and tax income is $73 billion. That is all that is important. The Federal government is on a cash flow accounting basis. What comes in. What goes out. I fully understand your point but it only works on a moral basis. There are no “yeah buts”. What happened for the last 30 years is irrelevant. What happens from October 1 to September 30 for each fiscal year is all that matters. Sort of like a 9 innings baseball game. You may have been great yesterday but who cares if you fan every time you come to the plate today.
        Except at Huffington Post. Which deleted my fact base comment from the Trustees Report.

      • cerescokid:

        What happened for the last 30 years is irrelevant.

        Then we should eliminate veterans’ benefit obligations, tax refunds and everything else that happened in previous fiscal years while we’re at it.

        From a cash-in, cash-out perspective the defense department generates $500B+ in fiscal losses per year. Guess we should just chuck it.

      • This is not a perspective. This is not my perspective. This is reality. Your beef is with the system. Your beef is with the Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office and how the Federal Government does its budget. The facts are the facts. It is a very simple concept of how the budget operates.

        Unless revenue comes from outside the coffers of the Treasury Department it does not count as revenue. Easy peasy. Interest entries are considered intra-government transfers.

      • You and Trump can default on government debt if you want to.

        By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are “special issues” of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

        In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

        https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#&a0=1

      • Since you have shown an ability in critical thinking in the past with your skepticism about CAGW, I’m going to go easy on your mental block.
        This is not my position. This is the position of Obama’s administration and every previous administration and the profession of CPAs.
        You tell the Inspector General and the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget.

        Maybe Treasury Department will place an asterisk in their financial records and explain that the deficit is not really ad large as shown and the resultant Debt Held by the Public is not really as large as shown and the payments made each year for service on the Debt is not really as big as shown and thus
        those receiving payments on their bond holdings should not be cashing the Federal checks since they will only bounce since it is all only funny money, all created by some who have difficulty in understanding accounting 101.

  20. “Trump needs to lose decisively so that Republican voters “learn their lesson.”

    Error! Error! Error! This is an alert! This is an alert: Inflammatory rhetoric does not counter inflammatory rhetoric. Error! Error! Error!

    Media Headline: Trump stumps insiders! Trump has tapped into a segment of the usually non-regularly voting public, who came out in droves to sidetrack a much anticipated insider Republican blitzkrieg that was going to smash the Progressive Agenda; the agenda that has been endured for however so long

    Sorry to say folks, ain’t gonna happen. No blitzkrieg today, nor tomorrow, nor…

    “The election is rigged and that’s why we have the outcome we have.” No real learning necessary when everyone knows that Trump is right. “Rigged I say! The election was rigged by those damn….”

    Now, I like the idea put forward that Hillary as a President is survivable. We all know that there is survival even after an atomic bomb or two: Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Our current President has even made these cities tourist destinations. Yes, Hillary is survivable just like Trump is survivable. Even Jimmy Carter, who had to pray over events and Congressional matters, his 4 year term we all survived stagflation, Iran Hostage Crisis, and let us not forget the 1979 energy crisis. After all, Jimmy is a nice and honorable guy. He is a good Christian which factored into his economic and international policy prowess; exactly how? I am not sure. Anyways, our nation has survived many Presidents who were scoundrels, thieves, philanders, clueless, etc etc etc. Remember: “I am not a crook!”

    Our Nation will endure Hillary or Donald or most anyone else that “takes the reigns of power” simply because the job is too big for any one person. Power and responsibility are dispersed and delegated, and our Founding Father’s wisdom and distrust of government in general, put into place, three branches; a troika if you will. Something the Russian State has tried to implement for a 1000+ years and bares it name, yet has failed.

    And, after all, my vote counts.

    • Must we really even bother to vote? With 47% of the vote in the bag for whomever the Democrat nominee may be, Trump’s challenge is Herculean. Oh yeah, now I remember: we need an equally worthless Republican majority in the Senate to balance out the insanity.

  21. Judith Curry:

    I can understand that my political comments would cascade into moderation. I’m such an inflammatory guy. Here I thought I was reasonable. I guess not. Alms for the poor? re-instatement even for a trial run?

  22. Why is it so many of the comics attack Trump, leaving Hillary out of it?

    Yes, Trump is a great target, but Hillary is even better.

  23. From a comment in moderation:

    And for the next week, an MRC study shows the broadcast network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ratio of 8 to 1.

  24.  
    Hopefully we are mature enough to handle this information: I have it from unimpeachable sources that we have learned from aliens — speaking through survivors of past generations who trace their roots back to ancient civilizations that are unknown to us because evidence of their existence on Earth was long ago obliterated by comet strikes — that global has not paused but is in fact irreversible and growing at an ever increasing rate and will cause the oceans to begin to boil sometime around mid-November of this year.

  25. From the article:

    Chris Vickery, a security researcher at MacKeeper, has uncovered a new voter database containing 154 million voter records, exposed as a result of a CouchDB installation error. The database includes names, addresses, Facebook profile URLs, gun ownership, and more.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/22/2217214/154-million-voter-records-exposed-due-to-database-error

  26. Oh well, robots had it good for a while. From the article:

    Under the European Union’s new draft plan, Europe’s growing army of robot workers could be classed as “electronic persons,” with their owners liable to paying social security for them. Robots are only becoming more prevalent in the workplace. They’re already taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, and their population is only expected to rise as their abilities are expanded with the increased development of new technologies

    https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/06/22/217205/europes-robots-to-become-electronic-persons-under-draft-plan

  27. What’s so intriguing about the immigration debate is that it’s where the culture wars intersect with the economic wars.

    Questioning Immigration is Not Racism
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/questioning-immigration-is-not-racism.html

    The political consensus in favour of immigration has collapsed in most of the developed world.

    Hostility to immigrants is now the great motive force animating politics in Europe and the US….

    …As Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, says: “We do need to state the case for immigration and cultural diversity, as there’ll always be political elements seeking to exploit fears and anxieties.”….

    It is not socially, economically or politically sustainable to erode the standards of living in the existing Australian population in this way. There may be an argument for it. That is, that not doing it will lead to an even larger fall in living standards but that argument must be made convincingly and I’m not sure it can be.

  28. Scientific American: “Why the Science Community Says No to Brexit”
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-science-community-says-no-to-brexit/

    Many fear a loss of funding, talent, business and collaboration, a former science minister says.

    No shit Sherlock. The scientist kings are in love with the dictatorship of technocrats.

    • When has Scientific American ever been for anything other than Government expansion of every part of itself?. Without checks on its power it would be the Blob that Ate the Earth. And Scientific American would be it whore-iest cheerleader.

  29. President Hillary Rodham Clinton… HRC. The 45th President of the United States of America… the commander in chief:

    How grand the misery… lol.

  30. Danny Thomas

    Even considered how the control dominant slightly ego oriented will deal with this: http://congressionalresearch.com/RS21656/document.php

    “It is assumed, of course, that persons in or entering into Government service will own and possess financial assets, instruments and property to a somewhat similar extent as those comparably situated in the general population.”

    After all, Obama is criticized for just playing golf. It will be of interest to see how ‘Trumpeteers’ will respond to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/politics/donald-trump-scotland.html?_r=0

    • stevenreincarnated

      You must not remember how much hell Bush got for playing golf. The double standard the press exhibits is what most people find irritating.

      • Danny Thomas

        Steve,

        Yep. But our Presidents need distractions just like we ‘common folk’. And with the ability to communicate today it’s a non issue IMO.

        And it’s not ‘the press’. I’ve had folks say to my face Obama shouldn’t be playing golf. They all should if that’s how they recharge. (Call ’em out Steve).

        But this article is not about playing golf, it’s about skipping off the campaign to attend to personal stuff. And Trump says it’s for ‘rest’. Some equivalency there.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, that was the point. It was the press that rode Bush for golfing. The next time one of your friends complain about Obama golfing just ask them if they would rather he be in the White House making policy.

  31. Several points:
    1) Trump is an odious toad – but the fact that he’s triumphed despite the moneyed and insider disapproval of his own party shows that he has hit upon at least one issue which Republican voters (and Americans overall) care about. The willingness to kiss this toad, nativist/racist warts and all, shows just how dysfunctional the American political system is now.
    Personally, I think this issue is inequality. Trump at least might do something about it whereas nobody believes Hilary will anything whatsoever.
    2) Hilary as a repeat warmonger – it is really quite amusing how she can be considered more survivable. As the United States slumps ever closer to being merely a peer of the world as opposed to dominating it, Hilary is clearly the choice which lashes out in a fury rather than accept a lower place gracefully. Trump, impossible to say, but certainly couldn’t be worse. And for those who think the US isn’t slumping – note that the US was 40% of the world economy in 1945. Today it is 12% and falling.
    3) The most insidious mechanism of all in narrow political terms is the Democratic party’s shameless use of “not as bad as”. A Trump victory would at least cause a rethink of the mindless hitting of this lever by Democratic leadership…hopefully.
    My own personal view is: the worse, the better.
    Under this prism – a victory by either of these knuckleheads would be great. Trump, as a literal clown president, is a worthy successor to Reagan.
    Hilary, as Nero under the American Presidents as Roman emperor’s model (Slick Willy as Tiberius, W. Bush as Caligula, Obama as Claudius), would certainly be so odious as to potentially spark change via a burning down of Rome (America).
    Either way, maybe enough anger is stoked to lead to real hope and change.

  32. One has to wonder why Trump is so appealing to these icons of neoconservatism? First it was Dick Cheney and now Don Rumsfeld has thrown his support to Trump. It’s just a matter of time till Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice come on board. Hey, let’s get the old band together again for a reunion tour!

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-rumsfeld-donald-trump-224698

    Looks like Trump has the war criminal vote locked up.

    • I take it, Jack, that with this statement, “Looks like Trump has the war criminal vote locked up,” you prefer the President BE a war criminal rather than just get the support of those you label as such.

  33. Dune Donald strikes again:

    The latest company accounts for Trump International Golf Course Scotland (TIGCS) showed in 2014 it was £38.5m in debt – nearly all of which is owed to Trump, and is losing well over £1m a year. Trump claimed in 2008 that his planned resort would employ 1,200 people; it currently employs 95, many of whom will be seasonal. The course is closed over the winter, thanks to the harsh weather.

    His original masterplan included two championship golf courses, complete with a five-star hotel, tower blocks of timeshare apartments, luxury villas, equestrian and tennis complexes, a golfing academy, and shopping village strung along a sweeping avenue called Trump Boulevard.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/23/donald-trump-faces-wall-of-opposition-as-he-returns-to-scotland

  34. Djunior Donald:

    “In order to keep this campaign running smoothly, I had to find some ways to cut back on expenses, which is why I’ve made the tough but necessary decision to part ways with Eric and bring on Javier as my third-born child,” said Trump at a morning press event, placing his hand on the shoulder of the suit-clad 32-year-old Mexican immigrant while explaining that his newly appointed son, who recently arrived in the U.S. without documentation or a work visa, would assume his former son’s place in the family as the younger brother to Donald Jr. and Ivanka.

  35. Well, the polls have just closed in the Brexit referendum. First results are expected in 3 or 4 hours but the full result won’t be known until around 7 in the morning, always assuming one side or the other doesn’t have an unexpectedly large majority before then

    For anyone following the results Swindon and Sunderland should be amongst the first to declare and they are expected to vote leave, but unless leave are in the lead by at least 6 points there it is thought they ate unlikely to win overall.

    Fingers crossed for a leave majority but I suspect remain will edge ot.

    Tonyb

  36. Two very unexpected results have caused the pound to fall dramatically. The first in Newcastle, where an expected big majority for remain turned into little more than a one percent victory. In Sunderland leave expected to just win by a few points, but won by 20 .

    Very early days yet with only a fraction of the national votes counted but too exciting to go to bed!

    Tonyb

    • It seems the big Majority in sunderland for leave was due to David Cameron asking the very big local employer , Nissan, to write to their employees instructing them to vote remain. This got up the noses of the locals who did the opposite to what they were told.

      Still likely that remain will win overall but too early to be certain of anything

      Tonyb

      • I so hope the result is leave, but after Obummer got elected a second time here, I dare not hope ever again.

    • Hi Tony

      In the US, elections can be called early based on demographics and geography and turnout, etc.. In this kind of election, is anyone able to forecast election results based on which precincts have reported given their demographic profile, age, income, educational level, profession, etc?

      • Cerescokid

        With general elections an exit poll will be pretty accurate but that is based on lots of precedents and experience.

        This referendum is unique in as much there is no precedents on which to base a result. Polls up to the day suggested remain would win by around 5 points but as I say, with no precedents the experts are whistling in the dark.

        The British electorate have been bullied ceaselessly by politicians and employers making all sorts of threats which does not appear to have gone down well in some places. Instructions by Merkel and Obama to vote remain will also have had the opposite effect to that expected.

        Tonyb

    • Does anyone know if George Soros took a position on the pound. It would be very delicious if he took a drubbing.

      • Probably impossible to tell. Given that all the pundits and markets believed Remain would win, he probably wasn’t significantly short. But being a hedge fund manager, I would be surprised if he didn’t hedge his bets based on Leave winning.

  37. The BBC is reporting that many people they have interviewed have said they wanted to give the establishment a good kicking so voted leave. Shades of Trump.

    One interesting wrinkle is that London, which was expected to vote heavily for remain, had terrible weather which seems to have depressed the vote. Those wanting to leave would tend to wade through floods to vote whilst remainers are not as passionate and might be deterred by bad weather.

    My wife and I had voted leave by 7.15 am, 15 minutes after the polling stations opened and they were already busy.

    Tonyb

  38. Nothing is in the bag, but Leave is stronger than anticipated. The Pound has plummeted. Bookies are switching from Remain, to Leave, back to Remain. Pretty exciting!

    • Jim

      It’s 3.45 am. I am still up. Basically if remain wins it will be down primarily to Scotland and inner London as well as other metropolitan areas. It is still very close but leave have confounded the experts and done much better than expected, especially on the English heartlands.

      Tonyb

      • I don’t put much stock in this, pardon the pun, but the implied open for the Dow is -500 points. This is a knee jerk reaction, but partly due to the confidence in the Remain vote. Our markets have been needing a flushing out, but are propped up by the Fed and Treasury. Even if Leave prevails, the markets will probably recover.

        But still … exciting!

      • I’m with you, tonyb. I keep hearing a dying Kathleen:

  39. Leave is ahead on 51.1 percent but it’s still too close to call. There is panic in Downing Street and Brussels. We shall know for certain in two hours.

    Dawn is just breaking. Is that symbolic?

    Tonyb

    • Danny Thomas

      Tony,

      Wishing you the best either way it goes! Wincing just a bit for our invested funds for the short term however.

      Keeping you in our thoughts.

    • No matter how imperfect, or even hypocritical at times, England gave this precious notion to the world:

      “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” – Pitt the Elder

      Brexit!

      • The BBC pundits are looking as shell shocked as the politics.

        It will be interesting to see how Scotland reacts. They may want another referendum as they voted Remain.

        Tonyb

      • Dead right, Mosomoso.

      • “No matter how imperfect,…” There’s the spirit. Juxtapose it with US University campuses for the spirit there and weep for what has faded and hope we find ourselves in time before the blade of Islam descends on our pc, molly coddled heads.

    • Tonyb,
      This might be a good time to get rid of that monarchy while you have the chance. I heard someone on TV comment that she can dissolve your government and appoint her own Prime Minister. Heck I think your entire military has sworn obedience to the royal family.
      “Freedom means nothing left to loose.” -Janis Joplin

      • Jack

        I have no wish whatsoever to get rid of our monarchy

        Head of state the queen or Obama ? Hmmm.

        Tonyb

      • Term limits Tonyb, Every executive order ever issued can be revoke by who ever is commander-in-chief. The Queen’s government is headed by a prime minister. Appointment and dismissal of prime ministers are common reserve powers that can be exercised by the Queen.

        “I have no wish whatsoever to get rid of our monarchy”

        Saudi Arabia and N. Korea citizens have expressed similar sentiments but they don’t really have a choice about it.

        I will watch the world financial markets the next few days and notice how fast capital moves across international borders. Labor can’t do that. They are stuck where they live and work. If you British would halt all foreign flows of capital in and out of Brittan you might regain control of your future.

        I wish you well.

      • TonyB,

        I agree 10%. Would we really want another Obama as head of state. Look at the damage he’s done to world security in just 7.5 years!

      • Correction:

        TonyB,

        I agree 100%. Would we really want another Obama as head of state. Look at the damage he’s done to world security in just 7.5 years!

  40. Thanks Danny. Leave have edged up to a 51.4 percent lead but there are still many millions of votes to count.

    Tonyb

    • climatereason,

      Quick! Ask a climatologist! They can model any answer you want, and blame the voters if the model gives the wrong answer.

      I’ll stick with the future being unknowable. Make your assumptions, and hope.

      I think I’d be a leaver, but remain a Monarchist in any case. May your side do well!

      Cheers.

    • Danny Thomas

      Sure hope it doesn’t wind up 50/50. That’d be a really interesting mess.

      What kind of turn out are you seeing? I’ve read it’s large, but here that would be still a small percentage of the eliglble voters.

      Last comment posted here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-live-latest-poll-news-brexit-results-leave-remain-when-date-vote-odds-uk-britain-a7094741.html

      “An anonymous source at the Remain party has said the mood is despondent and the room is emptying.”

      Will check in in the morning!

      Best!

      • Turn out is very high at around 72 percent. It’s currently 52 to 48 percent in favour of leave.

        If remain is to pull this out of the fire it will only be London or Scotland that can save them as the rest of the country has been shown to be euro sceptic despite the high level bullying and threats. Indeed that could be one of the reasons for the unexpected leave vote as we don’t like being told what to do.

        Tonyb

      • Danny Thomas

        Tony,

        72%. Impressive! Maybe now you can get some rest.

    • The BBC coverage is also being shown here on BBC World. As an ex-pat I hoped for Remain, but it is not looking good at all. Pound plummeting too.

      • BBC just called it. Leave is the choice. Downhill from here. Global markets too.

      • Johnson and Farage broke it, so now they own it. They don’t inspire a lot of confidence being mostly demagogues, and not particularly savvy on how the economy will play out. Cameron might just ask them “Now what do you want to do?”, and exit the stage. They won’t have an answer between them, and it will dawn on people fairly soon that they can’t keep their promises regarding immigrants and jobs because they don’t actually have a plan.

      • I’m just hoping Scotland exits now so Mel Gibson can come back to lead them.

      • Jim,

        I can see you qualify as one of the “experts” on this topic.

        Qualification for which all you need is know nothing and be wrong.

      • stevenreincarnated

  41. Once again the experts seem to have got it wrong.

    Tonyb

    • Congratulations GB. You are demonstrating the guts you demonstrated during WWII and the Battle of Britain.

      I haven’t a clue whether Brexit will be good or bad for UK, for Australia and for the rich countries. But I hope it is good for them and especially good for the whole world. My hope is that it will put a shock through the socialist dominated Europe and the socialist policies that are gaining ground in USA and Australia. I hope it will turn people back to recognising the damage the socialist policies are doing to the developed world and, consequently, to the whole world.

      That’s my hope.

    • I know I shouldn’t but this is the last one …
      “Suffering Eurocrats!”

  42. People who only have a cartoon concept of true liberalism (which is conservative) will now be banging on about the pound and the markets, because they think those are the things we worry about most.

    There will, of course, be much speculation and manipulation, whether for gain or spite. International Zombiedom, led by the likes of Soros, will take whatever nasty or remunerative measures it can, and a price will have to be paid for Brexit. So? My parents and their contemporaries paid a bigger price in New Guinea and the Pacific to stay out of a Japanese Empire.

    It’s actually about freedom. We worry most about freedom. Got that now?

    • “It’s actually about freedom. We worry most about freedom. Got that now?”

      Yes, it is…but I wonder how that can be gotten across and have it stick. If you say it constantly, people become inured to it. If not said often enough, they forget it.

      Did Jefferson grapple with the same question when he said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” We seem to be a pendulanomous species. Or at least culturally pendulanomous. (Yes, I made it up…is there already a word for it?).

  43. Hi hooray! One giant step for liberty.

    Add to cart – To Magna Carta, Russell’s and
    Dizzie’s Reform Bills, Parliamentary Democracy,
    – Brexit from a non-elected European Union.
    :) all
    :) the
    :)way
    :) down.

    • Beth,

      In my guts I am with you on this. But I do fear a rough time for a decade or so.

      I haven’t a clue whether Brexit will be good or bad for UK, for Australia and for the rich countries. But I hope it is good for them and especially good for the whole world. My hope is that it will put a shock through the socialist dominated Europe and the socialist policies that are gaining ground in USA and Australia. I hope it will turn people back to recognising the damage the socialists]s policies are doing to the developed world, and to the whole world.

      That’s my hope.

      • Peter,

        ‘We have nuthin’ ter fear but fear itself. ‘
        Already been too much of that, keepin’
        the populace alarmed. (Mencken, i believe.)
        (And Hansen et big Al.)

        beth the serf.

      • Peter – I don’t believe the adjustment period will be that long. UK trading partners still need the UK. I think there will be some symbolic, mildly punitive measures; but the truth is the EU is better off trading and interacting with the UK. It’s just that now the UK can control their borders and their national treasure. I see it as a step forward and if everything works out as I suspect it will, more nations will follow.

