Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

U.S. Presidential election, Brexit, climate change

The Atlantic: How American politics went insane [link]

Living in the Age of Stupid: How to comprehend Brexit, Trump and the Anti’s [link]

The New Yorker: British Lose Right to Claim That Americans Are Dumber [link]

The New Yorker on Conflict of Interest: “The truth is that the only way to defeat one set of interests is with another set of interests.” [link]

Brexit

Brexit: 94 unanswered questions for #climate and #energy policy [link]

Forget the politics – Brexit may be unlawful [link]

How Brexit Uncertainty Could Produce a British Boom [link]

I want my country back  [link]

U.S. Presidential Election

Sanders and Clinton teams fight over climate language in Democratic platform [link]

US Nat’l Dem platform calls for 100% power by renewables by 2050, but no fracking ban or carbon tax.  Calls for Justice Dept to investigate Fossil Fuel Companies [link]

Hillary Clinton’s plan to tackle climate change [link]

Donald Trump’s briefing book: Energy politics http://washex.am/28Yfrlp

This data-rich profile of Trump voters is an outstanding piece of journalism. [link]

The environment loves me. I’m going to do very well with the environment. It’s gonna be great.  [link]

Gary Johnson: the Presidential Candidate for Non-Crazy Americans [link]

Defecting Democrats, Trump and bitterness: Why Green Party candidate Jill Stein just might turn November upside down [link]

533 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Dr. Carl von Weizsacker may be responsible for destroying the integrity of postmodern science by defining nuclear binding energy as a thermodynamic path function, rather than correctly as a thermodynamic state function:

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/the-great-pyramid-has-8-sides/#comments

  2. I tried twice, unsuccessfully, to get this comment through moderation on the last Brexit thread. For that reason, I am posting it here as a jpeg image.

    Since both the anti-Brexit campaign and the Democrats believe elections should be about race-baiting, and nothing but race-baiting, I belive the comment is germane to both Brexit and the U.S. presidential election.


    • It seems that it’s OK if a Trump supporter is accused of racism, but NOT OK if said supporter points out that playing the race card actually creates and widens the racial divide (race-baiting).

      • jim2,

        I agree. If the Democrats want to see what a racist looks like, they need to take a look in the mirror. For the Democrats have become quite masterful at what Rogers Brubaker called, to use a more generic term, “groupism.”

        Groupism comes natural to human beings due to our evolutionary past. Nevertheless, balkanization of the nation into racial and ethnic groups is not helpful for those attempting to engender national cohesion or to unify the nation.

        As Brubaker explains:

        FEW SOCIAL science concepts would seem as basic, even indispensable, as that of group. In disciplinary terms, ‘group’ would appear to be a core concept for sociology, political science, anthropology, demography and social psychology. In substantive terms, it would seem to be fundamental to the study of political mobilization, cultural identity, economic interests, social class, status groups, collective action, kinship, gender, religion, ethnicity, race, multiculturalism, and minorities of every kind.
        http://bev.berkeley.edu/Ethnic%20Religious%20Conflict/Ethnic%20and%20Religious%20Conflict/1%20Identity/Ethnicity%20without%20Groups%20Brubaker.pdf

        Brubaker goes on to explain that humans, being participants in the grand human enterprise,

        of course, regularly do represent ethnic, racial and
        national conflict in such groupist, even primordialist terms. They often
        cast ethnic groups, races or nations as the protagonists—the heroes and
        martyrs—of such struggles.

        But the all-time masters of groupism, Brubaker adds, are the political entrepreneurs, the “specialists in ethnicity,”

        such as ethnopolitical entrepreneurs, who, unlike nonspecialists, may live ‘off’ as well as ‘for’ ethnicity [and] often have what Pierre Bourdieu has called a performative character.

        By invoking groups, they seek to evoke them, summon them, call them into being. Their categories are for doing—designed to stir, summon, justify, mobilize, kindle and energize.

        By reifying groups, by treating them as substantial things-inthe-world, ethnopolitical entrepreneurs may, as Bourdieu notes, ‘contribute to producing what they apparently describe or designate’.

        Ethnographic entrepreneurs therefore engage in “group-making as a social, cultural and political project, aimed at transforming categories into groups or increasing levels of groupness.”