        In that case, we need to castrate the UN next. Not saying get rid of it, but diminish its power.

      • Yes, Jim2. I agree with all that.

      • A Nexit will be next, mark my words. Here in the Netherlands the discontent with EU has been brewing for years and is getting stronger with each stupid EU law or national budget rule.

        Screw the EU and long live Europe!!!!

      • Followed closely by Dexit, Sexit, Iexit, and quite a few more from the eastern regions of EU.

      • Danny Thomas

        Also heard Texit today. That’s for Texas secession.

  44. Jimd

    People are fully aware of the consequences. You sound like the very sour remain politicians pouting on our screens.

    It was a vote for freedom and democracy allied with us being very fed up with being told what to do, interference in our daily lives by unelected bureaucrats and anger at being bullied and told what to do by the campaign itself.

    It’s very scary but exciting and liberating.

    Tonyb

    • I think if I was in the UK I would vote with the majority too.
      I see some (localities?) have vastly different results with 75% remain and others 70% leave. If such results were in US then those results would be in line with conservative vs liberal, rural vs urban, white vs minority, rich vs poor, South vs North etc . I view UK as so homogeneous and with such close vote nationwide (51.9% leave) I’m surprised there is such a wide range in the vote by locality.

      How do you analyze this diversity in the vote?Why is Scotland for remain ? Is their a pattern for heavily voting either way based on the characteristics of that locality?

      • Basically you had the so called metropolitan elite-mostly in London-getting right up the noses of middle England with their threats, bullying, and their refusal to listen.

        As for Scotland, they have received a lot of money from the EU over the years so know which side their bread is buttered.

        tonyb

      • Scotland is probably finally going… soon to be the EU’s beachhead:

      • I’m sure we will hear a regular drumbeat about Scotland voting again to separate. Don’t bet on it happening anytime soon. As in any time prior to oil prices climbing back up to the $80 – $100 / barrel range.

    • > People are fully aware of the consequences.

      In five hundred years, we’ll be able to read it all in their diaries.

    • What a wonderful image. I imagine all those self-righteous bureaucrats standing in line going round the UN building waiting for the big snip.

      I say we rent the UN building as office space and let the UN proper find another place. Off continent, preferably. Perhaps the Congo or the Sudan.

      And we reduce our funding to a symbolic $100 a year. Would Tehran put them up. Would Obama like to move to Iran and head the UN?

      Kill two birds with one move?

      Brexit Won!!! There’s joy in Mudville tonight…and in the pub? You do still have pubs, don’t you? Islam hasn’t been able to ban them, has it?

      • This ground has been tilled by Charles Mark Lichenstein

        After the KAL007 shootdown NJ and NY banned Soviet aircraft from commercial airports.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lichenstein
        The United States [Federal Government], which opposed the [New York and New Jersey] legislation, offered the Soviet Union landing rights at a military base so its foreign minister, Andrei A. Gromyko, could fly in for the General Assembly meeting. But the Soviets refused. When the United Nations committee met to review the situation, the Soviet delegate, Igor I. Yakovlev, said the ban on landing “raises the question of whether the United Nations should be in the United States.” A furious Mr. Lichenstein replied that if member states felt “they are not being treated with the hostly consideration that is their due,” they should consider “removing themselves and this organization from the soil of the United States. We will put no impediment in your way,” he continued, “The members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations will be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail off into the sunset.”

    • It would be wonderful to see Sweden and the Netherlands, inspired by the UK, demand the same referendum and vote themselves out of the EU.

    • Tony –

      ==> …was a vote for freedom and democracy …

      It seems that you, Geert, and Marie are all in aggreement.

    • Many are having second thoughts because they did not know the impact it would have on the economy. The Brexiteers are already wrong on it having no negative impacts and we are only a day into it. There is a lot less cheering today as Britain drops behind France to 6th place as a global economy. It was an election on issues other than the ones that affect the economy. Johnson is going to be like the dog that caught the car, and the question for him is, now what? He is out of his depth, and any economist he speaks to is going to say this was a bad move, and the main aim now is not sink too far. Hopefully Farage is sidelined because he has no positive views to add on the economy being a one-issue person.

      • Whistling past the graveyard.

      • The big market shock was because just about everyone thought Remain would win and they invested accordingly. Today began the unwind of that. It’s not a big deal.

      • JimD – the people voted, not the “conservative party.” Your article is just more of what caused Leave to win – BS.

      • maksimovich1

        The Brexiteers are already wrong on it having no negative impacts

        The GBP is around the same as FEB as Taleb notes.

        https://twitter.com/nntaleb?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

      • The Leavers are being cheered by Putin and Isis (and Trump), and generally people who don’t like, or are losing to, international partnering in a globalized world where the largest joint economies win.

      • The only comment of Jim D’s that wasn’t total BS – ” … we are only one day into it.”

        For those who don’t make things up as they go, no one has a clue how this will impact Britain. For those who forget, the Common Market pre-dates the EU. There is nothing written in stone preventing England from continuing to participate in the larger EU market. EU countries would have to intentionally establish trade barriers. Were they to do so it would not only be recognized as a spitefully immature attempt to “punish” the British, but would likely cause as much harm to themselves as to the British.

        Guessing the possible impact on the EU is a bit easier, as this could be the catalyst which gives spark to other nations rejecting unelected technocrats from running their lives. And even there people don’t really know how this will play out.

      • Yes, there is a free trade zone that also includes Norway and Switzerland, but that also includes a free travel zone as a condition, so I heard at least one Conservative Brexiter say that last part doesn’t fly. It therefore looks like tariffs, if he is right. The vote was against free travel, and they heard that loud and clear, consequences be dam’d. Boris on the other hand… who knows what he is thinking?

  45. As St Crispin’s Day, 25th October, henceforth
    upon this Brexit Day …

  46. the sky has fallen

  47. David Wojick

    What is Britain’s status under the Paris Climate Accord? Has it signed and does it have an official target, separate from the EU? Or does that have to be negotiated?

    • David Wojick

      Five hours and no reply so I guess the climate aspects of Brexit are of no interest. Everyone is too busy pontificating.

    • Figueres said this morning that Paris will have to be reworked, as there was only an EU INDC. Does not seem like a big deal. UK just throws someyhing on the table. Zero further reduction would be a reasonable number.

  48. Congrats Tony and you Brits! Now we have a real world test of the Gloom and Doomer elites. I think this is going to be a non-event economically in the long term. The UK trading partners aren’t going to cut trade (as Obama implied – Liar-in-Chief). But it sure as hell is a blow against centralized government and globalization. I love it.

    The political, financial, and ultra-rich elites are bloviating on TV as we speak, they know they are the losers.

    The rest of us are winners! Congrats all around!!

  49. – JUNE 24, 2016 –

    ​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT REGARDING BRITISH REFERENDUM ON E.U. MEMBERSHIP

    The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-regarding-british-referendum-on-e.u.-membership

    • The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

      I wonder if he meant that the way it sounds.

      • Do you think he is referring to WWII?

      • Danny Thomas

        AK,
        Just the kind of question I’ve been asking all along!

      • It sounds sort of like pre-1776, but “under a Trump Administration.” (Instead of Parliament/King.) Or maybe some US/Britain version of the EU.

        I’m sure he didn’t mean it that way literally, but what I wonder is what vision was in in mind when he said that?

      • It may be he’s just trying to strike a positive tone amidst all the negative pronouncements surrounding the Brexit.

      • Paul Ryan (Cameron’s doppelganger here in the US) said something similar. From the article:

        Ryan did not celebrate passage of the referendum, but reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to sustain the special relationship with Britain.

        “Our friends in the United Kingdom are our indispensable ally and this is a very special relationship and that relationship is going to continue no matter what. Period. End of story,” he said.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/24/cold-water-ryan-gives-tepid-response-to-uk-independence-day/

  50. From the article:

    Britain’s vote to leave the European Union trading bloc surprised global markets because investors underestimated how people around the world are diverging from the “political and business elites,” Allianz Chief Economic Adviser Mohamed El-Erian told CNBC Friday.
    In a “Squawk Box” interview, El-Erian called the Brexit vote “historic and consequential.”

    While levered long investments still need to unwind, leading to sharp market movements ahead, the former co-CEO of Pimco said, “There will also be opportunities for those who have cash in the days and weeks ahead.”

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/24/mohamed-el-erian-looks-at-why-brexit-blindsided-markets.html

  51. Poll suckers abound! From the article:

    Why is the market reacting in such an extreme manner? Because nobody saw this coming, and nobody knows what happens next.
    Essentially, the vote confirmed the worst fears of investors this year, namely that some type of unforeseen event would come along to derail an already fragile global economy. Never mind that it will take years for the British exit, or Brexit to play out: The unexpected development unwound what many on Wall Street called a “relief rally” this week predicated on the EU staying intact.

    The news that the process is about to begin was enough to rattle global markets, particularly considering that investors were following the lead of polls and prediction markets and figuring the decision to leave wouldn’t happen.

    “The reaction we’re seeing in markets today is far more exaggerated and far more pronounced because it was so unexpected,” Kristina Hooper, U.S. investment strategist at Allianz, told CNBC.

    Hooper said the firm conducted a survey of its institutional investors earlier this year and “what we found was event risk was one of the top risks they named for this year. I think this is a perfect example of that.”

    Hooper advised investors “to be opportunistic” and “not to panic.”

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/24/heres-the-real-reason-markets-are-freaking-out-this-morning.html

  52. Tony – at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the similarities between Cameron and our Speaker of the House are striking. They both are for open borders and globalization. It’s almost as if they were put into place by a common hand. I wonder what degree of control the elite politicians, financiers, and the ultra-rich have over who gets elected?

  53. deer meets headlights

  54. Congradulaitons Tonyb!

    A vote for freedom, liberty and national sovereignty and against the blight of neoliberalism.

  55. The biggest NO CONFIDENCE VOTE … EVAH!

  56. Whoa – Brexit by a solid margin. Pundits all wrong, betting markets all wrong (93% in favor of Remain by the time polls closed), financial markets all wrong. And this with the polls dead even, with _11% undecided_.
    In the end, it is very hard for people to understand any point of view besides their own.

  57. Now that the pound has been liberated many will realize that years of subsidizing expensive alternative energies — just to stick their thumb in the eye of America — perhaps wasn’t the smart investment choice and then… maybe question just how economically destructive Eurocommunism has been to the wealth that respect for individual liberty and free enterprise capitalism helped to bring about in the past.

    • Curious George

      EU leaders include Mr. Martin Schulz, a bookseller, Federica Mogherini, a specialist on Relationship between religion and politics in Islam (and weeping), and Jean-Claude Juncker, a lawyer who never practised law. Donald Trump does not look so bad, after all.

  58. If Britain decides to leave the EU on June 23 it will be because of anger over immigration. No issue is of greater concern to voters who are tempted to back Brexit than the right of Europeans to live and work in the UK. Many believe the bloc’s principle of free movement encourages people from the EU’s poorer nations to take their jobs, put pressure on public services and live off the welfare state. The Leave campaign’s call for Britain to “take back control” of its borders is, for these citizens, a powerful rallying cry.

    See — e.g., http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/123c9592-12bc-11e6-839f-2922947098f0.html#axzz4CVanIGIX

    How much does it cost to save a culture and how long can you wait before it’s too late– is it too late?

    • I notice nobody is calling for restrictions on capital flows. Money can hop across international borders in a micro second but people are stuck in their communities near their homes, families and jobs. Most people can only speak one or two languages but money can speak every language in every country. I find this all very entertaining.

      • I’m thinking an EUxit would be best for all countries in the EU. Sometimes it is instructive to consider the extremes, say Greece and Germany.

        Germany’s industry benefits by Greece’s membership in the EU because Greece’s problems pull down the value of the Euro, making Germany’s exports cheaper. Greece then has to rely on the EU, mostly Germany, for good will and money based on that good will. In the meantime, none of Greece’s problems get solved.

        If Germany were independent, it would suffer due to the, presumably, high value of the DM. It would have to make adjustments to its economy based on its own situation.

        If Greece were independent, it could make decisions based on its situation. Greece needs a reset and defaulting on its bonds would accomplish that. History has shown that the effects of such a move don’t last forever.

        The bondholders would lose. But the prevailing wisdom is that bond traders are the smartest people in the financial room, with stockholders playing second fiddle to them. Given that they are so smart, they shouldn’t have invested in Greek bonds in the first place, so they deserve to lose.

        The bottom line is that with independence, each country can make decisions based on its one economic and cultural situation. To me, this only makes good sense.

        JMO.

      • No reason to shaft the bondholders– run the printing presses and bail them out with fiat currency as has been done with tobacco, peanut and corn farmers, automobile unions, banks and buyers of bubble-priced homes, the alternative energy industry, the government education complex and probably… Puerto Rico.

  59. From the article:

    Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and his joint fundraising committee have raised at least $11 million since Tuesday morning, Republicans said Wednesday, a tremendously quick haul that comes amid concerns about his fundraising ability.

    Trump Victory, the joint fundraising account with the Republican National Committee, and Trump’s official campaign raised $5 million online since Tuesday morning, when it sent one of its first fundraising pitches to its email list, according to Sean Spicer, an RNC spokesman.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/donald-trump-11-million-since-tuesday/

    • Jim2 “The bottom line is that with independence, each country can make decisions based on its one economic and cultural situation. ”

      Yes, the wisdom of decentralization and local control. It should be a Law of Politics.

  60. In the meantime, other problems continue … from the article:

    In the back kitchen of Mountain View’s newest pizzeria, Marta works tirelessly, spreading marinara sauce on uncooked pies. She doesn’t complain, takes no breaks, and has never needed a sick day. She works for free.
    Marta is one of two robots working at Zume Pizza, a secretive food delivery startup trying to make a more profitable pizza through machines. It’s also created special delivery trucks that will finish cooking pizzas during the journey to hungry customers if approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. Right now Zume is only feeding people in Mountain View, California, but it has ambitions to dominate the $9.7 billion pizza delivery industry.
    “We are going to be the Amazon of food,” said Zume’s co-founder and executive chairman, Alex Garden. Garden, 41, is the former president of Zynga Studios. Before that, he was a general manager of Microsoft’s Xbox Live. Garden launched Zume in stealth mode last June, when he began quietly recruiting engineers under a pseudonym and building his patented trucks in an unmarked Mountain View garage. In September, he brought on Julia Collins, a 37-year-old restaurant veteran. She became chief executive officer and a co-founder. Collins was previously the vice president and CEO of Harlem Jazz Enterprises, the holding company for Minton’s, a historic Harlem eatery.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/inside-silicon-valley-s-robot-pizzeria

      • Three very important articles. No one is talking about it in political circles since they are at a loss for solutions.

        As noted in the first link something certainly did change in 2000. Between 1992 and 2000 Adjusted Gross Income rose by 73%. Between 2000 and 2008 AGI rose by 30%. Between 2008 and 2013, last IRS report, AGI rose by 10%.

        When the tax base rise is so anemic, any efforts to increase the top marginal tax rate is just spinning wheels. Despite the whining by the left that the good ol’ days could be captured again with top marginal rates of the 1950s, the additional taxes would be a pittance without growth of the AGI. Economic growth rather than confiscatory top marginal rates is the way to increase tax revenue.

      • Maybe they’ll just print more money.

    • Steven Mosher

      Here is what is funny.

      Liberals and Old school crony capitalists think they will solve labor problems by lax immigration.

      In the meantime technologists will solve the problem with robots.

      then the problem gets very gnarly..

      • Go into teaching.

        The projected inroads by robots into teaching was recently put at 1%.

        One of the biggest issues in education which no one has been able to get around is that it is still a largely labor intensive field. Can’t hook kids up to a machine and make them learn.

      • timg56 – take a gander at this:

        https://www.khanacademy.org/

        This could be leveraged so that teachers could help those who need it. Instead of forcing grade promotion, just let kids go as far as they can. At age 18, they move on.

      • then the problem gets very gnarly.

        Indeed. With nobody working, and getting paid, who’s going to buy all the stuff they make in their robotic factories?

        In a way, redistribution is inevitable: The capitalist plutocrats are going to have to tax themselves massively and find a way to transfer it to the consumers so they can buy their stuff.

        Can they find a way to do it without killing the goose that lays the golden egg?

        Stay tuned…

  61. I congratulate the British on their decision to restore national independence.

    Totalitarian multi-national governments are as dangerous as the totalitarian “consensus science” exposed by Climategate.

  62. Recent news reports from Nature & Science illustrate how the human ego has separated humanity from a Higher Power that periodically resets the stage of human civilization and social sanity (contact with reality) with another super-solar eruption (every ~1,000 years):

    http://sciencenordic.com/sun-can-emit-superflares-every-1000-years

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/could-earth-be-fried-superflare-sun

    Major religions and sciences agree a Higher Power than the combined inflated egos of politicans and scientists controls human destiny.

  63. I am getting sooo freaking tired of these lying politicians!!!

    Dutch prime minister Rutte this morning: “There is no interest in The Netherlands for a referendum about the EU.”

    Really?

    A Poll done on 20 June:
    – yes we want a referendum: 54%
    – no: 43 %

    If a referendum would be held, the Dutch would vote:
    – leave: 48%
    – remain: 43%

    Source http://opiniepanel.eenvandaag.nl/uitslagen/67763/meerderheid_voor_referendum_over_eu_lidmaatschap

  64. I know I haven’t popped in for a while, but I just wanted to stick my head up to say that I cannot ever remember being as proud of my fellow Britons as today. I really thought our instinct to defend democracy had died. I was wrong. I love my country, and I am so glad that when my children are adults, their votes will count – not for picking at the edges of a agenda selected for them – but for the big decisions, the ones that matter. For me, that was all that mattered.

  65. Hillary might as well pack her bags for Haiti right now. Maybe she’ll keep one step ahead of Trump and his DOJ and possibly the IRS

  66. So, England voted to quit the circle game. Hopefully, those who voted to continue the game of musical chairs will come to realize that there’s only so many chairs for everyone to dance around and that when the music stops and everyone dashes for a seat, many will be left standing and out of luck.

    That is when it stops being a game and becomes a matter of real life and death. Some of the folks already realize that each time the music starts again another 4 or 5 chairs are tossed and burned; and, among the dwindling population there are fewer and fewer productive people who are skilled and willing to make more chairs.

    All the while, there are all of these Eurocommie planners sitting high above it all. They’re oh so happy to continue playing the music that everyone else dances to and casting blame on everyone else whenever the music stops.

  67. David Wojick

    Untangling the flow of funds in the science area will be extremely complex.

  68. Here’s what the Brexit looks like on the S&P 500. Can you spot it? What differentiates it from other dips? (The pic may not work)

  69. June the 23rd is now the UK Independence Day. Sounds like a great time for a holiday.

    • Curious George

      A sign at a Berkshire Inn somewhere in CA on July 4th:

      CLOSED TODAY. MOURNING A LOSS OF A COLONY.

      h/t Herb Caen

  70. This is a great opportunity to buy stocks, if only I had the money. Maybe a loan? Hmmm

    • I’m not so sure. Markets around the world have been propped up by QE and extremely low interest rates. It’s not the economy stupid. Brexit may be a catalyst to pop the bubble. If so, the drop is far from over, but UK leaving the EU won’t be the cause for the bulk of the drop.

  71. Things are hotting up, as you Brits are wont to say. It’s a good thing.

    A senior EU leader has confirmed the bloc wants Britain out as soon as possible, warning that David Cameron’s decision to delay the start of Brexit negotiations until his successor is in place may not be fast enough.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/top-eu-leader-we-want-britain-out-as-soon-as-possible

    • What a mess. Boris only got into this because he thought there was a better deal to be had to stay in. Now he is cornered into negotiating the deal to get out instead. Probably not his first choice of things to do.

  72. From the article:

    An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html

  73. From the article:

    The globalist movement is on the run as the British people on Thursday voted to “Leave” the European Union.
    The vote to Brexit—a hard-fought campaign by nationalist populists in the United Kingdom—puts the world elite on their heels, as a similar but bigger and stronger such movement is brewing right here in the United States.

    Donald J. Trump, the presumptive 2016 GOP presidential nominee, has run a campaign so far—and since winning the nomination—focused squarely on the exact same issues that the Leave campaigners ran on in the United Kingdom.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/24/brexit-2-0-populist-movement-worldwide-catches-fire-donald-trump-takes-aim-globalist-hillary-clinton/

  74. Danny Thomas

    Brexit has apparently exited and Trump/Clinton is back in vogue.

    Sensing that:
    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

    Will be interesting to see how much ‘honesty’ matters.

    • Well, gee. It’s Politifact.
      Let’s see what they called false:
      Donald Trump wrongly claims there are many more part-time jobs because of health care law
      Why is it wrong: “No data.”
      http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/07/06/ap-admits-obamacare-likely-factor-increasing-part-time-employment

      There is “no system to vet” refugees from the Middle East.

      Well, the wait for refugees is 2 days in the US and 200 days in Germany.

      How much vetting gets done in 2 days?

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,
        Okay, you’ve defended two.

        How about this: “Trump’s statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/donald-trump/what-do-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-religion-lo/

        Can even Politifact be so blatantly wrong on so many? Or could it be that Trump (who’s known to fire from the hip, right?) might just be let’s call it ‘equally’ as ‘less than honest’ as Clinton?

        I mean, come on. 4% true and 77% mostly false or worse for Trump? Really?

        That’s vs. 23% true and 26% mostly false or worse on the Clinton Fact-o-meter.

        Have a go. There are 4 pages just under the False heading for Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

      • How about this: “Trump’s statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/donald-trump/what-do-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-religion-lo/

        Well, that depends on who you believe.

        If you google “Hillary illuminati witch” you get about 205 entries of what google considers unique results (with “similar pages”) eliminated.

        Hillary orchestrated the move of Vince Foster’s body (we know she orchestrated the move because she looted his office). We don’t know exactly what happened to Vince Foster because the X-rays are missing.or never taken (the doctor has told a number of different stories).

        Good Methodist wouldn’t have done that.

        We have Hillary’s email server where she tried to hide her communications from the White House. And all her actions related to it.

        Good Methodist wouldn’t have done that either.

        There is the $850,000 in campaign contributions Hillary now acknowledges receiving from convicted criminal Norman Hsu, that she is returning only because she got caught. The Clintons also have a history with foreign contributions.

        Good Methodist yada yada

        Then there is her infamous bible ban effort (she also went after yamakas).

        Good Methodist … and so forth.

        We won’t mine the open pit of Hillary history. But Hillary has more of a reputation for mendacity than honesty. The pardoning (by her husband) of the Puerto Rican terrorists to help her senate campaign is something that gets talked but I am still studying the facts.

        I really get torn on the issue of whether Hillary is trying to be a good methodist or not. I can argue both sides. The good she does looks like penitence for her normal behavior pattern. Hopefully that is a sign that she at least still gets pangs of conscience once in a while.

        I can understand Trumps confusion though about Hillary and religion.

        Many of Hillary’s “true” statements are these lawyerly crafted policy wonk statements that she sprinkles her speeches with, “The U.S. military footprint in Africa is nearly nonexistent.”. Somebody is just running up her “trues” for the fun of it.

        Lets look at another Trump falsy: “Says Hillary Clinton’s immigration platform would “create totally open borders.”
        Hillary is going to offer amnesty and do nothing about the border situation.

        About 10-15% of the population of Mexico has snuck under our southern border. Estimates average around 15 million and that is just the ones we haven’t amnestied. That would rank illegals as about the 70th largest country (Cambodia) on the planet or somewhere between Syria and Niger if we throw in the amnestied. Out of 246 countries and dependencies worldwide. Sounds pretty open to me.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        “Hillary is going to offer amnesty and do nothing about the border situation.”
        (What has she done, vs. what it’s suggested she will do?)

        See for yourself: (Senator from New York- vote: Yea) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262
        Secure Fence Act of 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

      • I thought everybody knew “Politifact” is a liberal/progressive megaphone.

        Any sort of “fact-checking” done on political speech (which is a complex mixture of rhetoric, sophistry, and often “out-there” metaphor) offers innumerable opportunities for biased interpretation.

        And “Politifact” does as much of that as they think they can get away with.

      • Danny Thomas

        How about we discuss the items and not the messenger (Politifact)?

        “”I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war (in Iraq), and yes, even before the war ever started.”
        Since you don’t care for Politifact: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/donald-trump-says-he-was-against-the-iraq-war-thats-not-how-i-remember-it/462804/

        “There is “no system to vet” refugees from the Middle East. ”

        http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works

        “Says Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”
        Hmm. Wonder what she actually says?
        (Sounds kinda like Trump here: “Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.”
        https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

        The question is about the (relative?) honesty of the candidates. So how about we be honest here w/r/t the discussion about their honesty?

        Going thru each and every item is going to take a while, but if we must…………..

      • But the messenger is what I wanted to discuss.

        But if you want to discuss some of Trump’s statements:

        “I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war (in Iraq), and yes, even before the war ever started.”

        So was I. Well before. I said it would be another Viet Nam, and the “proof” of nukes (which were the only “weapons of mass destruction” anybody was really talking about) was ludicrous.

        Could I prove it now? No, it was in a comment at a long-vanished web-site. (The articles are still available through the Wayback Machine, but the comments were dynamic and lost.)

        Does it matter? No. Nobody was listening to me then (or now, really).

        The article you link to has no evidence either way about what Trump was saying. He was a public figure, but he was a businessman, and would probably have been chary about making vocal opposition to the war before it happened.

        Not to mention, if I’d had his sort of money, I’d have been quietly using it to sell that war short, and you (well, not you, or me, but a public figure like Trump) can get in trouble for shorting something while vocally interfering with its progress.

        “There is “no system to vet” refugees from the Middle East. ”

        Maybe not technically true, but metaphorically. Whatever system there is, it’s effectively none. For a value of “effectively” that he and his audience shared.

        “Says Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

        She does. Maybe she as some weasil-worded technical defense, but she does, and everybody knows it.

        So how about we be honest here w/r/t the discussion about their honesty?

        If you want to consider their “honesty” you have to put it in context. We’re talking about a communication between him and his supporters, and potential supporters. Is there a meeting of minds? Is he deceiving them?

        One of Trump’s greatest advantages is that he’s paying no attention whatsoever to the MSM’s ability to twist his words against him. My guess is that he thinks (correctly, IMO) that every time the MSM accuses him of anything, no matter how bad, his target audience will assume the media made it up, or at least took something they’d probably agree with and twisted it into something they (MSM) could condemn.

        Everybody knows the MSM does this, and I expect his entire audience despises them and assumes anybody the MSM hates so much has got to be better than anybody they like.

        I certainly wouldn’t agree with that, there are all sorts the MSM would hate who would still be a very bad deal for the country. But the converse is certainly true (IMO): any candidate who stood head&shoulders above the scum the MSM supports would get equal treatment from them.

        Look at Sarah Palin. Yeah, a creationist, so ignorant of science she could make fun of a project to study bear DNA even while being an avid bear hunter herself (IIRC). But other than that, she would have made a fine PotUS, and thus a good vice president.

        And, after all, Obama’s “understanding” of science is even worse, as has been shown here many times. Not that that says much, considering the quality of his presidency.

      • Danny Thomas

        AK,

        So let’s just say this is a given: “And, after all, Obama’s “understanding” of science is even worse, as has been shown here many times. Not that that says much, considering the quality of his presidency.”

        Shouldn’t our goal be to improve the ‘quality’ of the next presidency? Or is the advocacy along the lines of let’s just go with what we have and we’ll deal with it next time around? Personally, that’s not something I’d look forward to.;

        But I get your points.

      • Shouldn’t our goal be to improve the ‘quality’ of the next presidency? Or is the advocacy along the lines of let’s just go with what we have and we’ll deal with it next time around?

        My point is that Creationism is a relatively harmless delusion, compared to many we’ve seen in the White House, and didn’t justify the treatment the MSM gave her.

        She was a reform candidate, (probably) honest and relatively unspoiled compared to McCain. She would have made a better president (assuming McCain left the office) than just about anybody else available, despite her delusion.

        So the MSM gave her the same sort of treatment they’re giving Trump.

      • http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/donald-trump/what-do-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-religion-lo/

        Further, the bible ban supports another of Trumps charges:
        At the gathering, Trump also made the broader claim that Clinton would not protect religious liberty.

        “We can’t be again politically correct and say we pray for all our leaders, because all of your leaders are selling Christianity down the tubes, selling evangelicals down the tubes,” he said.

        The bible ban would indicate that Clinton would only allow “Politically Correct” religious liberty. And not mentioning the burqa, the head rags and so forth while mentioning the yamaka and bible indicates she is selling Christians AND Jews down the river.

        That the left is trying to suppress Christian expression really isn’t open to debate, it is “settled science”. Trump’s failing is the word “all”. Some political leaders have offered token resistance to the suppression of Christianity. On the other hand the top leadership hasn’t done a lot to protect politically incorrect expression so Trumps statement is technically correct.

      • Danny Thomas | June 25, 2016 at 11:39 am |
        PA,

        “Hillary is going to offer amnesty and do nothing about the border situation.”
        (What has she done, vs. what it’s suggested she will do?)

        Huh? This actually rates pants on fire. You are using the time honored Hillary tactic of making technical correct policy wonk statements to distract from her true intentions.

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/hillary-clinton-illegal-immigration-undocumented-immigrants/index.html

        Hillary is not using the term “illegal immigrant”, calls for ‘path to full and equal citizenship, and has criticized Obama’s “strict deportation”. And that is in just the first two paragraphs.

        About the only way to get less strict on immigration than Obama is to send buses to Mexico to bring them here (which supports Trumps claims about Hillary).

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        As far as Hillary goes, it may even be a bit worse than suggested going forward. But in fact, she did indeed vote FOR implementation of a physical barrier. No mention of further security here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

        Per G. Bush: “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”

        From that same wiki:”Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border.[1] Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built.”

        And just like a ‘wall’: “Opponents of the bill argue that it is not an effective strategy to curb illegal immigration because the fence is not a continuous barrier and can be climbed over or dug under in some areas.” (Sounds familiar)

        And as a wrap up: “In short, Congress failed to continue to fund the project past the initial $1.2 billion procured, in order to finish building the fence.” (This was 2012, when Ms. Clinton had a different job).
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

        As we’re reminded frequently, it’s the job of congress to provide funding (or not). This cannot be laid at the feet of Clinton. Place blame for this where it belongs.

        Not sure why you wish to frame it other than what it is. I’m citing only what she has done, and not what she says on the campaign trail where I suggest that neither are being fully truthful. But here, we have actual evidence.

      • “There is “no system to vet” refugees from the Middle East. ”

        http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works

        Let’s see. The greatest gun murder spree and the greatest mass murder event in US history were committed by a group that is less than 1% of the US population. Further – members of that group claimed responsibility for both events based on group identity. The chance of that occurring randomly is small enough it can be excluded as an explanation.

        Trump would simply exclude further imports of that group until we have a better handle on whether it is a subgroup of that group or a random event that occurs in that group.

        The gunman was Islamatized in this country. If Islamatization is a random event that occurs in members of his group the claim we are “vetting” them is a sick joke. The only way to vet them would be to exclude all of them.

      • And as a wrap up: “In short, Congress failed to continue to fund the project past the initial $1.2 billion procured, in order to finish building the fence.” (This was 2012, when Ms. Clinton had a different job).
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

        You really don’t want to go there.

        A Democrat congress and a Democrat President refused to continue funding the fence. Just that simple. It is the Democrats fault that we don’t have a fence.

        https://organpipehistory.com/border/history-of-th-border-fence/
        Between 1993 and 2007, the cost of border enforcement has escalated by 590 percent and this figure does not include the cost of constructing the barriers themselves

        http://sweetness-light.com/archive/senate-votes-down-funding-of-border-fence
        Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision — slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote — that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.

        It is a lie to suggest that it is not the fault of the Democrats that the fence isn’t completed.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        Read harder (as some might say). (It’s a long response)

        “You really don’t want to go there.” You bet I do. The original bill was funded to $1.2B and 698 miles.

        “On January 23, 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border.[4] The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.[4]

        Then:”Then May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced his “Finish the Fence” amendment for the second time, which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.

        Which leads to “Four years ago, legislation to build 700-miles of double-layer border fence along the Southern border was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama and signed into law by President Bush. Yet, only a fraction of that fencing is in place today.” Jim DeMint.

        Then: “Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas.” (Please make note of the Capital R before the word Texas).

        Search “Images of the border fence” and you’ll find miles and miles of a physical barrier. I read that near 650 miles is in place with virtual fence in between. Rick Perry, Gov. of Texas, DID NOT support the fence.
        (Search, Mexico-US border)
        Looking further: “The Republican Party’s 2012 platform highlighted the fact that the rest of the double fencing was never built and stated that “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.” Now, in 2012 congress was a Democratic Senate and Republican House.

        Which leads to a bipartisan effort in 2013 in shorthand called ‘the gang of 8″ But more correctly it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
        (Republican congress all the way since then)

        This immigration issue has been a talking point but little done. The immigration has grown since the 1970’s. NO ADMINISTRATION, AND NO CONGRESS has addressed it fully in all that time. You may wish to lay blame at the democrats feet. I lay blame at both parties which is exactly where it belongs.

        If you choose, you can google the quotes. Waaaay too many links and I kinda expect you won’t be receptive any way.

      • Danny Thomas | June 25, 2016 at 9:35 pm |
        PA,

        Read harder (as some might say). (It’s a long response)

        “You really don’t want to go there.” You bet I do. The original bill was funded to $1.2B and 698 miles.

        “On January 23, 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border.[4] The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.[4]

        You do know I live in artillery range of the DC border don’t you?

        2004 Congress: Republican 229 seats Democrats 204 seats
        2006 Congress: Republican 202 seats Democrats 233 seats
        2008 Congress: Republican 178 seats Democrats 257 seats

        That explains the first part of your post entirely.

        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-clinton-back-border-fence-law
        In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

        They both argued that we should build an air fence (virtual fence). I’ve been shot dead by virtual soldiers perhaps hundreds of times and I lose some weapons and ammo (unless I did a recent save) but other than that doesn’t affect me much.

        By 2008 hispanderization (pander to the Mexicans) had become entrenched as Democrat Party doctrine. A current headline:

        http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democrats-race-to-pander-to-hispanics/
        Democrats Race to Pander to Hispanics

        The second part of your post wanders off the reservation. The issue isn’t legal immigration where we can screen and choose to let in those that will benefit this country, but illegal immigration.

        As a president Barack Obama has effectively been an “anti-immigration” president. He has savagely attacked the US economy and this in turn has reduced illegal immigration.

        The 2013 bill has some attractive features. However the Republicans based on bitter experience with the Democrats were probably suspicious that the amnesty provisions would be enforced and the fence and enforcement provisions ultimately blocked in some way, or that Obama would simply ignore them and do what he wants anyway.

        The basic premise of the open borders people is a lie. We have at least 100 times more miles of sound barrier fencing than the border fence and construction cost is similar. Stopping illegals, criminals, and terrorists is more important than stopping a little noise.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        “Stopping illegals, criminals, and terrorists is more important than stopping a little noise.” Agreed.

        All while: “The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. has stabilized in recent years after decades of rapid growth. But there have been shifts in the states where unauthorized immigrants live and the countries where they were born.”

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

        In summary of above. The Obama administration has removed more illegals all while the number of unauthorized immigrants has leveled off (or even reduced a tad).

        You are aware I’m from a border state.

    • Your choice of “fact checking” web sites speaks volumes about you, Danny boy.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        Hm. So not being able to address the content one’s choice is to tar the poster? And in addition, the modifier ‘boy’ is used in an attempt to belittle?

        Did I not suggest at least an equal (even though detailed evidence indicates otherwise) portrayal of two politicians on the stump as being a bit less than honest and over the top?

        Content, Jim. Content.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, it looks pretty biased to me. For instance Clinton did leave out the trade treaty chapter in the paperback version of her book on the trade agreement so I’m not sure what comments they are saying are still there or where there is. You could also argue that Clinton cited her religious beliefs when she said marriage was between a man and a woman and she no longer supports that point of view. I don’t think her religion has changed their mind on that so do we really know what her religion is? Personally I don’t care but considering the slack they give Clinton an equal amount of slack should be given Trump. Clinton on the other hand says she gave up all her emails but didn’t get a pants on fire rating despite the fact that she didn’t say she had given up all her emails +/- 30,000. I saw some others I could dispute the ratings on but it seems like a waste of time to me once I decided they were biased.

      • Danny Thomas

        Steve,
        Thank you.

        I’m not defending Clinton. There is sufficient evidence (IMO) to support a case that she has been less than honest.

        The point I’m trying to make is that by disparaging only the one candidate here while giving a pass (and maybe a halo) to the other at the same time is………well……biased. And not rooted in the evidence. We all come here and debate ‘the evidence’ and except for this political discussion for a good part that is done responsibly (again, IMO).

        ‘We, the people’ can stoop to the same level as our candidates or we can rise above the fray and at least be honest with each other. Or not.

        After all, they are both ‘political candidates’ and subject to the same kinds of dishonest rhetoric. Neither can honestly be characterized as ‘honest’ unless we’re engaging in an attempt to fool ourselves or others.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, as long as you don’t take the ratings of your source seriously that’s fine. My opinion on the situation is much simpler. Clinton has almost certainly committed multiple felonies and probably isn’t even eligible for the office. Trump is haphazard in what he says, changes his mind often, rewrites history on a whim, but as far as I know isn’t likely to have committed felonies so is still eligible despite his faults.

      • Danny Thomas

        Steve,

        Thanks. I don’t take much of the rhetoric, the media coverage, the venom, nor the foaming at the mouth which some choose to put forth all that seriously. But ya gotta admit the theatre is kinda entertaining.

        I do look to the candidates for their policies and plans and filter that as best I can. I was actually even >50% on the Isidewith site for Trump. Just prefer not to have to hold my nose when I enter my decision, but it looks like that’ll be the case again this time. Either that, or I’ll do a write in which I know will wind up as of little value in the end.

      • Personally I don’t care but considering the slack they give Clinton an equal amount of slack should be given Trump.

        Hillary has certainly been given enough rope to hang herself, unfortunately no one has tied the other end to something solid.

    • Curious George

      “Will be interesting to see how much ‘honesty’ matters.” I don’t see any honesty anywhere.

      • Well, the problem is liberal/progressives view “intolerance” toward whatever group they are currently promoting is a greater sin than dishonesty. In fact they don’t view dishonesty, particularly in the cause of a greater good, as even a sin.

        Conservatives tend to view lying as a sin and try not to do it.

        This drives political discussions rapidly into the realm of fantasy.

        Mechanisms like Politifact were cooked up to provide cover and demonstrate on some level that liberal/progressives don’t lie all the time.

        Without honesty in public discourse, it becomes an argument and whoever shouts the loudest wins.

        The global warming debate with its liberal/progressive vs conservative split is emblematic of the problem.

      • Danny Thomas

        CG,
        Thank you. Exactly my point. Some wish to lambast one while anointing the other. No clean hands, IMO.

        Thank you for an honest answer.

    • It sounds like he was promoting his golf course and got ambushed.

      Interesting factoid from the link: Hillary has a staff of 900, he has a staff of 73. If he can cut the government bureaucracy by a similar 90+% he will go down as the best president in US history.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Interesting factoid from the link: Hillary has a staff of 900, he has a staff of 73. If he can cut the government bureaucracy by a similar 90+% he will go down as the best president in US history.”

        Alternative synopsis. He’s underfunded, underprepared, and folks don’t desire to work for him. And indications (based on actions) are the the ‘national debt’ will begin soaring.

        http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f873962acf334563a1ec585cab0766c4/need-help-trump-finds-few-willing-work-him

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-steps-up-wall-street-fundraising-efforts-1466724320

        http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/22/every-bank-wall-street-owns-donald-trump/#

        Just a game of word twister.

      • That viewpoint is absurd.

        Trump had to get 1,237 delegates. He earned 1,447.

        Hillary had to get 2,383, she only earned 2,220 and will need some superdelegates to take pity on her to win the nomination.

        Trump has roughly twice the delegates of the other candidates combined.

        Hillary only has 21% more delegates than Sanders and he theoretically could still be the party nominee.

        Hillary spent 363% more than Trump to fail to get the job done. Hillary was the largest primary spender. Trump was #4 and a distant #4. He only spent $300,000 more than Carson. He could have easily been the 5th highest spender.

        Hillary is an obvious product of the type of thinking that gives us the bloated government bureaucracy.

      • Danny Thomas

        Absurdity was the intended result. But in presenting the alternative (possible) scenario showed indications of Trump’s willingness to go back on his pledge to self fund by bowing to the very funding sources which he pummeled Clinton for doing (Wall Street types). Plus his challenges with staffing due to alienation. And finally his propensity for leaving a wake of financial havoc in his personal dealings (I guess these could be described as a ‘great deal’ however).

        I agree that the tally you’ve shown indicates Clinton’s lack of fear of spending “Other People’s Money”. But at the same time analysis of the debris field following Trumps choices shows: Going back on a pledge. Willingness to not repay debt. And alienation. These are reflections of actual behaviors. In the real world, these character traits are less than impressive.

        Trump’s halo seems to keep slipping no matter how often folks here attempt to put it back in place.

      • Trump has a high efficacy as measured by the delegate/unit staff metric.

      • This debate over self-funding of the Trump campaign is just funny.

        Trump was able to self finance until he became the presumptive nominee. He is a victim of his own success. If he had failed he would have been able to entirely self-finance.

        He mostly self-financed presumably because he could make more money on his day job than he could fund raising. When you can earn more than you can fund-raise, fund-raising isn’t an effective use of your time.

        After the convention he is going to have to more or less full time campaign and will have to put his day job on hold. Hence a need for contributions.

        Unlike professional politicians, he has a useful skill set, a career, and a day job. Professional politicians don’t have anything better to do with their time than campaign. They aren’t useful for anything else which is scary. Professional politicians that lose tend to hang around Washington and find some new way to leech off the public. The exceptions are people like Frist. The exceptions tend to do as the founding fathers intended, serve a few terms and leave. The founding fathers never envisioned professional politicians and if they had the constitution would have had term limits.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,
        “This debate over self-funding of the Trump campaign is just funny.”