        Group-making, however, is not always a benign project.and thus there is a need to be sensitive to

        the generalized coding bias in favor of ethnicity and to the sometimes strategic or even cynical use of ethnic framing to mask the pursuit of clan, clique or class interests [and to] alert us to the risk of over-ethnicized or overly groupist interpretations…

        One need not subscribe to a reductionist ‘elite manipulation’ view
        of politicized ethniciy to acknowledge that the ‘spin’ put on conflicts by participants may conceal as much as it reveals and that the representation of conflicts as conflicts between ethnic or national
        groups may obscure the interests at stake and the dynamics involved.

        What is represented as ethnic conflict or ethnic war—such as the violence in the former Yugoslavia, may have as much or more to do with thuggery, warlordship, opportunistic looting and black-market profiteering than with ethnicity

        Brubaker adds that an

        awareness of the interest that ethnic and nationalist leaders may have in living off politics, as well as for politics, to borrow the classic
        distinction of Max Weber, and awareness of the possible divergence between the interests of leaders and those of their putative constituents, can keep us from accepting at face value leaders’ claims about the beliefs, desires and interests of their constituents.

        Speaking specifically of the United States, Brubaker says:

        the ‘groups’ taken to constitute the canonical ‘ethnoracial pentagon’ — African Americans, Asian Americans, Whites, Native Americans and Latinos — are (with the partial exception of
        African Americans) not groups at all but categories, backed by political
        entrepreneurs and entrenched in governmental and other organizational
        routines of social counting and accounting (Office of Management and Budget).

        It would be easy to highlight the enormous cultural heterogeneity within these and other putative ‘groups,’ and the minimal degree of groupness associated with many ethnic categories in the US.

      • Assimilation, not alienation.

    • > Your argument is logically and empirically indefensible […]

      I like it when you use big words like that, Glenn. You may not even be able to formulate “my” argument even if your life depended on it.

      Perhaps you should try to formulate “your” argument instead of asking rhetorical questions.

      Oh, and since you like linkies:

  3. Peter Lang

    Economists for Brexit
    http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/

    Summary of views:
    • Brexit will result in a better economic outcome than remaining in the EU.
    • Economic forecasts (based on proven financial modelling by Patrick Minford) show that on leaving the EU:
    o Output grows 2%
    o Competitiveness rises 5%
    o Real disposable wages up 1.5%
    o Exchange rate falls 6%
    o Inflation and interest rates rise to 2-3% range
    o Current account improves to -1.5% of GDP
    o Unemployment reduced by 0.2% (75,000 on benefit count)
    • The UK does not need to do a trade deal to trade. It already trades extensively with many countries across the globe under the rules of the WTO and can continue to do so with EU countries in the future (in the same way that the US, Japan and China does). Leaving the EU will decrease prices and boost GDP.
    • The City of London will retain its role as the world’s leading financial centre outside of the EU.
    • The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget and those funds could be utilised far more efficiently elsewhere.

    http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/

  4. From the article:

    Dow, S&P 500 shake off Brexit, log best week of 2016

    U.S. stocks booked a fourth straight daily gain Friday, and the Dow and S&P 500 marked their best week this year as stocks clawed back some of the losses scored in the wake of the tumult that followed the U.K.’s decision last week to sever ties with the European Union.

    Better-than-expected manufacturing data combined with fading worries about the Brexit, or British exit from the EU, stoked appetite for equities.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-struggle-to-hold-on-after-3-day-rally-2016-07-01

  5. From the article:

    Italy Just Bailed Out Another Failed Bank, May Use Pension Funds For Future Bank Rescues

    Despite – or perhaps due to – Italy’s failed attempt to slide a state-funded €40 billion recapitalization attempt past Angela Merkel while blaming it on Brexit, and coupled with a bailout proposal to provide €150 billion in liquidity to insolvent banks, overnight we got yet another confirmation that the biggest risk factor for Europe is not Brexit but Italy, where yet another failed bank was bailed out. As the FT reports overnight, Atlante, Italy’s privately backed €5bn bank bailout fund which was created in April to stem the threat of contagion from struggling lenders and whose assets turned out to be woefully inadequate, took control of Veneto Banca after a €1bn capital increase demanded by EU bank regulators attracted zero interest.