        It wasn’t me who touted the ability to ‘self fund’ nor the benefits of doing so (not being ‘beholding’ to monied interests). It was Trump, and his supporters (silent on that point now).

        In addition, his modification of that stance which I agree makes sense due to current circumstances is prudent. But the implication is that he now therefore must be beholding.

        And it’s hypocritical for Trump to berate another while doing the same.

        Call it like it is in addition to it’s entertainment value.

      • Danny Thomas

        “It sounds like he was promoting his golf course and got ambushed.”

        Ambushed? Multitasking is a positive and necessary trait for a president, wouldn’t one say?

        Sure hope that if he gets in to office no one would dare to ‘surprise’ him.

      • Danny Thomas | June 26, 2016 at 12:34 pm |
        “It sounds like he was promoting his golf course and got ambushed.”

        Ambushed? Multitasking is a positive and necessary trait for a president, wouldn’t one say?

        Trump does real work and has a real job.

        Not like Hillary Clinton who has nothing better to do than think about politics and polish her speeches. Hillary is the one that doesn’t multitask. She has single-mindedly schemed to be president for over 16 years. That alone should disqualify her for the job.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,
        From the camp of Trump can do no wrong, eh? Chief Trumpeeter?

        So what you’re suggesting that the presidency, for which Trump is auditioning, is not ‘a real job’? Then, while one is performing ‘a real job’ and being ‘ambushed’ while doing so leaves one sprattling for words. If he can’t handle a few Brexit questions while promoting his golf excursions do you expect a better performance under real pressure?

        The tangent of Clinton is a poor attempt at distraction from the discussion.

        Maybe being downwind of the Capitol is having negative effect?

      • He isn’t actually even the nominee at this point.

        If he was actually running in the general election we would expect better.

        When he is selected as the candidate at the convention at that point one would expect him to take this a little more seriously.

        At this point it is still the beauty contest phase and he wins over Hillary hands down.

      • Danny Thomas

        “If he was actually running in the general election we would expect better.”

        Guess I’m just a bit more skeptical than you.

      • 73 people is barely enough to schedule and organize his campaign stops.

        Hillary has CM+ campaign workers to research and polish the material she spews.

        That wasn’t necessary for Trump to win the primary so he saved resources and kept his powder dry.

        After the convention he will have more workers and up his game.

        You do know that overspending on a campaign indicates fiscal irresponsibility?

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,
        “After the convention he will have more workers and up his game.

        You do know that overspending on a campaign indicates fiscal irresponsibility?”

        Sounds like you’re suggesting he’ll recognize that the goal of ‘cutting bureaucracy’ by 90% is unlikely. This in conjunction with increasing staffing reduces the likelyhood of ‘being the best president in U.S. history’, huh? (Sorry, had to say it)

      • Sounds like you’re suggesting he’ll recognize that the goal of ‘cutting bureaucracy’ by 90% is unlikely.

        Well, that isn’t a goal of his – I was pointing out that he doesn’t believe in having unnecessary staff given the way he runs his campaign.

        Anyone who doesn’t know there is a a lot of bureaucratic fat to cut, lives too far from Washington.

        No one seriously believes that Hillary won’t increase bureaucratic bloat.

        No one seriously believes that Trump will.

        Trump’s staff size is 8.1% of the size of Hillary’s staff. This is one case where having a bigger staff is a negative and nothing to brag about.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Trump’s staff size is 8.1% of the size of Hillary’s staff. This is one case where having a bigger staff is a negative and nothing to brag about.”
        We’ll maybe Trump’s is just getting ramped up and as you suggested Hillary has been excited about her plan for 16 years. Could be an explanation for the current comparison. We’ll have to see how it compares in the coming months. Plus Trump will apparently using the RNC for additional stimulation of his campaign as he can’t quite seem to get it up and running himself. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/donald-trump-rnc-joint-fundraising-deal/

      • Trump has made up for his meager staff and money in media attention. He is masterful at getting press. It would be difficult to estimate the value in dollars his media exposure is worth, but it’s a lot.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        “It would be difficult to estimate the value in dollars his media exposure is worth, but it’s a lot.” Multi-millions, I’m sure. But still won’t make up for what’s needed for the balance of the campaign. RNC feels the need to step up and assist.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-trump-needs-to-close-cash-deficit-fast/2016/06/26/6ac8948a-3ba8-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html

  75. From the article:

    In a segment that was billed as CNN’s “fact check” of Donald Trump’s anti-Hillary speech, CNN gave a demonstrably false presentation of U.S. immigration policy in an effort to undermine Trump’s factually correct statements.
    The segment was remarkable in that it not only revealed CNN’s profound ignorance of federal immigration policy, but an examination of the segment’s transcript also reveals that CNN ignored and blatantly distorted what Trump had actually said.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/23/cnns-tom-foreman-caught-lying-in-trump-refugees-fact-check/

  76. From the article:

    Trump Challenges Clinton to 3 Debates: “My Whole Life Has Been In Preparation”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/23/trump_challenges_clinton_to_3_debates_my_whole_life_has_been_in_preparation_frankly.html

    • Commentary below the cartoon. ‘Experts predict the decision
      to leave the EU will leave Britain poorer.’

      Experts failed to predict Brexit and instead put their money
      on the wrong horse. Philip Tetlock found in his vast survey
      of ‘expert’ predictions of political and economic events, that
      expert performance was little better than ours. But that won’t
      stop them keeping on keeping on ….
      http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html

      • Oops, duplication of same comment. ). Case of non-expert
        minds noting the same irony.

      • Experts and “Empty Suits”

        But we act as though we are able to predict historical events, or, even worse, as if we are able to change the course of history.

        We produce thirty-year projections of social security deficits and oil prices without realizing that we cannot even predict these for next summer — our cumulative prediction errors for political and economic events are so monstorus that every time I look at the empirical record I have to pinch myself to verify that I am not dreaming. What is surprising is not the magnitude of our forecast errors, but our absense of awareness of it….

        Our inability to predict…, coupled with a general lack of the awareness of this state of affairs, means that certain professionals, while believing they are experts, are in fact not.

        Based on their empirical record, they do not know more about their subject matter than the general population, but they are much better at narrating — or, worse, at smoking you with complicated mathematical models. They are also more likely to wear a tie.

        — NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB, The Black Swan

  77. From the HuffPo’s patronising explication of the cartoon (because we might not know what a cliff or a silly walk is):

    “Perhaps we should laugh while we can. Experts predict the decision to leave the EU will leave Britain poorer, take a heavy toll on British charities and strain the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the United States. And that’s just the start of it.”

    So stay in the Fourth Reich or it’s back to chimney-sweeping and 1812 for you Brits! (It’s worse than they thought and that’s just the start of it…but us rednecks, bitter clingers, skeps and Brexiters never consider “folks” and “kids”. Just ask Bomber Barry about how mean we are to “folks” and “kids”.)

    I’m thinking that the author of the HuffPo piece is also a flaming warmie. Now, don’t ask me to prove it. I just know. I’m an expert. In fact, he’s worse than we thought…and that’s just the start of it.

    • Mosomoso

      Its not often that I take notice of a headline in the Daily Mail, but this summed up the mood of ‘leavers’ who have just delivered the largest single democratic endorsement in British History;

      ‘It was the day the quiet people of Britain rose up against an arrogant out of touch political class and a contemptuous Brussels elite.’

      For the first time in his life my son is living in a free country that can determine its own future. He appreciates this. You would think students -traditionally upholders of democracy- would be grateful for this exciting new freedom. but the vast majority voted to remain in a profoundly undemocratic institution whose main purpose seems to be used as a gold plated trough to satisfy the feeding frenzy of failed politicians and the metropolitan elite as a reward for doing whatever they are supposed to have been doing.

      Instead of embracing the democratic mandate however, Universities are busily erecting safe spaces where views other than their own are banned. Whither democracy?

      Today I will buy The Guardian for the first time in my adult life to read their gnashing and wailing..

      Whilst I dislike Trump a vote for him would have the same effect as Brexit in clearing out the political, business and financial elite who are contemptuous of the ordinary person and seem to live in a well insulted bubble

      tonyb.

      • Sic semper tyrannis.

      • TonyB,

        I am really glad to hear you feel that way. I was reluctant to post much because I thought I might offend some people. You’ve encouraged me. There are excellent letters and opinion pieces in today’s Australian. Unfortunately they are behind a paywall. So, I’ll post one article by Greg Sheridan below.

      • I was once taught that we all will get, what we pay for.

        “You would think students -traditionally upholders of democracy- would be grateful for this exciting new freedom. but the vast majority voted to remain in a profoundly undemocratic institution whose main purpose seems to be used as a gold plated trough to satisfy the feeding frenzy of failed politicians and the metropolitan elite as a reward for doing whatever they are supposed to have been doing.”

        The old John Birch Society, said clearly that there was a game afoot in our universities and now it turns out that those stupid people may have been left after all. Educate our children for us and all we have to do now is pay.

      • Whilst I dislike Trump a vote for him would have the same effect as Brexit in clearing out the political, business and financial elite who are contemptuous of the ordinary person and seem to live in a well insulted bubble

        Maybe it’s just me, but some might fail to see the equivalence between an orderly exit from the EU and the election of a feces-hurling ape to the presidency.

      • Maybe it’s just me, but some might fail to see the equivalence between an orderly exit from the EU and the election of a feces-hurling ape to the presidency.

        1.       Let’s wait a few years before deciding that the “exit from the EU” was “orderly”. (There might even be a war.)

        2.       If you want “feces-hurling ape[s]”, look no farther than the American MSM. For that matter, it seems very likely to me that their “feces-hurling” played a major part in his popularity.

  78. I hope the US elects a very strong President, not a gutless, pacifist. Thge world needs a strong US President to send a clear message to Puttin, China and North Korea. This in today’s Australian is scary.

    Putin’s New Cold War http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/vladimir-putins-new-cold-war-spooked-nato-on-the-offensive/news-story/332a2ca392669633b5f5d356ffabf4ca

    • Peter

      The Brexit article from the Australian you posted earlier was behind a paywall but by typing in;

      ‘Britannia rules again as the bulldog bites’

      it can be readily accessed. Good article.

      tonyb

  79. Brexit: Britannia rules again as the bulldog bites
    THE AUSTRALIAN
    JUNE 25, 2016
    Greg Sheridan
    Foreign Editor

    The magnificent British Bulldog people stood defiant once more. They were told what to do by their Prime Minister, David Cameron, who tried to scare them to death by predicting Armageddon if they voted to leave the European Union.

    It was clear that if they rejected the EU, they were rejecting Cameron. And that’s what they did. Thirty-three million of them voted and their decision was clear.

    The leaders of every major political party in Britain — Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist, Green — all these party leaderships and more campaigned for a vote to Remain. The only parties that formally endorsed Leave were the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Democratic Unionists in Ulster.

    Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel weighed in to support Cameron, as did many European national leaders. In what may have been the most foolish and counterproductive foreign intervention in his presidency (though there are plenty of competitors), Barack Obama threatened the British with trade banishment. The British chattering classes themselves overwhelmingly backed the Remain case.

    But it seems the British people don’t respond well to being bullied.

    Pause for a moment and consider the magnitude of their magnificent democratic achievement. They have thrashed this issue through for years, for decades. No one could possibly say the British weren’t exposed to the Remain case. They have been members of the EU for 43 years. They are a conservative electorate in that they rarely embrace anything radical.

    And yet the result was stunning. The turnout was 72 per cent, six per cent higher than the general election turnout last year and higher than any national vote since the early 1990s.

    The British lion roared. By the decisive margin of 52 per cent to 48 per cent, Britain ignored the threats, defied the instructions, refused to do as they were told and politely but resolutely, in the midst of pouring rain, voted in historic numbers to leave the EU forever.

    Certainly, there are deep divisions in Britain over this and the nation’s leadership needs to address national reconciliation. Above all, no one should question the legitimacy of the mandate to leave.

    Scotland voted by more than 60 to 40 to remain. London voted to remain. Northern Ireland, quite narrowly in the end, and not in a huge turnout, also voted to remain. But all the rest of England and, importantly, Wales voted with absolute clarity to leave.

    Younger people were more inclined to remain, older voters to leave. Throughout the Labour heartland in the north, the margins for leave were enormous. Most of the central populations of the biggest cities voted narrowly to remain, but the suburbs were big for leave. But Britain’s second biggest city, Birmingham, voted to leave.

    Politically, the first casualty was David Cameron, who gambled once too often. In the end both the Leavers and the Remainers had something like contempt for him. The Remainers felt he betrayed his promise to get real change from the EU or himself lead the push for Leave. They also detested the hysterical and dangerous fear campaign he waged.

    But the Leave campaign holds him in equal disdain. If he truly thought leaving the EU was so inherently catastrophic why did he ever put it on the national agenda? Cameron’s serial miscalculations had a kind of grandeur about them. This was stupidity on a historic scale.

    But the political questions long term are just as perplexing for Labour. Its voters defied its leaders throughout the country.

    The Conservatives may have met the UKIP challenge by achieving Brexit, and now surely they will have a Brexit Prime Minister, but UKIP always posed as big a challenge to Labour as it did to the Conservative Party. It could now eat Labour’s vote in the north in the way the SNP did in Scotland.

    Hardly a handful of Labour MPs backed Brexit. Never has the gap between working-class people and their new political class representatives looked so vast.

    The markets reacted with volatility. The value of the pound plunged. So did British stocks. So did many Asian stocks, including Australia’s. It all looks alarming,

    But there is no fundamental economic reason for this to happen. It is a result, mainly, of Cameron’s extreme fear campaign.

    In trying to scare the pants off British voters about what would happen in the event of a leave vote, Cameron, and his equally demagogic Chancellor, George Osbourne, certainly scared the pants off the markets. If the Prime Minister tells the world the economy will blow up if the people vote to leave, then markets react accordingly. More than anyone else, more certainly than the British voters, Cameron has contributed to bringing about the market reaction to the Brexit vote. The sheer, gruesome irresponsibility of the way Cameron and Osbourne conducted the remain campaign will be an enduring black mark against whatever historical record Cameron has.

    Of course, markets are always skittish. Several other factors have contributed to this market overreaction on the first day. One is that the bookmakers got the result wrong and an absurd faith had been put in the sagacity of the bookmakers.

    And two, the markets themselves got the result wrong, although in due course it will be fascinating to see what currency trades the giant hedge funds engaged in during the days leading up to the vote.

    And finally, ever since the global financial crisis of 2008, the world has been worried that it doesn’t totally understand what triggers a crisis in global markets. Therefore any abrupt change, and certainly one on the scale of Brexit, will set markets off.

    But it is overwhelmingly likely that the markets will settle down in short order. Certainly this was the message of Treasurer Scott Morrison. Britain, he pointed out, has its own currency, its own Central Bank. There will be no change in financial or banking regulations. And the actual machinery of Britain leaving the EU will take at least two years.

    Morrison took extensive advice from the Reserve Bank, Treasury and other economic agencies. The strong consensus is that the consequences of Brexit for Australia will be quite limited.
    M
    orrison spoke well and responsibly. Every responsible national leader in the world now should be trying to calm markets and project stability. Much as many national leaders didn’t like Brexit, their nations all now have an overwhelming interest in making it work well and stably.

    This will be especially hard for Cameron himself, for the time he remains as PM. He tried to bolster his case by defaming his country. He tried to make Remain strong by painting Britain as weak. He insulted people who might vote Leave, and that turns out to be a majority of his countrymen.

    International leaders, including Australian leaders, must equally accept the legitimacy and integrity of this vote. They need to calm any markets that listen to them. And they need to look forward.

    Again, Morrison got this right when he said the decision offered Australia opportunities as well as a period of market volatility. He foreshadowed that Britain itself might soon want to start special trade negotiations with Australia.

    The Brexit leader, Boris Johnson, has identified Australia as the first nation Britain would like to do a trade deal with. All foolish and temporary politics aside, there is likely to be a real strategic opportunity for Australia here.

    It is also important not to misinterpret this result politically. Britain did not vote against the world. Johnson and the other Leave leader, Justice Secretary Michael Gove, and indeed the Spectator magazine all rejoiced in the slogan: out of Europe and into the world.

    Britain’s historical attitude to the EU is actually much more consistent than it seems. Britain joined the European Economic Community, which later became the EU, in 1973. It ratified this decision in a referendum in 1975. At that time, the EEC stood for a free market and liberalisation.

    Britain in that period was sinking in the failure of socialism. As such it was, not surprisingly, the far Left, especially Tony Benn, who led the campaign to leave the EEC. The issue that later became such a negative for the British, the free movement of people throughout the European Union area, was a small issue, indeed, when it involved six small West European nations which were all close by to each other and had roughly the same standard of living and did not, incidentally, experience vast flows of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

    Britain’s economic revival took place under Margaret Thatcher and her pursuit of unilateral policies of liberalisation and opening up markets.

    At that time, European regulation was light. But during the 1980s and 90s, and especially under the statist leadership of Jacques Delors, the French politician who was for a time president of the European Commission, the EU changed fundamentally.

    The grievous breach between the political and economic culture of Britain, on the one hand, and the EU on the other, opened up. The EU became extremely ambitious in its regulation. Much that Thatcher did would probably have been impossible under the later straitjacket the EU imposed on its members’ policies.

    Delors himself became a hero of the anti-Thatcher movement and had a triumphal appearance at the British Trade Union Congress. The momentum of European integration continued for a long time. Europe lived on the moral capital of its liberal, free market past.
    T
    he sense of international engagement which the term Europe had once conveyed became instead over time a sense of disenfranchisement, undemocratic diktats from Brussels, and a regulatory regime that was the opposite of liberalism. It was only by the greatest good fortune that Gordon Brown was able to stop Tony Blair from taking Britain into the disastrous euro common currency.

    The British were serious about their membership of the EU and their commitment to it. It took years, decades, of nearly insane EU policy, years of international crises wholly manufactured by the EU, namely the euro crisis and the ridiculous failure to secure external borders while insisting on absolute freedom across internal borders, to produce this final British revolt.

    But the British people, while patient, are not fools, and they are not cowards.

    Their actions now show the utter folly and unreality of the EU leadership in Brussels. These people refused to offer any serious concessions to Cameron as he tried to negotiate more reasonable terms for British membership. Indeed, so far the EU leadership has shown itself utterly resistant to meaningful reform.

    The EU itself now confronts a profound existential crisis. It is going to lose its most successful and dynamic member. Its population base will shrink suddenly. The EU could have kept Britain with only modest changes concerning the free movement of people inside the EU.

    Instead there are opinion poll results in Denmark and The Netherlands which show majorities in those countries now favour leaving the EU themselves. By their pig-headed obstinacy and refusal to compromise, the EU leadership has given the greatest boost possible to eruoscepticism all over the continent.

    So here comes Nexit, Dexit, a return perhaps to Grexit, and next year Marine Le Pen will offer a radical rejection of the EU to French voters.

    It is a tremendous tribute to Britain that it has dealt with all these issues patiently, peacefully and in the end decisively.

    But the contradictions at the heart of the EU project are now surely unsustainable. The currency union of the euro zone implies ultimately a fiscal union, and no fiscal union can logically exist without political union. In other words, the EU is committed to its death spiral of a super state and lacks the imagination to conceive of a different way.

    The only policy makers in the world who have an interest in the British exit being as painful as possible are the gnomes of Brussels.

    If they really believed in liberalism and democracy they would respect the British choice and try to show that they can work with diverse neighbours. But the EU is really all about power. The EU has always hated referendums, hated anything which smacks of real consultation with voters.

    For all that, Britain is not leaving Europe, it is leaving the EU.

    This is a seismic moment in global history, but it is wrong to present it as a negative or destructive moment.

    It is instead one of the few seismic moments in history generated entirely by a democratic movement and an exercise of the ballot box.

    It is not a blow to the international project. Still less is it a blow to the ideal of liberalism. It is a blow instead to the fatally flawed, anachronistic, statist model of the EU.

    There is something entirely magnificent about this.

    It is all too easy to misinterpret popular movements. When the Tea Party first became active in the US Republican Party its highest priority was getting the federal budget deficit under control, making America live within its means. The absolute failure of the Tea Party, not least because it had such poor leaders, resulted in the mutation of this decent sentiment into the many indecencies of Donald Trump.

    Cameron and the British establishment tried to override the countless sound objections the British people had to the way the EU operated. Cameron’s only real saving grace before history will be that by submitting the issue to a referendum he let democracy have its head.

    The bulldog bit.

  80. ]repost on intended thread]

    You little beauty :)

    A vote for Brexit in tomorrow’s UK referendum on EU membership (23 June) would mean that the COP21 agreement would have to be rewritten, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said today (22 June) in Brussels.

    continue …
    http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/un-boss-brexit-would-mean-rewriting-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/?nl_ref=15561958

  81. From https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601776/brexit-brings-chaos-to-europes-clean-energy-goals/

    “U.K. voters’ decision to exit the European Union sent shock waves through world markets today, including the energy sector. The consensus from policymakers, clean-energy advocates, and analysts was that while “Brexit” will not completely derail the EU’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris climate accord, it will certainly throw a spanner in the works.