    This is good news for Veneto Banco and bad news for all other insolvent banks, because the fund, known as Atlas in English, was intended to hold up the sky for Italian banks. Instead it is now practically out of funds, having depleted more than half of its war chest after taking control of Popolare di Vicenza, another regional bank, last month.

    That has left little in reserve to tackle about €200bn in non-performing loans run up during Italy’s three-year recession, of which €85bn have not yet been written down. Bad loans are weighing on bank lending and crimping an already weak recovery.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-01/italy-just-bailed-out-another-failed-bank-may-use-pension-funds-future-bank-rescues

  6. From the article:

    ‘EU WANTS AN EMPIRE’ Brussels hope to expand its influence as far as ASIA and AFRICA

    THE EU wants to expand its influence as far and wide as Asia and Africa – with critics fuming it shows Brussels are planning to form “its own empire”.

    The warning of a European army was at the core of the Brexit campaign
    The latest EU foreign policy document, titled Global Strategy, calls for an extended reach into new spheres as distant as the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

    It also outlined “gradual synchronisation and mutual adaptation” between different member states’ individual defence strategies.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/685005/EU-superstate-army-plans-Brussels-expand-reach-China-Africa-Brexit-Ukip

  7. From the article:

    Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub

    A man with a concealed carry license stopped a shooter after the latter opened fire on a crowd of people at a nightclub in South Carolina early Sunday morning, according to WISTV.com.

    After getting into a fight with another person, the 32-year-old suspect pulled out a gun and began to fire at a crowd of people gathered outside of the club, hitting and injuring four, WISTV reports. One of the victims, who holds a concealed-carry permit, shot back in self-defense, hitting the suspect in the leg.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/

  8. Meanwhile, the Greek crisis is as bad as it ever was. I guess it has been going on for so long, journalists no longer take notice. UK leaving the EU will put more strain on the solvent states of the EU. This might incent the EU to try to expand its empire to other countries. From the article:

    Opposition leader Mitsotakis warns Greek tax rises will stifle growth

    Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Greek opposition leader, has a blunt message for the country’s international creditors and Alexis Tsipras, its leftwing leader: tax rises that the prime minister insists are central to Greece’s recovery are a costly mistake.

    He said the fiscal measures rolled out this month as part of a €5.4bn austerity package agreed with the EU and the International Monetary Fund in return for more bailout cash will stifle growth, cut revenues and push many more Greeks into tax evasion and the black economy.

    http://www.greekcrisis.net/2016/06/opposition-leader-mitsotakis-warns.html

  9. Article clip about Greece in moderation @jim2 | July 2, 2016 at 9:17 am

  10. ‘Brexit may be unlawful’

    It was easy to guess that was from the ever more ludicrous Guardian, once a fine campaigning newspaper but now a shadow of its former self

    they said;

    ‘A legal power of a public authority, such as the government, may affect the legal situation of very many people. For this reason, the courts are particularly firm in keeping public authorities within the limits of their powers. UK withdrawal from the EU would affect the legal situation of every person in the UK, and the legal situation of many other people elsewhere.’

    By that criteria every general, local and EU election could be open to legal challenge as the result is not going to be liked by one set of people or another.

    Obviously the easiest thing is if the obviously superior Guardian readers should either;

    a) have three votes each, rather than merely one, the same as us plebs. If they are under 25 they should perhaps get 5 votes each AND the right of veto if things don’t go their way.

    OR

    b) They should grow up, accept that all votes are equal and just because they were on the losing side stop whinging and demanding a re-run. Leave means Leave, no ifs or buts or a rerun just because the answer wasn’t to their liking.

    tonyb

    • The Guardian article was so garbled it couldn’t even distort, insinuate and patronise like a good Guardian article is supposed to do. The New Class is now so sure it’s right that it doesn’t even need to know what it’s right about.

    • I read a very serious and thoughtful piece from a UK ‘constitutional law’ group. It makes a strong case that since parliamentary statute trumps crown perogative (a UK legal principle going back to the Magna Carta, well established in the 1600s, and recently applied), and since UK joining EU was via an act of parliament (for example, making EU rules effectively parliamentary statutes), that the new PM cannot unilaterally trigger Article 50. It seems that will require an act of parliament, undoing the previous Admission act. Whether that will happen is a great uncertainty.

      • David Wojick

        Article 50 may be unnecessary. All the UK has to do is stop paying its EU dues. Can the PM do that?