    Under Prime Minister David Cameron and his predecessors, Britain has been a leader on energy policy and support for renewable energy. Several features of EU-wide energy policy in the last decade—including breaking up power monopolies that controlled generation, transmission, and distribution—have been modeled in part on U.K. legislation.

    More recently, though, the U.K. government has retreated from its support of clean energy, with severe cuts in subsidies for both rooftop and large-scale solar installations. A report released earlier this year by the U.K. Renewable Energy Association found that “repeated policy interventions of the Government are harming the UK’s position as a global leader, slowing growth rates, and are increasing the likelihood that legally binding 2020 renewable energy targets … will not be achieved.” Freed from its obligations under EU treaties and agreements, a new U.K. government could continue that about-face. The country’s renewable-energy targets for 2020 were in doubt even before Thursday’s vote, many believe, and departing the EU could make them unreachable.”

    contiue reading … https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601776/brexit-brings-chaos-to-europes-clean-energy-goals/

    Perhaps GB can now break its contract with France to buy the super-costly EPR reactors for Hinkley C and buy Korean APR1400 (like UAE is buying) or the US AP1000 instead.

    • When it comes to energy issues, Cameron is as much out to lunch as Clinton is with her vow to ban fracking in the United States.

      What is most striking about both Clinton and Cameron is their remoteness from reality. They’re both space cadets, living in their Alice-in-Wonderland world that has no connection to planet Earth, the planet that real flesh and blood human beings must live on.

  82. VIDEO • Trump on Brexit: America is next
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/us-election-brexit-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

    British voters just shattered political convention in a stunning repudiation of the ruling establishment. Donald Trump is betting America is about to do the same.

    “Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first,” he said. “They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people.”

    Indeed, British voters delivered the kind of crushing rejection of the political, business and media elites that Trump has been railing against.

    The Brits also snubbed President Barack Obama’s warnings against voting to leave Europe….

    In her first reaction to the news from Britain, Clinton immediately took a swipe at Trump, though not by name. She called for Americans to respond to the vote by pulling together “to solve our challenges as a country, not tear each other down.”

    Clinton also noted the global economic risks of the UK referendum, saying in a statement: “Our first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America.”

    Income inequality in the UK’s dysfunctional economy has surged even more than it has in the US’s sick economy, to a point to where it is slightly greater than it is in the US’s. And it started at a lower starting point. (So much for those “working families” that lying Hillary feigns such concern for.)

    So the net change has been even greater in the UK than in the United States. The anger at the establishment in the UK is palpable.

    Can Clinton Inc and the global elite it works for convince the helots in the US they don’t have it so bad?

    Can Clinton Inc and the global elite it works for make the election all about identity politics and draw attention away from people’s declining economic wellbeing?

    • David Springer

      Trump has pivoted to general election demeanor. He’s acting almost classy in his public appearances now. Some might even say presidential.

      • I’m tempted to say he needs to improve his poll numbers. But after the abysmal polling fail during the Brexit campaign; maybe Trump is good?

  83. Here is the Brexit, far right, on the S&P 500. Now, the one-day drop might look bad, but in wider context, it’s just another day in the markets. It didn’t even trigger the market circuit breakers, which HAVE been triggered in the past.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/44059883

    Marketwise, this has been a non-event so far.

    I’ve been expecting a big drop in the markets simply because they are artificially propped up by QE and low interest rates. It has made the rich richer and common savers poorer.

    So, perhaps Brexit will be the catalyst for that drop, maybe not. Governments around the world have managed to keep markets propped up against anemic economies and maybe they will continue to succeed. At any rate, I’m prepared either way.

    https://postimg.org/image/rt8j65xc7/

    • jim2 said:

      I’ve been expecting a big drop in the markets simply because they are artificially propped up by QE and low interest rates. It has made the rich richer and common savers poorer.

      Exactly!

      None of this happened by accident. It was all by design.

      This is the real reason the establishment hated Michael Jackson so much. It wasn’t because of his homosexuality or his alleged pedophilia. The estalbishment could care less about these things, since its only god is money.

      The establishment hated Michael Jacson so much because he expressed concern about the soaring inequality throughout the world and the world’s disenfranchised. This was Jackson’s sin, in the eyes of the estalbishment.

  84. David Springer

    Congratulations to everyone here from Great Britain. You did good.

    • I think we in the United States owe the British rank and file (but certainly not the British elite that Cameron represnets) a great deal of gratitude. This is not the first way they’ve led the way.

      The British rank and file did, after all, save us from plunging ourselves into Vietnam IV in Syria:

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

      Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence.

      In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

      When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers.

      The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan…. The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

  85. From the link:

    1) Reclaim Wisconsin’s 1st District for We The People
    2) Stop Paul Ryan’s Cronyism & Corruption
    3) Secure Our Borders & Enforce Existing Immigration Laws

    http://www.paulnehlen.com/

  86. I agree with the EU on this one. Cameron needs to step aside now for there is no reason for him to be in power for four more months. He’ll be up to mischief before you know it. From the article:

    European Union governments have piled pressure on the UK to leave the bloc quickly, saying talks on the UK’s exit must begin soon and and urging a new British prime minister to take office quickly.

    As Europe scrambled on Saturday to respond to the momentous Brexit vote, foreign ministers from the EU’s six founding members states meeting in emergency session in Berlin demanded the earliest possible start to the Brexit process.

    France’s foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said Britain “must trigger” article 50 – the procedure for leaving the EU, adding that it was urgent Cameron step aside for a new leader to manage the transition out of the union. “A new prime minister must be designated, that will take a few days,” he said.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/eu-emergency-talks-brexit-berlin

    • I agree with the EU on this one.

      Well, I think that “they” are right from “their” perspective. But I don’t agree it would be best.

      IMO the biggest thing about the Brexit vote was a rejection of the EU bureaucracy. And I agree with that. The notion of a federal system ruled by a bureaucracy that ultimately answers to governments under their jurisdiction is ludicrous.

      Point is, I’d say what “they” (the bureaucrats claiming to represent the EU) see is the extent of damage the whole “bureaucratic federation” idea could sustain from an extended withdrawal negotiation. I agree with them regarding the damage.

      But I disagree that it would be a bad thing. “Off the bureaucracy!”

    • jim2

      One of the reasons for the EU elite wanting Britain to trigger the clause immediately is that an inmate has escaped from the asylum and the gaolers are worried that given enough time other prisoners might also want to try to escape.(The French, The Dutch, The Swedes)

      It is taking America seemingly decades to come up with their next President so surely a few months for the British to select their new prime minister (especially as the EU now has its annual two month holiday shutdown) will give time for the dust to settle and for both sides to approach negotiations in a calm and rational manner rather than amidst a flurry of recriminations.

      tonyb

      • I see, Tony. As long as you are happy with it :)

        I’ve tried to find on the internet any article stating some subset of Brits are happy with the Brexit. Except for Indian seafood exporters, I can’t seem to turn up anything. This seems odd considering over half the voters thought Brexit was a good idea. I think it’s media bias and just more of the same old BS out of them as before the vote.

        Truth may be out there, but good luck finding it!

      • jim2,

        It’s kind of like trying to find something good about Donald Trump the MSM has published, or the people who voted for him.

        If it doesn’t demonize or minimize Trump and/or his supporters, it never makes it past the editors.

  87. From the article:

    Harbinger Of The Future: 7 Times The Militant Progressive Left Used Violence To Shut Down Donald Trump

    As presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump gears up for the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July – where he is almost certain to face angry progressive protesters – Breitbart News has compiled a list of the worst examples of anti-Trump violence so far this year.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/25/harbinger-future-6-times-militant-progressive-left-used-violence-shut-donald-trump/

    • Now we see who the real brown shirts are.

      It’s an interesting twist of history that the original brown shirts — the SA — led by Ernst Julius Günther Röhm, hailed from the working class, whereas our modern day brown shirts hail from the ranks of the intellectual and economic elite.

      • No, if more people stood up against the nationalistic demagoguery of H!tler, Germany would have ended up in a much better place in the 1930’s. That’s the parallel.

      • “[N]ationalistic demagoguery” at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008?

        No, the whole Trump thing is a reaction to the brownshirt-style tactics of the left. And the collaboration by the MSM.

      • Then brownshirt is the wrong analogy, because these were right-wing pro-nationalist groups behind the demagogue.

      • [… B]ecause these were right-wing pro-nationalist groups behind the demagogue.

        They were socialists. Lefties.

      • A national socialist is a very different animal. These people have prejudices and put them into their policies. True socialism is egalitarian.

      • is a true socialist like a true Scotsman?

      • True socialism is egalitarian.

        Nope. Your preferred brand of socialism claims to be “egalitarian.

        What socialism really is is an ideology that people’s status ought to be completely determined by their ability to manipulate “society”. Thus, there’s no “equality”. It’s all a matter of who can manipulate “society” better.

        But even if you go by what they claim: that “socialism” is the ideology that the “means of production” ought to be “owned” by “society”, it makes for great flexibility, and diversity, among “socialists”.

        National socialism is just a brand of socialism that draws “national” borders around their definition of “society”.

        (In addition to how they define “society”, “socialists” can vary in how they define “ownership”, and how they define “means of production”. They appear to place great importance on these differences, but really it’s just part of their tactics of manipulating their local “socialist” society.)

      • JIm D,

        I realize that, for the new New Left, nationalism is always, forever and without exception the most venial of venial sins.

        This highly reductionist view of a highly complex and chaotic world is yet one more example of the sort of simplistic, control knob theorizing that the New Left proselytizes as sure truth.

        However, nationalism is more complex than that. It is a double-edged sword, and there are various types of nationalism, some benign, and others less so. As Hannah Arendt noted in The Origins of Totalitarianism:

        Decline of Nation-State; End of Rights of Man

        The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as “inalienable” because they were supposed to be independent of all governments; but it turned out that the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them.

      • I realize that, for the new New Left, nationalism is always, forever and without exception the most venial of venial sins.

        This highly reductionist view of a highly complex and chaotic world is yet one more example of the sort of simplistic, control knob theorizing that the New Left proselytizes as sure truth.

        Actually, it’s completely justified. As long as there are independent polities (nation-states or otherwise) with the freedom to set their own economic/property policies (standards, laws, etc.) the “socialist revolution” will never prosper.

        Why? Because the capitalist notion that people should be paid by the value of their work (or other abilities) to the payer is both an essential to working capitalism and anathema to the socialist ideal.

        And working capitalism is essential to winning the economic, and military competition among polities.

      • Nationalism, in today’s form, has a very restricted view of society that is intolerant to immigrant workers and minorities. Their ideal is a monoculture. Democratic socialism, while having major differences with Libertarians on the role of government, does have tolerance of lifestyles and freedom of choice as a common theme with them, where nationalism tends to use government to enforce their own centrally defined social ideals. Examples would be communist and theocratic states that are at the far extreme of nationalistic, and it gets really bad when they start to try and impose these ideals on neighboring states (Naz! Germany, Soviets and Is!s). Tolerance and laissez faire in reverse.

      • Nationalism, in today’s form, […]

        …Has very few parallels to “nationalism” in post WWI Germany.

        Socialism, of any sort, has little overlap with real libertarianism, because part of the libertarian ideal includes people’s right to pursue social status through other means than manipulating society.

        And, to be sure, it’s almost inevitable that “democratic” socialists, if they actually ended up in power, would demonstrate as little support for “democracy” as they do for “freedom of speech”. Both principles are just weaknesses of society to be taken advantage of until they have enough power to cancel them.

        I mean look at you! Look at your reaction to the democratic vote on Brexit.

      • It was a democratic vote, but given that it was for a massive constitutional change in status quo it should have been done as a supermajority as constitutional referenda often are. In the US it takes a supermajority to change the Constitution. If Britain did it again now, they would likely vote the other way. The majority is very volatile.

      • JIm D,

        You are typical of the New Left in your drive to demonize nationalism.

        And in order to do this, you conflate nationalism with other phenomena, such as the race ideologies that inspired the pan-movements around which Nazism and Bolshevism were organized.

        “Nazisim and Bolshevism owe more to Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism (respectively) than to any other ideology or political movement,” Arendt asserts in The Origins of Totalitarianism. And “any other ideology” includes “tribal nationalism,” which is perhaps the most insidious type of nationalism.

        For instance, the master race doctrine of the National Socialists went well beyond advocating making the Aryans rulers of just Germany. It advocated making the Aryans rulers of the world, an ambition which far transcends mere nationalism.

        “Bolshevism and Nazism at the height of their power outgrew mere tribal nationalism, and had little use for those who were still actually convinced of it in principle,” Arendt explains.

        The reality is that the global ambitions of the pan-movements are much closer to pax Americana — the full spectrum dominance envisioned by the neocons — than they are to the much more modest aspirations of nationalism.

      • “constitutional change”?
        what constitution.

        Here is a clue. A good number of folks wanted to leave the EU because they perceived it as being an undemocratic institution in which they had a limited voice. Others were less concerned about this.
        Isn’t it funny that those less concerned, having lost a vote, now want all manner of do overs, rule changes, exceptions, special pleadings.

      • Isn’t it funny that those less concerned, having lost a vote, now want all manner of do overs, rule changes, exceptions, special pleadings.

        Funny? I suppose so. Certainly not unexpected.

        For these people, “democracy” (rule by demons?) is just a tool to get power. They don’t really believe in it.

      • SM, the EU has a Constitution and a Parliament, and the UK has an election process to be represented there. This is a fundamental vote to eliminate their own representation in that Parliament and in other high-level EU decisionmaking. It’s not a minor thing to extract themselves from those ties, as we are seeing because the process will take at least two years, which is a lot longer than it takes the UK to change governments after elections, probably because it runs deeper into the government organizations than just changing the top layer.

      • Mosher nails it.

  88. Danny Thomas

    And now for something completely different (h/t Monty Python in honor): http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/libertarian-party-positions/

  89. #regrexit. Day after blues.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/regrexit-eu-referendum_us_576e8217e4b0dbb1bbbabc7a?section=
    Also, it was the young who mostly wanted to Remain and the older ones who wanted to Leave. The young live in the real globalized world. The internet has no borders. National and cultural identity means less to them because they interact more across cultures via the internet and travel more. Their future is one of less division, not more. Division is for old people.

    • Steven Mosher

      Simple. Let the young stay. Let the old leave.

      • A lot of older people fell for a “policy” to use 350 million European money to go to the NHS. Next day, it was declared a mistake. This is how it goes. Watch out for promises from these demagogues. Many were fooled.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

      • JIMD

        The 350 million pound pledge was a tiny part of the campaign. Nigel Farage isn’t even an MP and was not a part of the official ‘Leave’ campaign. He has no say whatsoever as to where the money-should it become available will be spent.

        tonyb

      • Farage himself was not a tiny part of the campaign, and this was one of his more effective advertising issues. Anyway, it was just a mistake, so let it be and see if anything else he said is actually going to be a policy. Hold them accountable for what happens now compared to what they said would happen. Looks like the BBC will at least, which could get a bit contentious going forward.

      • Looks like the BBC will at least, which could get a bit contentious going forward.

        Maybe they should privatize the BBC. If they get rid of the television licence fee it would probably be pretty popular.

        Maybe Soros could buy it. It seems to answer to him more than the British People anyway. From this transatlantic perspective.

      • The BBC are publicly funded and therefore owe their allegiance to the public. They should challenge the government on the public’s behalf and have done regularly.

      • Let’s see…

        The public chose Brexit. The BBC is going to “challenge the government on the public’s behalf”, as it tries to implement the Brexit that same public chose.

        Sounds like the plan is to joggle their elbow, then blame them when the pudding spills.

        Typical left-wing tactics. (Right-wing too, I must admit.)

      • The Brexit Leave campaign may have won on false pretenses. Make sure they do what they promised with the money they claimed they will save and with the immigrant workers and refugees. That’s the role of the press and BBC now. If they don’t, point at it. This is useful for the next election.

      • “A lot of older people fell for a “policy” to use 350 million European money to go to the NHS. ”

        1. Evidence?
        2. It doesnt matter, we fell for “if you like your plan your can keep your plan”

        Remain Failed. the most unseemly thing I have witnessed is the Whining for do overs? Honest question. When scottish independence failed was there much whining?

      • No true scotsman would “whine” about anything.

      • It wasn’t the main issue. This article helps with that.
        http://www.vox.com/2016/6/23/12005814/brexit-eu-referendum-immigrants

      • Jim D | June 25, 2016 at 5:38 pm |
        The Brexit Leave campaign may have won on false pretenses. Make sure they do what they promised with the money they claimed they will save and with the immigrant workers and refugees.

        Why? Suppose the people want the 3xx million of their taxes back? Most people would rather have the money.

        Further, the statements about refugees are beyond absurd. For every train car from Calais one train car goes back. If the French send refugees the English can ship them back on the next train. The British are under no obligation to take terrorists that the EU sends them. Worst case Britain blocks the Chunnel and makes the French trains back-up..

      • A lot of older people fell for a “policy” to use 350 million European money to go to the NHS.

        The population of Great Britain is over 60M. For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was £116.4 billion.

        A few £ per person was a major issue? Sounds like a rationalization to me. Or perhaps math is only for millenials?

    • JimD, “The young live in the real globalized world.”

      Globalized world or fantasy land? A true global economy would have a global currency, global tax system and global free trade making it all globally vulnerable i.e. too big to fail. A diverse global economy is inherently survivable and much more difficult to game.

      • The fantasy is that the young in the UK would want to go to a 1960’s style insular country that is not even in their memory. The internet and increased travel and even jobs abroad makes that old-fashioned and quaint, and not something to be longed for in the modern world.

      • JimD, “The internet and increased travel and even jobs abroad makes that old-fashioned and quaint.”

        Expats, jobs abroad and travel to the ends of the empire are pretty much British traditions. You could say that the UK created the first “global” economy. Because of that, Canada, Australia, India, the US and a number of former colonies might soften the UK’s landing after britexit.

      • Britain exercised overseas control in those Commonwealth endeavors. That’s what jobs abroad meant back then. Wouldn’t be taken so well these days. These countries are equals now.

      • “Wouldn’t be taken so well these days.”

        Wasn’t taken all that well back them, but an understanding evolved.

      • Captain

        Well said. The British have been ‘globalised’ for centuries. Back in the 19th Century the Grand tour was very much a part of the culture-for those who could afford it-and this was only curtailed temporarily when Napoleon went in the rampage. Before that ordinary people went abroad as soldiers engineers and administrators to every part of the world. Why, I believe that the British even had a little to do with America…

        Are young people MORE globalised? They live in their own internet and social media bubbles, corresponding with like minded ‘friends’ so do they interact across a wide social spectrum and acquire knowledge of and respect for the views of others who might think differently to them? I wonder.

        Again, think of the safe spaces movement in Universities whereby like minded people are using censorship to shut out views they don’t like

        tonyb

      • The British were “Globalized” in the way the Romans, the 7th century Caliphate and Mongols were, I suppose. It is not the same thing at all. Globalization isn’t imposing yourself on other nations. That’s called empire-building.

      • JimD, “The British were “Globalized” in the way the Romans, the 7th century Caliphate and Mongols were, I suppose.”

        If I remember correctly the British dropped off a hundred or so people that might be considered religious fanatics and probably where a little surprised to see them still breathing later. Romans, Huns, Mongols and Moors where more into conquest and the Brits were more into trade and creating a selective expat program :)

      • They were doing a lot more in those countries than just trade, and sometimes the natives didn’t like it.

      • tony b, didn’t the Spanish call themselves conquestidores and the British call themselves explorers and merchants?

      • JimD, “They were doing a lot more in those countries than just trade, and sometimes the natives didn’t like it.”

        Yep, Lord Cornwallis became governor general of India because some tax dodgers kick his butt elsewhere.

      • It’s a waste of effort to explain anything to Jim D. That D thing keeps getting in the way.

        Jim seems to believe that because of the exit vote, the internet and increased travel abroad and overseas job opportunities will disappear from Great Britain. The rest of us know better.

    • JIMD

      The usual tripe from Huffpo. Are we leavers nervous? Yes. Are we a little scared? Yes. Do we regret it? H*ll no!

      Perhaps only the young and those with degrees should be allowed to vote?

      Or perhaps the Metropolitan elite and many of the University trained Young -who seem very unwilling to listen to others peoples Views (safe spaces in Universities) need to grow up and realise that all our votes are equally valid and just because we disagree with them doesn’t make us automatically wrong.

      The attitude of the metropolitan elite and his young helpers is exemplified here by Bob Geldof mounting a well funded demo against a Leavers protest in London

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1286115/bizarre-brexit-boat-battle-breaks-out-between-nigel-farage-and-bob-geldof-on-the-river-thames/

      Not only does he give a contemptuous two finger salute but his charming friend is sticking her tongue out at the protestors- fishermen doing a dangerous job who had taken the time to sail to London from my own part of the world-the West country- and whose industry has been devastated by the EU.

      tonyb

      • Find an article where people are still rejoicing today, not protesting. What I see is a lot of regrets because the pound sank which is an early sign of trouble ahead. The media will hold the Brexit leaders to their promises, and some of those are already being taken back.

      • This is the way that the game of musical chairs ends Jim D, everyone knows that but you?

      • JIMD

        There was much celebration during Friday but how long can you keep it up? We don’t do 36 hour parties.

        This was the biggest democratic endorsement in our entire history. Are you saying the 17 million plus people who voted for it are all wrong, idiots or deluded?