      • ristvan: In the comments under the Graundia is this post from the Times.
        “Sir, Lord Pannick, QC (Law, June 30) argues that parliamentary approval is required for a notification under Article 50 because such notification “would start the process by which that legislation [the European Communities Act 1972] would become a dead letter”, and is therefore “inconsistent with the 1972 act”.

        But the 1972 act incorporates EU law into UK domestic law, and does so by expressly providing in Section 2 that all “rights, powers . . . from time to time created or arising by or under the treaties” are part of UK law. The definition of “treaties” in Section 1 includes the Treaty on European Union, which contains Article 50.

        Accordingly, not only is the right to notify withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 not inconsistent with the 1972 act, but it is brought into UK law by the 1972 act. There may be good political reasons for seeking parliamentary approval of a decision to give notification under Article 50, but it is not legally required.
        David Wolfson, QC
        One Essex Court, London EC4”

        So it would seem the PM could trigger Article 50 or that parliament could trigger Article 50 after a vote. The 1972 Admission act does not need to be undone.
        If parliament doesn’t implement the will of the people then who knows what might happen immediately. It could get very messy very quickly.
        If they don’t implement an acceptable Brexit then at the next election you would expect to see a large rise in the number of votes for UKIP who although they only have 1 MP in parliament atm, at the last election they went from nowhere to a close second place in most constituencies.
        I doubt UKIP would have any hesitation invoking Article 50.

      • EH, you have provided the counter legal argument. I am not knowledgable enough to know which might eventually prevail. Only that it is a genuine mess.

      • IANAL I am just trying to broaden the argument. What I read from that was that as the European Communities Act 1972 included section 2 that future treaties would from time to time increase its scope including Treaty on European Union, which contains Article 50. So the 1972 act would not need to be repealed. Which is not what the Grandian was saying (that it was illegal to enact Article 50).
        So they can just get on and notify the EU that they are enacting Article 50.
        I know the EU is in a rush but I don’t think the UK should be in a rush to do it. We should get all our ducks in a row before we do it.

      • Without having read either the 1972 Act or the UK statute trumps perogative common law, I would have to say as a nonpracticing but licensed lawyer that your argument (if your citations are correct) wins. I stand corrected.
        How could the UK have been so stupid as to say all FUTURE EU stuff becomes UK force of law. Sovereignty was abdicated in that moment. How ironic that those same words can be used to wrest sovereignty back.

    • tonyb

      ‘Brexit may be unlawful.’ The Guardian comes up with some pretty obscure and convoluted logic there. But take them at their word. If they are right then that nullifies the entry into the EU.

  11. RE: The New Yorker: British Lose Right to Claim That Americans Are Dumber

    While Germany, or at least Germany’s elite, have certainly flourished under the EU’s neoliberal project, the UK’s great unwashed have not.

    With the crème de la crème like Borwitz, however, it’s plain to see that economics counts for nothing, or at least the economics of the bottom 99%. The only things that matter to his ilk are racism, xenophobia and that small-minded, inward looking white trash, whose only concern is about its own national welfare and wellbeing.

  12. JONATHAN RAUCH (the Atlantic Article) seems to believe the US government got things done before “chaos” set in, epitomized by Trump, of course. But the truth is the parties haven’t been able to push their agenda very well because Congress has been split down the middle for some time now.

    I find it notable that only with the rise of Trump do lefty journalists find all sorts of “new” problems with politics.

  13. I don’t know if anyone saw this hateful graphic in the Guardian immediately after Brexit?.

    ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Basically it shows how many years the voter has left to live to suffer the consequences of their vote. Basically the gist is that Older people are going to die soon anyway but have affected the life chances of the 75% of younger people who voted remain.

    The only trouble is that only 40% of the young bothered to vote, so this is 75% of 40%. Presumably those who didn’t vote are ambivalent about the answer either way

    Apparently, and the numbers are difficult to check, more old people voted to remain than young people, but as more older people voted in the first place- and most voted leave- they outvoted the old and young who wanted to remain. Its called democracy.

    Perhaps there ought to be a sliding scale of votes whereby someone of 20 has 5 times the weighting of someone aged 80?