        Why cant you just accept that we are fed up with the highly undemocratic EU and the elite who have been feeding in the golden trough at our expense for decades and after securing a referendum-after being denied one for decades-finally got our say and expressed our opinion of the whole sorry mess the EU has become as it transitioned from the Free trade area it started as, towards a federal state, without bothering to ask anyone if that was what they wanted.

        tonyb

      • Jim

        for some reason my reply to you is in moderation

        tonyb

      • Jim D – you can’t find articles about those happy with Brexit because the media is THAT biased!!

      • Maybe they are just waiting for things to stop declining before they can be happy. Could it be a recession starting? We don’t know yet.

      • tonyb:

        America will happily trade 16M evangelical gun owners in exchange for your pro-EU millenials and Remainers. Fair swap?

  90. Curious George

    Oh, those horrible British. They just did not want to stay in the Glorious European Union.
    EU leaders never asked Why did we lose the UK? Look how well we solve problems of our doing .. Greece, Migration. But we legislated low-power vacuums. I would say Hollande, Juncker, Schulz, and Merkel did more for Brexit than Cameron.

    • The EU as a bloc can get better trade deals, being over 20% of global GDP than the UK going it alone as 5% of the global economy where they are additionally behind China and Japan. If the UK are competing somewhere with the EU, they can offer far less in reciprocal deals than the EU as a whole. This is the whole point of a bloc like the EU, non-competition within it, just outside it. We may see some examples going forwards.

  91. While UKIP has 12% of the popular vote, they only have MP out of about 650 in Parliament. Contrarily in the EU Parliament which has proportional representation they have 22 MEPs out of 750 and Farage is co-leader of one of the right-wing international blocs. So they will be back down to one MP, no MEPs, and little influence anywhere else going forwards. Oh, well.

  92. M0r0n-in-Chief strikes again. From the article:

    It’s not only illegal aliens who are escaping enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.
    Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority, legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s Naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.

    Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/25/obama-invites-18-7-million-immigrants-avoid-oath-allegiance-pledge-defend-america/

  93. “”The sky is not falling, and when the dust settles, Britain’s decision may very well prove to be a pivotal event in the reshaping of global relationships and trade that will, in the final analysis, benefit all of us,” he said. “We in the U.S. can either wring our hands, or view this moment of disruption as an opportunity to strengthen our own important ties to a Britain less encumbered by the EU.””

  94. One notable aspect of the pre-Brexit reading of tea leaves is that bookmakers had the odds of Remain much higher than the pollsters. Bookmakers may be the pawns of the likes of Soros – he certainly has enough money to put the odds wherever he, or his ilk, likes.

  95. Danny Thomas

    ““In the short term, it’s certainly a warning,” said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, a former top adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. “But in the long term, this will be a race between the campaigns to see which of them can be first when it comes to effectively addressing the anxieties of an electorate that’s sick and tired of being sick and tired.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-brexit-leadership-test-224798

  96. Curious George

    The electorate is sick and tired of both parties.

  97. Danny Thomas

    Sorta O/T, but thought it would be of interest to others: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-transcanada-keystone-idUSKCN0ZB0R9

  98. From the article:

    When the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was “preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism.” The Bush administration’s definition of the enemy as a tactic, terrorism, rather than a specific movement, proved consequential amid a culture of political correctness. By the time President Obama took office, Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders in the United States were forcing changes to national security policy and even being invited into the highest chambers of influence. A policy known as Countering Violent Extremism emerged, downplaying the threat of supremacist Islam as unrelated to the religion and just one among many violent ideological movements.

    When recently retired DHS frontline officer and intelligence expert Philip Haney bravely tried to say something about the people and organizations that threatened the nation, his intelligence information was eliminated, and he was investigated by the very agency assigned to protect the country. The national campaign by the DHS to raise public awareness of terrorism and terrorism-related crime known as If You See Something, Say Something effectively has become If You See Something, Say Nothing.

    https://www.amazon.com/See-Something-Say-Nothing-Governments/dp/1944229205

  99. Clinton is polling consistently against Trump nationally. He has his work cut out for him. I do believe he has a better shot than some milquetoast like Romney.

    Sunday, June 26
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 46, Trump 41 Clinton +5
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton ABC News/Wash Post Clinton 51, Trump 39 Clinton +12
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 39, Trump 38, Johnson 10, Stein 6 Clinton +1
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein ABC News/Wash Post Clinton 47, Trump 37, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Clinton +10
    Thursday, June 23
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Rasmussen Reports Clinton 44, Trump 39 Clinton +5
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 44, Trump 34 Clinton +10
    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 43, Trump 34, Johnson 6, Stein 5 Clinton +9

  100. From the article:

    Attkisson’s assertion was made on Breitbart News Daily to host Stephen K. Bannon. She stated on the June 24, 2016 show:

    On the other hand, I think about the military guys, and they may think, is this a victimless crime? It’s really not illegal to come to this country. The two Mexicans they had been transporting last week had each been removed from the US three times before. And maybe they think, why shouldn’t I make some money on the side doing something the government doesn’t really mind. They don’t mind if the illegal immigrants come here.

    I think they know about it. And it’s people inside Border Patrol and inside the military who have long been involved in smuggling drugs, as well as smuggling humans. They’re well aware of it. They don’t talk about it much but it’s well known inside. I’ll be doing a story in the Fall about corruption inside the Border Patrol which is just out of control. There’s so many agents. The cartels place people inside Border Patrol now, smugglers place people inside Border Patrol get them hired there. It’s a big issue.

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/26/sharyl-attkisson-right-mexican-cartels-infiltrated-u-s-military-federal-agencies/

    • Reporting on corruption in the Border Patrol and other branches of the US’s hallowed security state has been pretty much taboo for mainstream US media outlets. It doesn’t, after all, do much to further the idea of American exceptionalism. So good on Breitbart.

      This is from an interview done a few years back with of one of the operatives of the cartel La Familia Michoacana:

      Are Mexican police the only ones who like money?

      — Of course not. If the crossing is through the border patrol check point, the cars form a caravan near the crossing. When a border patrol agent comes on duty we have an agreement with, he sends us a message on the cell phone, advising us which lane to use.

      The only large cars we use are large cars like Grand Marquis or Caprice, but never SUVs or pickup trucks..

      We pay the border patrol agent $100 for each undocumented immigrant he allows to pass and $5000 for each vehicle loaded with drugs.

      La república Marihuanera
      http://www.periodismo.org.mx/assets/cronica_pnp2011.pdf

    • The thing is that the quantities of money are so vast.

      As the La Familia operative notes in the interview, the same kilo of marijuana he buys in the Tierra Caliente in Mexico for 300 pesos (about $25 USD) he sells in Houston for $800.

      The same is true for getting visas for Mexicans who don’t otherwise qualify, as mentioned in the article you linked.

      My maid’s husband recently contracted one of the mafias to get him a visa to go to the US. He paid $2800. The mafias have contacts inside the US consulates (which are part of the State Department, a separate department of government from the Department of Homeland Security) and procure visas using entirely fake documentation.

      My poor maid’s husband, though, he got unlucky. There were five in his group and four made it through. The Border Patrol asked to see his documentation, however, and immediately spotted the fact that it was all fake, which of course isn’t difficult to do. So he was ordered removed and lost his visa.

      • Crime does pay, and all that money has been problematic for law enforcement and honest people for time immemorial.

  101. From the article:

    Part of Griffin’s report features Trump saying in a speech earlier this week that “Maybe the motivation lies among the 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.”

    Griffin then falsely asserts that “There’s no evidence that is accurate.”

    But in fact, last April, the Washington Post and Bloomberg News both reported that 1,100 hidden Clinton Foundation foreign donors were “bundled” into a $25 million donation from Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.

    “All of the money that was raised by CGEP [Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership] flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, told Bloomberg News last April in an exclusive interview.

    Those were the facts that CNN’s Griffin said, “there’s no evidence” of.

    http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/06/25/wrong-cnn-network-botches-proven-fact-clinton-foundation-1100-hidden-foreign-donations/

    • Clinton is completely bought and paid for by the global elite.

      Here’s a photo of Giustra taken last year at a “charitable” event in El Salvador:

      Giustra is in the center. Another one of the owners of Clinton Inc is picuted on the right. He is the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who threw the NY Times a financial lifeline a few years back when it got in financial trouble, and is now the biggest stockholder in the US’s “nespaper of record.”

  102. Judith: just read your Atlantic article on political chaos, (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/) and the demonization of middlemen. I cannot recall another article which effected such a change in my perspective. Thank you!

  103. From the article:

    But the report, which the Democrats published as a preemptive strike before the Republican majority releases findings likely to charge ineptitude and deception by the former secretary of State, also revealed, apparently unintentionally, details about the eye-popping amount of money a close Clinton friend and advisor made in a contract with a pro-Clinton nonprofit.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-benghazi-democrats-20160627-snap-story.html

  104. Interesting video from CNN on the Leave camp after winning the vote.

    CNN uses the same sort of rhetorical strategy to demonize the Leave campaign as it does to lambast Donald Trump, which is to demand ironclad policy prescriptions immediately, such as those offered up by neoliberalism.

    Did Brexit ever promise such rigid policy prescriptions, carved in stone, or did it promise a more experimental approach: what we’re doing isn’t working, so let’s try something new and see if we can’t find something that works better?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/27/europe/britain-brexit-inevitable/index.html

  105. Trump is improving. One good thing about his rocky start is there IS room for improvement! From the article:

    They’re TIED: Trump vs. Clinton is suddenly too close to call as pollsters say Americans hate ‘mean-spirited, scorched earth campaign between two candidates they don’t like’
    Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump in a new Quinnipiac University poll, but her lead is down to 2 percentage points (and the margin of error is 2.4)
    Trump has corralled the support of 33 per cent of Hispanic voters, a number that outperforms Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008
    Pollsters found Clinton and Trump are both wildly unpopular
    ‘Voters find themselves in the middle of a mean-spirited, scorched earth campaign between two candidates they don’t like,’ they said
    A separate poll of voters in seven swing states finds Hillary is leading Trump in all of them

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3665815/They-TIED-Trump-vs-Clinton-suddenly-close-call-pollsters-say-Americans-hate-mean-spirited-scorched-earth-campaign-two-candidates-don-t-like.html

  106. David Springer

    Sickest thing I ever heard about Obama was how he shuffled for hours about whether to send rescuers to Benghazi and whether or not they should be wearing uniforms because they might offend Libyans. It’s in the Benghazi report. What a weak kneed phuck we have in the white house bending and scraping trying to offend Muslims. Disgusting. I guess it’s in his blood to be cowardly and subservient. He needs to clear out and the white house fumigated to get rid of the stink he leaves behind.

    https://www.nranews.com/series/freedoms-safest-place/video/freedoms-safest-place-the-truth-about-benghazi/episode/freedoms-safest-place-season-1-episode-16-the-truth-about-benghazi

    • Dimowits tend to see the Military as the enemy, it seems.

    • David Springer “Sickest thing I ever heard about Obama was how he shuffled…”
      Yes, vomit inducing. And let’s not forget the role George Soros played in electing this buffoon. Nor that of the DNC and the media that avoided vetting this Marxist pantywaist. And the people who voted for him because of his skin color. I’m ashamed of my countrymen for being so vacuous and shallow. And voting for him twice? Beyond redemption are the racists and the Dhimmis and the politically correct who find ways to justify such foolishness and folly that borders on criminal neglect of their civic responsibilities.

  107. From the article:

    The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapers that make up our great American landscape.

    Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.

    When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians do nothing.

    Many Pennsylvania towns once thriving and humming are now in a state despair.

    This wave of globalization has wiped out our middle class.

    But if we’re going to deliver real change, we’re going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pushed by powerful corporations, media elites, and political dynasties.

    The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change.

    The inner cities will remain poor.

    The factories will remain closed.

    The borders will remain open.

    The special interests will remain firmly in control.

    Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small – and they want to scare the American people out of voting for a better future.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/full-transcript-trump-job-plan-speech-224891

  108. From the article:

    Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission.

    “Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”

    Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.”

    Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fed-regulation-of-internet-coming-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2595304

  109. Danny Thomas

    Even I can agree with: ” both parties” & “in league with “special interests.”

    Now if he’d just fill in some blanks on defining “great deal” and how to go about it.

    Trump has long blamed broad trade agreements for harming U.S. workers. But this week has marked a rhetorical shift as he aggressively casts members of both parties who have supported trade deals as anti-American and in league with “special interests.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-starts-a-trade-war–with-the-republican-party/2016/06/30/25eec89a-3eda-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

    • David Springer

      Danny maybe you’re just not accustomed to negotiation or don’t recognize someone who’s good at it.

      1) Trump isn’t going to come to the table with his final offer. He’s going to come in asking for the moon fully expecting to walk away with less.

      2) Trump isn’t going to tip his hand. It’s the burden of those on the other side of the deal to figure out how much less he’ll accept before walking away.

      Let’s take immigration for an example. What will Trump do to fix it? His opening offer:

      1) Build a beautiful high wall on the border and make Mexico pay for it.
      2) Round up all 11 million illegal aliens and deport them.
      3) Ban all Muslims from entering the country.

      Sounds crazy, right? Crazy like a fox. What will Trump actually accept as a brokered deal from congress? I don’t know. I’d guess:

      1) An ugly wall in the most frequented crossing areas paid for by the US.

      2) Round up and deport illegal aliens who have no steady employment, no immediate family in the US, and any who are arrested for more than a class C misdemeanor.

      3) Ban Muslims from designated terrorist-supporting nations who don’t have any history or other information by which to deem them not a potential threat.

      If I were across from him I would not go in saying that’s what I want either. I’d come in saying

      1) tear down the existing walls and don’t lay another single stone on the border.

      2) Offer all illegal aliens amnesty, citizenship, and don’t profile or track them otherwise.

      3) Don’t ban anyone from any country without positive and reliable information that the person entering is a; clear and present danger.

      Then the negotiation begins and we all either agree upon a win-win deal or walk away.

      Trump knows the art of the deal. He literally wrote the book on it. He’ll bridge partisan divides and get things done for a change.

      Vote Trump.
      Not Extremely Careless

      .

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        I made a living ‘negotiating’ and appreciate Trump’s skill in that area. But as I’ve said before I recognize a salesman and that’s what Trump is. You’ve bought in fully (send that billionaire a few thousand of your dollars, he’d appreciate the support). And that’s fine. I find reason to be skeptical. And find no arguments (with about 2 exceptions) here.

        A deal maker shouldn’t oughtta antagonize his allies before he puts an offer on the table. That’s not an optimal negotiating tactic.

        “Then the negotiation begins and we all either agree upon a win-win deal or walk away.” This is how it used to work. Current evidence is to the contrary. Even bipartisan work isn’t getting through. And our leadership at all levels isn’t getting it done.

      • What Danny is missing. From the article:

        Like or hate Donald Trump, the presumptive U.S. Republican Party nominee for president, his positions are consistent with two principles of game theory.

        In fact, this is a rational strategy in games in which your best choice, and your opponent’s as well, depends on what strategy each of you chooses. Such interdependence of choices makes the selection of a strategy a matter of which side, if either, will commit first, enabling the other side to respond optimally.

        The uncertainty of your choice may force an impatient negotiator to move in your direction. On the other hand, it may sabotage a deal. Appearing to be unpredictable is the essence of Trump’s approach to extracting, in difficult negotiations, the most from an opponent.

        This strategy reflects another principle of game theory. In some games, it is optimal to be anything but ambiguous. Instead, one should take an unequivocal position and force an opponent to respond to it. Trump’s proposal to evict millions of Mexicans who are in the United States illegally, and force Mexico to pay for a wall that will keep them out in the future, is a pie-in-the-sky idea, as many have pointed out. It will not happen, even if Trump is elected president.

        So what purpose does it serve? It forces people to respond, some with delight and some with outrage. It demonstrates to his supporters his strength, his willingness to take a provocative position, even if it alienates others. Trump’s demeaning comments on both his opponents and women also show to many that he is a person to be reckoned with, as evidenced so far by his strong showings in caucuses and primaries.

        In effect, Trump is playing a game of chicken, daring those who oppose him to battle him on these issues. Marco Rubio was a candidate who stooped to Trump’s level in exchanging sexual taunts and lost badly by undermining his image as an upright moderate.

        https://plus.maths.org/content/donald-trump-game-theorist

      • Danny Thomas

        Game theory? Sounds like you’d be comfortable voting for a kick-butt 14 year old as long as he said the correct words. But how would you feel about his capability and experience level?

        But I’ll give the author credit. Trump did say we’d get tired of winning. Of course Trump never said how that’d happen.

        If we just looking for a multibillionaire ‘negotiator’ whom we won’t care if they know much about much else why not choose another? How about Jeff Bezos? Think that guy can ‘game’ and negotiate?

        Warren Buffet? He’s proven a great ‘game’ theorist and maybe even can be considered a skilled negotiator.

        There are others.

      • From the article:

        Trump: can game theory explain the inexplicable?

        Donal Trump’s rise seems to defy explanation. James Stratton attempts to prove otherwise, armed with the game theorist’s toolbox.

        We like to think of ourselves as pleasant people rationally thinking through our actions ­- so it’s a shock to our psyche when confronted with a system failing as alarmingly as the 2016 Republican Nomination contest. Betting markets -­ believed by many economists to be the best predictors of election results ­- give Donald Trump as much as an 60% likelihood of becoming the Republican Nominee. A man who has advocated a ban on Muslim immigration and entertained the theory that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered is now being described by The Economist as ‘almost unstoppable’. It’s almost too bizarre to understand.

        Fortunately, economists have developed game theory as an apparatus to explain the inexplicable ­- and two simple insights from game theory explain much of Trump’s success. Less fortunately, game theory gives hints to the future as well as explaining the past ­ and its predictions are far from reassuring.

        http://economicstudents.com/2016/04/trump-can-game-theory-explain-inexplicable/

      • No offense, Danny, but you attempting to understand Trump’s masterful negotiating strategies and tactics is a bit like a gold fish tying to understand Einstein’s theory of relativity — a fish out of water.

      • Danny Thomas

        When one doesn’t have an argument one should attack the opponent.

        Is that from game theory Jim?

      • I’m crafting language to express my opinion that your skill level at negotiations comes nowhere close to someone like Trump’s. Sorry to hear you are so easily offended. But, hey, playing the victim just comes naturally, right Danny?

      • David Springer

        “A deal maker shouldn’t oughtta antagonize his allies before he puts an offer on the table. That’s not an optimal negotiating tactic.”

        He’s not a deal maker for the American people yet. He needs to be elected first. The antagonism is called leading and pacing. He’s establishing a good rapport with a voting block. About 9 in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with congress. Trump is appealing to that sentiment; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

        You want to know if he’s sincere. I’d like to know that for a fact too. The long and short of that is we can’t know for sure. His children and fellow billionaires that stood up for him as tough but fair and honest have mostly convinced me he’s sincere.

        But here’s what I do know for sure. Clinton’s character is, without a doubt, lacking in the extreme. So I have no other choice but The Donald.

      • David Springer

        Danny, “game theory” isn’t about video games and teenagers.

        Jim wrote: “In fact, this is a rational strategy in games in which your best choice, and your opponent’s as well, depends on what strategy each of you chooses.”

        In fact Jim described John Nash’s equilibrium theory known as “Nash Equlibrium”. Nash won a Nobel prize in economics for it. It succeeds Adam Smith’s economic theory that the best results are obtained when every player looks out only for their own best interest.

      • David Springer

        Danny writes:

        If we just looking for a multibillionaire ‘negotiator’ whom we won’t care if they know much about much else why not choose another? How about Jeff Bezos? Think that guy can ‘game’ and negotiate?

        Warren Buffet? He’s proven a great ‘game’ theorist and maybe even can be considered a skilled negotiator.

        I might have chosen another had they thrown their hat in the ring. Another billionaire negotiator has to want the job bad enough to run for it first. Duh. Why are you raising such irrelevancies?

      • David Springer

        “When one doesn’t have an argument one should attack the opponent. Is that from game theory?”

        No that’s from persuasion theory. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Leading and pacing again. By attacking a common enemy he establishes a rapport with those he wants in his camp. Note he hasn’t attacked Bernie Sanders much but rather kind of patted him on the head and called him nutty but lovable. You see that’s because Sanders supporters love Bernie. It’s emotional. So Trump loves him too even though he doesn’t necessarily agree. He elevates Bernie to fellow victim of a rigged political system. He is leading and pacing Bernie supporters into becoming Trump supporters. I don’t think Bernie is able to do anything about it. When Bernie comes out for Hillary it’ going to fall flat and he’ll appear to be a sellout. It’s a no-win situation for Bernie but his former supporters can still salvage the situation by voting for the remaining guy who believes the system is rigged and wants to upset the establishment’s apple cart.

      • > In fact Jim described John Nash’s equilibrium theory known as “Nash Equlibrium”.

        Jim actually cited an article that mentions Schelling’s thought experiment to explain focal points, Big Dave.

        There’s no point in trying to change an agent’s mind about a Nash equilibrium: that agent will play it anyway.

        Nice try, though.

  110. From the article:

    Stephen Moore, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic advisor to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, is blasting a report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget that criticized Trump’s economic plan by arguing it “would significantly worsen the debt.”
    “The main point that’s so fallacious about this committee report is they don’t know what the plan is,” Moore responded. “I’m involved with a couple other people with helping write the tax plan and the fiscal plan and we’re only half way done with it, so how can they score something that doesn’t even exist?”

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/01/trumps-economic-advisor-slams-fallacious-report/

    • Danny Thomas

      “they don’t know what the plan is,”

      Then,
      ““I’m involved with a couple other people with helping write the tax plan and the fiscal plan and we’re only half way done with it, so how can they score something that doesn’t even exist?”

      It’s about time! Been asking for this stuff for weeks and they’re finally getting around to writing and planning? Finally some meat on the bones.

      Ya can’t make this stuff up. It just happens this way.

      • David Springer

        With The Donald’s command and presence in the media he won’t have problem getting whatever level of detail in his plans and policies he believes are necessary out to the public. He needs them in time for debates with Hillary not sooner. I’m not worried he seems to have a good sense of timing. Maybe even as good as Bill Clinton’s. Trump was in just the right place (Scotland; ostensibly on personal business) when the Brexit results were announced. Bill was in just the right place (Arizona; ostensibly on personal business) to intercept USAG Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac to coach her into saying she would follow any FBI recommendation. In hindsight he’d obviously been tipped off about what was coming from Comey.

      • Danny Thomas

        “He needs them in time for debates with Hillary not sooner.” Really? So on what were all the folks who voted for him in the primaries deciding? If it’s the ‘negotiating’ billionaire persona, again, I ask why not Bezos of Buffet or even Koch(s)? They show those traits as well as a level of ‘celebrity’.

        David, I have no issue with your choice, but it is not the only choice available.

        Interestingly I see much similarity with the climate conversation in reverse. You’re putting forth your theory ‘not Hillary’ so it must be Trump? And you guys back it to the wall while skewering me for my skepticism. Hmmmmm.

      • Danny, anyone who has read your comments for the last several months knows you are in the tank for Billary. You are feigning indecision as a pacing tactic that is transparent. Trump does not need a trilogy of detailed policy books at this point in time. His supporters at this point only need to know his general direction and proclivities. I like those. He says things no other politician will say including Redimowits. He states them boldly and forthrightly, no wish-washy may, should, might, etc. He is the man we need for President.

      • Danny Thomas

        Crystal balls all around? Okay. So let’s just go with the thought that I’m a shill for Clinton (although I’m not). Now that’s out of the way.

        Weren’t we early concerned with a little bit of the Bill of Rights? What about due process? Or are we being selective here?

        “Where Trump’s comments veer in a different direction is when he again suggests he’s not a huge fan of due process. Trump’s apparently cavalier attitude toward it — and his praise for those who flout it — is certainly something worth exploring over the next four months.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/06/donald-trumps-praise-of-saddam-hussein-and-his-long-history-of-shunning-due-process/

        You may notice, Jim, that I’ve not gotten in to the racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. I’ve addressed policies, where Trump has published his. And I’ve stated that which I’ve appreciated and that with which I have concern.

        Guess I’m not that good at Hillaryism. Just like Trumpeeters aren’t good at more than talking points.

        You suggest he’s not wishy washy? Pshaw! He’s the least informative and most vacillating of most of the candidates. Show me, Jim. Don’t tell me.

        I may vote for Clinton. I may write in (Huntsman, Kasich). Heck, I may even vote for Trump (if I can find good reason and not just bad rhetoric).

        General proclivities? Ha. Which day?

        Yes, Jim, he does need to put for polices. It’s the economy, stuppid. Where’s his plan for that? If he doesn’t put it out now, he might just make the rich richer (he’s already for that, correct?) and leave out ‘the workers’ who’re so irritated they’ll vote for him even w/o knowing his plan.

        Amazing to me, but guess I’m skeptical. Obviously, most here (who post) are not.

  111. Danny Thomas

    Latest on 2016 website is 2014’s version, but here’s Green Party. http://www.gp.org/platform

    • Danny Thomas

      Republican’s site shows a 2012 version. There’s a survey for 2016, but considering the mayhem within there may not be a platform completed until convention. That’s my guess.

  112. Danny Thomas

    More information.
    Gary Johnson (unfortunately talking Trump and not his campaign). :http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/gary-johnson-donald-trump-racist-225073

    Pew survey on Obama, and how the U.S. is viewed including Trump and Clinton: http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years-draw-to-close-president-and-u-s-seen-favorably-in-europe-and-asia/

  113. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/final-analysis-gop-primary-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

    STUNNING FINAL ANALYSIS=> GOP Primary Turnout Up 62% This Year – Dem Primary Turnout Down 21% This Year

    Republican turnout was up 62% this year.
    Democratic turnout was down 21% this year.

    Despite her tight race with Socialist Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton received 1,019,237 fewer votes this year than in 2008.

    DEMOCRAT PARTY TURNOUT–
    ** In 2008 there were 38,111,341 Democrat votes in the primary. In 2016 there were 29,939,251 votes. A net decrease of 8,172,090 (-21%).

    REPUBLICAN PARTY TURNOUT–
    ** In 2012 there were 19,214,513 Republican votes in the primary. In 2016 there were 31,108,968 votes. A net increase of 11,894,455 (+62%).

    Republicans had 1.1 million more primary voters this year than the Democratic party.
    These are stunning numbers!

    • Clinton – 12.44 million total votes in the Democratic primary, while
      Trump – 10.65 million total votes in the GOP primary.

      Now Trump complains about this comparison because he was running against so many candidates but it was the voting for those candidates that resulted in the high Republican turnout. You can’t have it both ways.

      And your STUNNING ANALYSIS compares 2012 Republican against 2016 but uses 2008 Democratic against 2016. Apples and oranges. 2008 was an extraordinary year for Democrats.

      • David Springer

        Who among GOP primary contenders drew the biggest crowds to their rallies?

        You’re in denial, dopey Cross. That’s okay. You can deny the facts all the way to defeat. In fact denial of the facts will propel you in that direction. To solve a problem you must first understand the problem. Denying the problem exists is the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. That’s you, James “The Ostrich” Cross.

  114. David Springer

    FBI finds Hillary unfit to be president reports FBI Director Comey.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

    He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

    Do we want an extremely careless president and extremely careless staff with their extremely careless hands holding the nuclear codes? I don’t think so!

    Vote Trump.

  115. David Springer

    Campaign button:

    Donald Trump
    Not Extremely Careless

  116. David Springer

  117. David Springer

    Enthusiasm Gap

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/final-analysis-gop-primary-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

    STUNNING FINAL ANALYSIS=> GOP Primary Turnout Up 62% This Year – Dem Primary Turnout Down 21% This Year

    Jim Hoft Jul 4th, 2016 10:59 am 209 Comments

    This ought to keep Democrats up late at night.
    Despite the constant negative press by the liberal media, Republicans are coming off a historic primary season.

  118. But Officer, I didn’t realize I was speeding. Oh, well, in that case, you don’t get a ticket. Yep, that happens all the time.

    The elites get special treatment. They should have thrown her under the jail house. But the good part is, Trump doesn’t have to run against Sanders who polled better than Billary and, well, look at what a sorry sack of sh*t Billary is.

    • jim2 said:

      The elites get special treatment.

      The elites certainly do get special treatment.

      The key line from Comey’s press conference is this one:

      [H]e said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.

      So Clinton got the benefit of the requirement of mens rea, a benefit that the rest of us normally don’t get:

      One of the greatest safeguards against overcriminalization—the misuse and overuse of criminal laws and penalties to address societal problems—is ensuring that there is an adequate mens rea requirement in criminal laws….

      As former Heritage Senior Legal Research Fellow Paul Rosenzweig stated:

      From its inception, the criminal law expressed both a moral and a practical judgment about the societal consequences of certain activity: For an act to be a crime, the law required that an individual must either cause (or attempt to cause) a wrongful injury and do so with some form of malicious intent. In other words, the definition of a crime requires two things: an actus reus (a bad act) and mens rea (a guilty mind). At its roots, the criminal law did not punish mere bad thoughts (intentions to act without any evil deed) or acts that achieved unwittingly wrongful ends but without the intent to do so. The former were for resolution by ecclesiastical authorities, and the latter were for amelioration in the civil tort system.

      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/the-pressing-need-for-mens-rea-reform

      However, as John Malcolm points out, there are currently over 300,000 federal criminal offenses, and

      Many of these laws lack adequate, or even any, mens rea standards—meaning that a prosecutor does not even have to prove that the accused had any intent whatsoever to violate the law or even knew he was violating a law in order to convict him. In other words, innocent mistakes or accidents can become crimes.

      Pat Nolan describes our “government by whim” as follows:

      [T]hese “whim” crimes are not based on evil intent. In fact, they require no intent at all. They are “strict liability” crimes — you don’t have to know you are acting unlawfully to be sent to prison.

      The Heritage Foundation points out that “a core principle of the American system of justice is that no one should be subjected to criminal punishment for conduct that he did not know was illegal or otherwise wrongful.” These whim laws have discarded the centuries-old requirement of mens rea, or guilty intent.

      From today’s perspective, the old adage “ignorance of the law is no excuse” assumes that it is possible to know all the intricacies of tens of thousands of federal statutes and regulations. Nonetheless, if we inadvertently violate one of them, we face years in prison. We are modern Gullivers, tethered to the ground by the sinews of the criminal law.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/278379/gibson-raid-much-fret-about-pat-nolan

    • This is not the first time the Obama administration has shielded someone from criminal prosecution using the requirement of demonstrating mens rea.

      The Obama Justice Department also used it to let the bankers responsible for the Great Financial Crisis off the hook:

      MARTIN SMITH: The Justice Department says these are very difficult cases to bring. Showing intent and proving every step of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult thing to do.

      JEFF CONNAUGHTON: I think that is without a doubt a factor in the difficulty of proving intent. But I’m sorry, I just don’t believe there was enough effort. It just doesn’t make common sense. And so you’re telling me that not one banker, not one executive on Wall Street, not one player in this entire financial crisis committed provable fraud? I mean, I just don’t believe that.

      ….

      MARTIN SMITH: The Department of Justice says that it’s very hard to prosecute these kinds of crimes because you have to prove criminal intent.

      TOM LEONARD: I think if I was sitting on the jury and I saw this information that I could pretty well assure myself that there’d been criminal intent.

      ….

      KEVIN PERKINS, Associate Deputy Director, FBI: And we’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people in these investigations.

      MARTIN SMITH: And you’re saying in not one of those cases— having interviewed hundreds of people and looked at these things, you can’t find one person in this whole mess that you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that was selling these things knowingly, intentionally, and defrauded the investors.

      KEVIN PERKINS: We were not able to reach a level of— that would sustain beyond a reasonable doubt. We were not able to show criminal intent sufficiently enough to obtain what we believe— to obtain a conviction of a criminal—

      MARTIN SMITH: Do you think the banks did all this unintentionally?

      KEVIN PERKINS: No, I personally don’t.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/untouchables/

      As Glenn Greenwald noted:

      PBS’ Frontline program on Tuesday night broadcast a new one-hour report on one of the greatest and most shameful failings of the Obama administration: the lack of even a single arrest or prosecution of any senior Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis — a crisis from which millions of people around the world are still suffering.

      What this program particularly demonstrated was that the Obama justice department, in particular the Chief of its Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, never even tried to hold the high-level criminals accountable.

      What Obama justice officials did instead is…to protect the most powerful factions in the society in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious criminality. Indeed, financial elites were not only vested with impunity for their fraud, but thrived as a result of it, even as ordinary Americans continue to suffer the effects of that crisis.

      Worst of all, Obama justice officials both shielded and feted these Wall Street oligarchs (who, just by the way, overwhelmingly supported Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign) as they simultaneously prosecuted and imprisoned powerless Americans for far more trivial transgressions….

      Indeed, the show recalls that both in Washington and the country generally, “there was broad support for prosecuting Wall Street.” Nonetheless, “four years later, there have been no arrests of any senior Wall Street executives.”

      In response to the DOJ’s excuse-making that these criminal cases are too hard to win, numerous experts — Senators, top Hill staffers, former DOJ prosecutors — emphasized the key point: Obama officials never even tried….

      As Kaufman and his staffers make clear, Obama officials were plainly uninterested in pursuing criminal accountability for Wall Street….

      The harms from this refusal to hold Wall Street accountable are the same generated by the general legal immunity the U.S. political culture has vested in its elites….

      It is an injustice in its own right to allow those with power and wealth to commit destructive crimes with impunity. It subverts democracy and warps the justice system when a person’s treatment under the law is determined not by their acts but by their power, position, and prestige. And it exposes just how shameful is the American penal state by contrasting the immunity given to the nation’s most powerful with the merciless and brutal punishment meted out to its most marginalized….

      Still, Americans continue to be plagued by massive unemployment, foreclosures, the threat of austerity and economic insecurity while those who caused those problems have more power and profit than ever. And they watch millions of their fellow citizens be put in cages for relatively minor offenses while the most powerful are free to commit far more serious crimes with complete impunity. Far less injustice than this has spurred serious unrest in other societies.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1

    • jim2,

      And this is not the first time the Obama administration has shielded someone from criminal prosecution using the requirement of demonstrating mens rea.

      The Obama Justice Department also used it to let the bankers responsible for the Great Financial Crisis off the hook:

      MARTIN SMITH: The Justice Department says these are very difficult cases to bring. Showing intent and proving every step of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult thing to do.

      JEFF CONNAUGHTON: I think that is without a doubt a factor in the difficulty of proving intent. But I’m sorry, I just don’t believe there was enough effort. It just doesn’t make common sense. And so you’re telling me that not one banker, not one executive on Wall Street, not one player in this entire financial crisis committed provable fraud? I mean, I just don’t believe that.

      ….

      MARTIN SMITH: The Department of Justice says that it’s very hard to prosecute these kinds of crimes because you have to prove criminal intent.

      TOM LEONARD: I think if I was sitting on the jury and I saw this information that I could pretty well assure myself that there’d been criminal intent.

      ….

      KEVIN PERKINS, Associate Deputy Director, FBI: And we’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people in these investigations.

      MARTIN SMITH: And you’re saying in not one of those cases— having interviewed hundreds of people and looked at these things, you can’t find one person in this whole mess that you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that was selling these things knowingly, intentionally, and defrauded the investors.

      KEVIN PERKINS: We were not able to reach a level of— that would sustain beyond a reasonable doubt. We were not able to show criminal intent sufficiently enough to obtain what we believe— to obtain a conviction of a criminal—

      MARTIN SMITH: Do you think the banks did all this unintentionally?

      KEVIN PERKINS: No, I personally don’t.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/untouchables/

      As Glenn Greenwald noted:

      PBS’ Frontline program on Tuesday night broadcast a new one-hour report on one of the greatest and most shameful failings of the Obama administration: the lack of even a single arrest or prosecution of any senior Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis — a crisis from which millions of people around the world are still suffering.

      What this program particularly demonstrated was that the Obama justice department, in particular the Chief of its Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, never even tried to hold the high-level criminals accountable.

      What Obama justice officials did instead is…to protect the most powerful factions in the society in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious criminality. Indeed, financial elites were not only vested with impunity for their fraud, but thrived as a result of it, even as ordinary Americans continue to suffer the effects of that crisis.

      Worst of all, Obama justice officials both shielded and feted these Wall Street oligarchs (who, just by the way, overwhelmingly supported Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign) as they simultaneously prosecuted and imprisoned powerless Americans for far more trivial transgressions….

      Indeed, the show recalls that both in Washington and the country generally, “there was broad support for prosecuting Wall Street.” Nonetheless, “four years later, there have been no arrests of any senior Wall Street executives.”

      In response to the DOJ’s excuse-making that these criminal cases are too hard to win, numerous experts — Senators, top Hill staffers, former DOJ prosecutors — emphasized the key point: Obama officials never even tried….

      As Kaufman and his staffers make clear, Obama officials were plainly uninterested in pursuing criminal accountability for Wall Street….

      The harms from this refusal to hold Wall Street accountable are the same generated by the general legal immunity the U.S. political culture has vested in its elites….

      It is an injustice in its own right to allow those with power and wealth to commit destructive crimes with impunity. It subverts democracy and warps the justice system when a person’s treatment under the law is determined not by their acts but by their power, position, and prestige. And it exposes just how shameful is the American penal state by contrasting the immunity given to the nation’s most powerful with the merciless and brutal punishment meted out to its most marginalized….

      Still, Americans continue to be plagued by massive unemployment, foreclosures, the threat of austerity and economic insecurity while those who caused those problems have more power and profit than ever. And they watch millions of their fellow citizens be put in cages for relatively minor offenses while the most powerful are free to commit far more serious crimes with complete impunity. Far less injustice than this has spurred serious unrest in other societies.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1

    • James Comey:

      There is a statute that was passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime, a felony for someone to engage in gross negligence. … At the time Congress passed that statute in 1917, there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you’re going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. So there was a lot of concern about it. The statute was passed.

      As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern. I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice they have grave concerns about whether it’s appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence which is why they have done it once that I know of in a case involving espionage. And so when I look the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So given that assessment of the facts, my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence. And so I know that’s been a source of some confusion for folks. That’s just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I’d like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did. So my judgment was the appropriate resolution of this case was not with a criminal prosecution.

  119. Desolate Donald would gladly apologize if he ever was wrong:

    If only he never was.

  120. David Springer

    Libtards are getting all over Trump now because yesterday Trump said that Saddam Hussein was “good” at something. What he was “good” at was killing terrorists. Evidently it’s no longer common knowledge that the United States installed and supported Saddam Hussein nor that the one thing Saddam was good at was keeping the trains running on time in Iraq. Yes he was hideously brutal and corrupt. But that’s not why we un-installed him. We undid our deed because he was an ungrateful cur who didn’t want to cooperate with the US after all we did for him.

    Why is the truth such a hard pill for libtards to swallow? I don’t get it.

  121. David Springer

    Hillary Clinton supporters at Dallas #BlackLivesMatter protest kill at least 4 Dallas PD and wound 11 other officers.

    Libtards are getting out of hand.

    • David Springer

      Article details the love and attention that DNC, Obama, and the rest of the usual progressive suspects lavish upon Black Lives Matter organization.

  122. David Springer

    Dallas Authorities release sketch of a man who helped facilitate the slaughter of Dallas Police Officers!

    • 7/8/2016 – 265,000 new jobs created. Obama is #1 capitalist president, Stock market near all time highs. Go Obama!

      • jacksmith4 said:

        Stock market near all time highs. Go Obama!

        Exactly! Obama certainly knows where his bread is buttered. QE to infinity, ZIRP, TARP, casino capitalism, all these were designed to underpin and bolster the value of financial assets, while letting everyone else sink. And all were supported by the Obama administraiton.

        Obama only represents the interests of the top 10%, and no one else.

        In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 3 and Figure 2 for the details.

        http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

        The 1% are recovering from 2008 recession while 99% are still waiting
        https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/06/one-percent-2008-recession-recovery-income

        In 2015, the income of the 99% grew by just 3.9% – ‘the best real income growth in 17 years’ – while the rich saw growth was twice that at 7.7%

        [W]hile the 1% power ahead and continue to reclaim income lost during the recession, a full recovery for the bottom 99% remains elusive. “Six years after the end of the Great Recession, those families have recovered only about 60% of their income losses due to that severe economic downturn,” he said.

        It should not come as a shock that to many Americans talk of economic recovery rings hollow. The top 1% of families saw their income grow by 37% between 2009 to 2015, from $990,000 to $1.36m. The incomes of the other 99%, however, grew by just 7.6% during that time – from $45,300 in 2009 to $48,800 in 2015.

      • Only a fool believes that life should be fair or that all men are created equal. Fact is rich people are better than poor people. Look on the bright side, at least they aren’t immortal… yet.

      • David Springer

        @jacksoff4tx

        Thanks for sharing your worthless opinion!

        Not.

    • Danny Thomas

      David,

      Ever tried data? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/09/police-are-safer-under-obama-than-they-have-been-in-decades/

      So you can verify for yourself. Because there’s probably a problem with the reporting:

      https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2015 (you can search all the years you choose. I went back to +/- 1980.)

      You guys relate your skepticism, yet seem to apply intermittently.

  123. David Springer

    FBI finds BlackLivesMatter terrorists “extremely careless” with their weapons but, finding no clear intent to kill cops, recommend no charges be filed. Says Comey “No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges for simply for mishandling assault rifles.”

  124. Just connecting some of the dots….

    In this video, Former NYPD detective Marq Claxton says:

    You have to change part of the police culture itself. We can no longer operate under this militarized, quota driven, heavy-handed enforcement model.

    But how, and why, did our police become so militarized? Here’s how Christian Parenti explains it:

    Reagan created whole new classes of poor and desperate people. It was in response to this social crisis, created by the elite response to the profit crisis, that a new wave of criminal justice crackdown began.

    Along with great economic transformations, the Reagan revolution kicked off a new round of criminal justice militarization….

    The quest for renewed profitability in the face of ongoing crises led down the path of brutal, short-term, upward redistribution of wealth. The post-liberal, post-welfare economic equation created more poverty and more opulence. Thus reproducing and governing the social order has required more repression, more segregation, and more criminal justice….

    Into this malaise rode William Jefferson Clinton, who many imagined might launch some sort of updated war on poverty. Instead, Clinton carried on with both neoliberal economic restructuring and the criminal justice buildup. With his victory came yet another wave in the storm of law and order repression.

    — CHRISTIAN PARENTI, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis

    Obama, too, has merely carried on with the “revolution” that Reagan initiated, and has not been shy about placing a crown of laurels upon the Gipper’s head:

    Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2008/01/17/obama-appears-laud-reagan-confronting-1960-70s-excesses

  125. One of my left-wing acquaintences sent me this email this morning:

    Re: The shooting of 11 police officers in Dallas

    I just realized that the Dallas PD has not mentioned the “race” of the individual snipers they’d captured ….. Could be a white supremacist, Nazi event?

    This well-choreographed and seemingly military-based action at this time diminishes the nation’s anger at the murders by police and diverts it away from that growing national outrage.

    The police chief spoke on Democracy Now this a.m. and stated that the protest against shootings by police had been peaceful and had already ended; it was afterwards that a march led police into an ambush, where pre-positioned snipers at upper levels gunned them down.

    Was this is a legimate Black revolutionary group, or is it a psy-ops and set-up?

    Does this sound like a white supremicist or Nazi?

    Dallas police shooting: Suspect told police he ‘wanted to kill white people’ as 12 officers shot and five dead
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/dallas-shooting-two-police-officers-wounded-as-shots-fired-at-ra/

    An hours-long shootout with an armed suspect came to an end early on Friday as the man was confirmed to have died, after at least one sniper opened fire on police officers during protests in Dallas, killing five officers and injuring six others.

    Three suspects are in custody after a sniper fired “ambush style” on the officers, Dallas Police Chief David Brown told reporters.

    The gunman was identified as 25-year-old Micah X Johnson, an Army reservist from a suburb of Dallas. He was killed by an explosive device police had attached to a robot.

    Johnson had told negotiators that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers, after a recent spate of US officer-involved shootings of black men, the city’s police chief said.

  126. VIDEO: Dan Bongino: All My Law Enforcement Friends And I “Are Done With President Obama”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/dan_bongino_all_my_law_enforcement_friends_and_i_are_done_with_president_obama.html

    Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says he is “done” with President Obama after his reaction to the massacre of police officers in Dallas last night.

    In an interview with “Fox And Friends” Friday morning, Bongino says: “I’m done with President Obama, and frankly, so are my law enforcement friends. I literally dont have one law enforcement friend and the federal, state or local level who has anything nice to say [about the president].”

    “It is interesting when he gives these speeches, he opens them up saying the facts matter, let’s wait for the facts.

    He has no facts on this yet, and he goes right to gun control… It is just incredible… And he goes on to say ‘This is an American problem.’ What is an American problem? We don’t even know what happened.”

    “Are we not even willing to give police officers the benefit of the doubt? We’re willing to paint with a broad brush. He doesn’t even have the facts. It is incredible.”

  127. Police blast Obama for making police the bad guys.
    Obama must stop fanning the flames of anti-police sentiment.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/ben_ferguson_some_people_in_black_lives_movement_are_not_advocating_for_peace.html

  128. VIDEO: Sheriff David Clarke: “War Has Been Declared” On Cops In America
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/sheriff_david_clarke_war_has_been_declared_on_cops.html

    I want to know — have we heard from the cop-hater in chief Obama yet about this?

    Have we heard from Mrs. Bill Clinton who threw up the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter yesterday?

    The extraordinary situation, the two situations in Louisiana and Minnesota, horrible no doubt, but when the commander in chief opens his mouth and sticks his foot in it, he just is exploiting things that don’t exist. He has no evidence, this is the stuff.

    He didn’t didn’t cause this, but you know what, he fuels this sort of misplaced anger….

    • Danny Thomas

      Re: Donald Trump Blames Media For Fanning Flames Of Racial Division, Demonizing Police

      “He didn’t didn’t cause this, but you know what, he fuels this sort of misplaced anger….”

      • “He didn’t didn’t cause this, but you know what, he fuels this sort of misplaced anger….”

        The guy who said that was this guy, and he said it in regards to Obama, not Trump.

        But nice try anyway at bashing Trump.


        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/sheriff_david_clarke_war_has_been_declared_on_cops.html

      • Danny Thomas

        Did I really need an “irony/sarc” tag on that?

        Do I have to explain how Trump, he who needs no advertising buy because he just picks up the phone and the media want to interview him (can you say clicks?) then he blames that media for ‘fanning flames’ after you use a quote that says: ““He didn’t didn’t cause this, but you know what, he fuels this sort of misplaced anger….”

        Glenn, sometimes, (most of the time) Trump should just learn to Shuttupa.

        We’ve, in the past week, lost two private citizen’s lives in the south and 5 more yesterday in the public service and Trump wants to: “Blames Media For Fanning Flames Of Racial Division, Demonizing Police”. Can you say assertion? When in fact in this case, Trump is fanning the flames of his perceived war against ‘the media’ (defined as?) while using ‘the media’. And maybe he should just say ‘thank you for your service’ to the officers and ‘our condolences to the family’s of all. Instead he’s using the circumstance to make a sale.

        Blaming the media is in no form ‘leadership’.

        Trumps words (from your article):”
        DONALD TRUMP: Well there is a divide, but I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood, and if there is an incident –whether it is a incident done purposefully, which is a horror and you should take very strong action– or if it is a mistake, it is one your newscasts all night, all week, all month. And it never ends.

        The police in this country have done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order, and they are afraid for their jobs, they are afraid of the mistreatment they get. And I am telling you, not only me speaking, minorities all over the country, they respect the police of this country.

        And we have to give them more respect. They can’t act, they’re afraid for losing their pension, their job, they don’t know what to do. We have to give great respect, far greater than we give right now, to our really great police.”

        Lip service and zero actual substance. Sing them a song about R.E.S.P.E.C.T.? Or come up with a plan.

        There is zero need for me to “Trump bash”. He does it all by and to himself.

      • Danny Thomas,

        I figured that would set you off into another anti-Trump tirade, and I was right.

        At least we’ve ripped the mask off, and now see you for what you are, which surely isn’t someone who is undecided and is merely looking for information to make up their mind.

      • Danny Thomas

        Tirade: “a long, angry speech of criticism or accusation.”

        Quotation: “a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.”

        Distinction?

        “At least we’ve ripped the mask off, and now see you for what you are, which surely isn’t someone who is undecided and is merely looking for information to make up their mind.” (This is an example of a tirade).

        So Glenn, as you’ve suggested you’ve not made up your mind, who is/are your alternative candidate(s).

        The logical fallacy that because one person isn’t another is a good reason to vote for the first is no different than the fallacy that because one doesn’t care for the methods of another that the first will be voting for a specific person. Bad logic.

        But at least now we’ve (we??? who’s we?) ripped off that mask.

      • Danny Thomas

        Hmm.

        More of the same: “”too many Americans are living in terrible poverty and violence,” although he did not share specific ideas for how to change this.”

        “Trump did not offer specifics as to how he would end racial division, create jobs or reduce crime.”

        “In the wake of that tragedy, Trump circulated inaccurate or unsubstantiated information”

        “”Our interest is staying out of the politics of the moment, not to provide photo ops,” Bratton said in response to a question from a reporter during a news conference. “If Mr. Trump wants to speak to me, I would be happy to brief him on what we’re doing… But we are not in the business of providing photo ops for our candidates.””

        “”Our children deserve a better future than what we are making them live through today,” Trump said. “But to get them there, we must work together and stand together. We will make America safe again.”” (Fully agree with Trump on this last para. Now if he’d just say how).

        (Note: One agreement with Trump, and only provided quotes on the others).

        No ‘tirade’ involved. Readers can decide for themselves. But probably has to do with an issue with the reporting.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/08/donald-trump-racial-divisions-have-gotten-worse-not-better/

      • Danny Thomas

        Actions, from private citizens, not just words:

        “Operation H.U.N.T Meet NOW at Joe’s auto park parking 1221 west 3rd street Los Angeles California 90017 Calling: ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN, MEXICAN AMERICAN MEN & any other RACE of REAL MEN with heart to stand with us today & walk peacefully to the LAPD headquarters. [LEAVE ALL WOMEN & CHILDREN AT HOME… THIS IS OUR MISSION FOR THEM] Do not: bring any weapons or anything illegal. Do not come high or belligerent.. We don’t need any HOT HEADS or anyone there for the wrong reasons… We will stand as we are, UNIFIED. I’m calling ALL GANGS, ALL RACES, ALL GROWN MEN affiliated or not & WE WILL STAND UNIFIED tomorrow !!!! Our numbers are all the weapons we need !!! We do not need to be dumb, retarded or uncivilized today… ALL WE NEED IS EACH OTHER… I will not lead any of you into a trap !!!!! Objective: to make the Californian government & it’s law branches aware that from today forward, we will be UNIFIED as minorities & we will no longer allow them to hunt us or be hunted by us !!! Let’s erase the fear of one another on both sides & start something new here in the city of Los Angeles, a city we all love & share ! There are many things that have to be done to rectify this situation that has plagued us for hundreds of years & UNIFICATION is the 1st step !!! Again, I’m asking for ALL of my AFRICAN AMERICAN, MEXICAN AMERICAN & any other AMERICAN who has the heart to STAND WITH US to meet us at the above address & take the 1st step into altering our future for our children & our FAMILIES….I LOVE EVERY ONE OF YOU & WE OWE IT TO OURSELVES & OUR FAMILIES TO BE MEN & TAKE A STAND MY BROTHERS.. THE TIME IS NOW – The Game 📸 @derekdidit”

        Leading to: “It was an impromptu decision. Organizers of the march, which included the Nation of Islam, said they didn’t expect to meet with the chief and mayor.

        The group emerged 45 minutes later, after what Garcetti described as an “extraordinarily powerful meeting.” It was another surreal scene: the mayor and police chief of Los Angeles addressing reporters, flanked by famous rappers.”

        http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-game-snoop-dogg-protest-lapd-20160708-snap-htmlstory.html

    • David Springer

      Hey Danny, maybe you should just go phuck yourself you miserable passive aggressive little prick.

      • Danny Thomas

        Come on big Dave. Surely you can do better. Assertive aggressive much?

        Passive aggressive? I take it you don’t care for the content of the quotes provided. Your problem. Not mine. I’m fine stating I expect more from Trump if he want’s to earn my vote. Guess you’re not fine with seeing the reality of what I’ve been saying.

        Glenn accuses me of ‘tirades’ and you indicate I’ve some hidden aggression. Well if it’s a tirade it’s not hidden, and if it’s hidden it’s not a tirade. Ya’ll need to get your stories straight ’cause Trumpeteering doesn’t hit the mark.

      • Danny Thomas

        Guess I’m not alone: “Overall satisfaction with the choice of candidates is at its lowest point in two decades. Currently, fewer than half of registered voters in both parties – 43% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans – say they are satisfied with their choices for president.”

        “Roughly four-in-ten voters (41%) say it is difficult to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton because neither would make a good president – as high as at any point since 2000. And just 11% say the choice is difficult because either would make a good chief executive, the lowest percentage during this period.”

        ” Just 27% of Americans say the campaign is “focused on important policy debates,” which is seven points lower than in December, before the primaries began.” (Think I’ve mentioned that policy thingy)

        And you’re not alone either: “More than half of Trump supporters (55%) view their vote more as a vote against Clinton, while just 41% view it more as a vote for Trump. ”

        http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=7d3b81400f-Weekly_July_7_20167_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-7d3b81400f-399622865

        But there’s probably a problem with Pew skewing things.

  129. Reverend Jesse Jackson points the finger at Donald Trump and his followers for the shooting in Dallas
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3680429/It-s-kind-anti-black-mood-Reverend-Jesse-Jackson-points-finger-Donald-Trump-followers-rise-mean-spirited-division-America.html#ixzz4DqerhiNb

    Human rights activist Jessie Jackson has pointed the finger at Donald Trump and his followers for helping to create a rising climate of fear in America which has contributed to the shocking deaths of five police officers in downtown Dallas.

    Rev Jackson said there was an ‘anti-black mood’ in America which also saw discrimination against immigrants, Muslims and women….

    He said: ‘Threats to deport 15 million immigrants…threats to build a wall between Mexico who we share 2,000 miles of a border, there’s a permissiveness towards black people [which] is readily apparent and we have been used as scape goats for deeper and deeper economic and cultural fears.’

    Asked about Donald Trump and the rise of ultra-conservative groups, Mr Jackson said: ‘He is a factor in that.’

    ‘It’s not just Trump, it’s the followers of Trump…’

    • David Springer

      Predictable enough from Jackson. He’s got his head so far up his ass he has to loosen his tie to take a crap. The shooter was a lone black guy, ostensibly at one time a good guy who served honorably in the US Army in Afghanistan, who evidently snapped and chose suicide by cop in a blaze of bullets to leave this world. Nothing to do with anything really. Not Trump not Obama not #BlackLivesMatter, not anything. People go insane and sh*t happens.

      • “People go insane and sh*t happens”
        We are going to fix that.
        Obama has given the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) the task of finding out how the government can better understand, control and modify human brain functions. The BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) will funnel billions of dollars into public and private research programs to solve “one of the greatest scientific challenges of our time”.
        Maybe they will find out if there is an ‘off switch’ they can remotely control with a directed energy weapon? Who knows, maybe a device that can use light or sound or electro-magnetic waves to disable motor control or induce sudden sleep. Ain’t technology great? And nobody can stop it.

  130. Wow! The far left hates Clinton as much as the far right loves her.

    Could Endorsing Clinton Hurt Down-Ticket Democrats? Polling Says Yes.
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/gaius-publius-could-endorsing-clinton-hurt-down-ticket-democrats-polling-says-yes.html

    I really do feel for the lock-step Democratic Party. They may be going down hard. It may not be pretty, but apparently no one can stop them, like no one can stop the meth-addled kid from burning out the lab with his stoned self inside.

  131. AUDIO: Newt Gingrich interview
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/newt_gingrich_talks_about_empathizing_with_black_lives_matter_on_sean_hannity_show.html

    Both Trump and Gingrich are starting to talk about the structural causes that are fueling the violence:

    SEAN HANNITY: You’re also saying that we cannot ignore the socio-economic conditions that many Americans are still suffering under…

    Now the president said by every measure, everybody’s better off. By every measure that I see everybody is worse off, and the people who are most disproportionately negatively impacted by all this is the minority communities in America.

    NEWT GINGRICH: And Black teenage employment has become horrendous, 60%. That leads to alienation and the sense that no one cares about them and that they have no future. And that’s about as dangerous as you can get.

    • David Springer

      Yep. Millennials in general are getting left behind economically. None more so than young black men in the inner cities. We need to do something about moral and economic decay in inner cities. The first thing anyone needs for self-esteem is a respectable job. We need to get manufacturing back no matter what that takes. Not everyone is suited to jobs that require higher education and good social skills and not everyone ever will be. Living off the gov’t is demeaning and a dead-end. It’s a last resort not a way of life. Libtards do things that perpetuate it as a way of life. We also need a common flag to rally round and that isn’t some global village flag or that of the United States of Europe. It’s the stars and stripes. We need to start being proud of our country and every citizen that lives here. We need to embrace a common culture as well. Multi-culturalism is a failed libtard experiment just like globalization.

      Vote Trump.

      • If you bring back manufacturing, then the workers will be living off the government.

      • Danny Thomas

        Might have to work a bit harder to gain that millennial vote. Actual policies might be in order:

        “Young people also happen to be among the most resistant to both Trump and Clinton. Post-ABC polling shows about 6 in 10 don’t like Clinton and 75 percent don’t like Trump. Both are the highest among any age group.”

        “That’s a lot of young people looking for an alternative. If Gary Johnson and/or Jill Stein are to be the rare third-party candidates to gain traction, it will probably start with them.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/09/could-donald-trump-lose-the-millennial-vote-to-gary-johnson/

        But it’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • David Springer

        Yeah, Trump’s no alternative. He’s a cookie cutter professional politician. Everybody is saying there’s nothing different about him.

        Oh wait… That’s Hillary. Everybody is saying Trump is like no one that has ever been nominated for president by one of the two major politcal parties. That would probably explain why the old guard in the Republican party tried so hard to block him hash tag NeverTrump. :-)

        Vote Trump.

      • David Springer

        JCH | July 9, 2016 at 11:35 am |
        If you bring back manufacturing, then the workers will be living off the government.
        —————————————————————–

        No that’s communism where the gov’t owns the means of production so working in factory means you’ve got a government job.

        Write that down.

  132. David Springer

    “Young people also happen to be among the most resistant to both Trump and Clinton.”

    Young people are even more resistant to getting off their lazy asses to vote. If only they could vote by texting like they do to vote for their favorite on American Idol, eh? The only thing Trump will lose millennial voters to is sloth.

  133. Danny Thomas

    “The ‘business’ candidate? :https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/apple-microsoft-hp-among-companies-shunning-gop-convention/2016/07/09/5c044f20-45a3-11e6-a76d-3550dba926ac_story.html

    “More than 100 donors have contributed a total of $57.5 million” and at around 1/2 million each guessing the contributors are not ‘workers’.

    • David Springer

      You’re a little liar, Danny. You’ve never genuinely wondered about Trump’s proposed policies. It was all concern trolling.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        When one’s choices are one who has used exceedingly poor judgement and one who hasn’t detailed policies (trickling out a bit now) and having spent the more recent elections having to choose between ‘dumb & dumber’ what is wrong with seeking further information? Just today you posted a reason ‘for’ voting for Trump (VA benefits). It’s a blog, you could be lying about eligibility. But I’ll defer and ‘believe’ you. Too much to ask for you to reciprocate?

        But it’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • Danny Thomas

        So is Ryan lying about his support for Trump? Are you?

        “”Can you tell me, how can you morally justify your support for this kind of candidate?” Marcone asked.
        Ryan didn’t address the premise of the question, reiterating his stance that opposing Trump amounts to supporting Clinton.”

        http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/paul-ryan-house-speaker/#

      • Danny Thomas

        “In portions of Trump’s testimony that have been released, he acknowledged that he plays on people’s fantasies. He is also pressed on blog posts in 2008 that Bill Clinton was a great president and Hillary Clinton would make a great president or vice president. Of his praise for Hillary Clinton, he said, “I didn’t give it a lot of thought, because I was in business.”

        If ‘playing on people’s fantasies’ isn’t a bit of a red flag for ya David, you must not be looking.

        http://www.sltrib.com/home/4111925-155/trump-seeks-to-block-release-of

      • David Springer

        And you respond with more concern trolling, Danny. Perfect. In the spirit of don’t feed the trolls I’m not taking the bait.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        Blogs leave lots of false impression. Mine was that you were sharper than what you’re showing here.

        “Concern Troll. In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.”

        Have I in any way led you to believe I’m allied with you regarding Trump? I’m against Trump and Clinton. My preferred candidate ain’t in the race. My next candidate got ‘trumped’. So there we are.

        And sockpuppeting? Well, you’d be more knowledgeable than I.

      • David Springer

        Danny you have repeatedly stated that Trump has not laid out any policies and you (ostensibly sincerely) want to know what they are before rendering an opinion. You’ve been repeatedly given links to his web page where he lays out policy and you largely ignore them. Then when you finally do acknowledge some bit of policy he’s laid out you reliably bash it.

        You have already made up your mind that you don’t like Trump. You criticize him for not driving any stakes in the ground with regard to policy, then when he does you reliably don’t like it. That is concern trolling. There is no reason for me to interact with you about Trump as the outcome each time is both predictable and not constructive.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        Hmm. You’re getting there. I have received zero links(that I recall) but have supplied many regarding policies. Trump is putting them out in some areas and I commented on the individually. His web page has mostly videos but I gave him credit for a total of 16 (IIRC).

        As far as interaction goes, it’s you who have seemingly mind melded with the man and have offered no criticism of him once you swung his way. There is much to find of issue with each major candidate. I’ve criticized Clinton too. And no, I don’t care for Trump. He’s slow and low on policies. And he’s a hot head and sells like a used car salesman with major bills due. (Note, I didn’t go for the alternatives that most use when referencing him).

        David, you’ve bowed to now calling names but I do take notice that you will not argue Trumps polices. Because he doesn’t have them out there, with a recent few exceptions. So yes, I suggest the interaction is ineffective as it stands.

        But I still respect your choice. It’s what makes “America Great”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again

  134. Danny Thomas

    Is CNN, with their new employee, friend or foe? http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/donald-trump-2016/

  135. David Springer

    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-gets-it-right-on-reforming-the-va/

    Trump’s plan for VA reform gets kudos from Investor’s Business Daily.

    As an enrolled member of VA Health Care this alone gets my vote. Simple and effective – at the veteran’s option his ID card works like a Medicare ID card no questions asked. A major private medical center and hospital very close to me just started TV advertisements that it is accepting Veteran’s Choice ID Cards. The problem is still any services under Veteran’s Choice has to be pre-approved by the VA which is time consuming and subject to denial. Trump’s plan gives veterans a real choice that can’t be denied. Veterans get to vote with their feet about when and where they want to receive care. In other words it brings competition to the VA so if they will need to compete with Medicare for their funding.