    This is all of a piece with the ‘safe spaces’ debate in Universities whereby any opinion different to theirs is screened out as ‘wrong’ therefore it does need to be listened to.

    tonyb

    • tonyb said:

      Perhaps there ought to be a sliding scale of votes whereby someone of 20 has 5 times the weighting of someone aged 80?

      We tried something along those lines in the United States:

      The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

      When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying “blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites….”

      Pinckney’s statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians.

      Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he “could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade…by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes.”

      With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.”

      http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787#sthash.G9chBNC0.dpuf

      And to this day, we still have something similar to “allowing them a representation for their negroes” operative in the United States. This situation arose because of the Voting Rights Act, which allocates and draws the boundaries of political districts based on the number of total residents, not the number of citizens who can vote.

      The Ultimate Elite Initiative: The Voting Rights Act

      It is in fact probable that the majority of Hispanics in Los Angeles at the time of the 1980 redistricting were not citizens… But in these documents one is hard-pressed to find the words “immigrant” or “immigration.” Nor is there any acknowledgment that…only 32 percent of Hispanics in the county in 1980 were even eligible to register and vote…..

      [O]ut of approximately 1.8 million residents in the newly created First Supervisorial District, only 88,102 votes were cast — less than 5 percent of the total population. The simple fact is that this new Hispanic district does not hav many residents eligible to vote.

      For example, when it was created, the First District had 707,651 voting-age citizens, while the predominately Anglo Third District had 1,098,663. Thus, a vote in the First weighs much more than in the Third.

      This curious development arises because the federal courts have interpreted the one-person-one-vote principle as mandating districts roughly equal in total population — not eligible voters. When laid down by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, this principle was based on the assumption that equipopulous districts contain correspondingly equal numbers of electors. Yet today, under conditions of mass immigration, this assumption is often wrong….

      Thus Mexican-American leaders have not only acclimated to immigration from Mexico at high levels, they have in fact become dependent on it as the source of their visibility and influence.

      — PETER SKERRY, Mexican Americans, the Anbivalent Minority

      And if this was the situation in 1980, imagine what it is like today with six times the number of immigrants from Mexico.

      • Glenn

        Thanks very much for that very interesting piece.

        tonyb

      • Perhaps there ought to be a sliding scale of votes…

        As GS notes, political representation in the United States has never been based upon “one person, one vote.” I would argue this is still true even after the Supreme Court’s Baker v. Carr line of decisions.
        Consider that each State has two Senators in Congress, regardless of population. Wyoming has fewer than 600k residents. California has about 40M.

      • And thank the higher powers for the Senate. Otherwise, New York and LA would be dictating how many liters of water we can drink every day.

    • Tony

      Tying the comments of yours and Glenn’s into the Age of Stupid post gave an idea. Given everyone in the world knows that the left is made up of Economic Illiterates, perhaps it is time to revisit the efficacy of a quasi-modified poll tax altered into having to pass a financial and economic literacy test.

      Now that would most likely deem a large portion of the electorate ineligible to vote, but we would surely have smarter decisions since the “stupids” would be neutered.

      How else can the elites enlighten the rest of us as to what we should know but don’t know what is best for us.

      I’m waiting for the elites, scientists, geniuses and experts to explain exactly how I am wrong in believing blue is the most beautiful
      color and eggs over easy is superior to an omelette.

      • Ceresco kid

        I suspect that those from the financial and economics community would fail the test even worse than the general public.

        As the Queen asked of the financial crisis around 2008 ‘Why did no one see this coming?’

        tonyb

      • cersco

        Sorry, my comment to you went into moderation. I mentioned the Quee*. Judith has been unveiled as an anti monarchist…

        tonyb

      • There is a simpler way to do an equivalent. Alt 1: anyone under age 65 who did not actually pay some income tax cannot vote in that years election. Alt 2: Anyone who received net federal benefits (excepting social security and medicare) cannot vote in that years election. Benefits would include medicaid, food stamps, farm programs, renewable subsidies, Tesla subsidies, flood insurance subsidies,… Net means benefits worth more than what was actually paid in federal income tax, the 1040 bottom line.
        Either mechanism disenfranchises freeloaders from always voting to help themselves to more.

      • Or we could just go with the tried-and-true white, male, property owners approach. Yeah, that oughta do it.*

        */sarc potentially necessary given the tenor of some comments on this blog.

    • Astonishing…
      the young progressives that hammer away at …isms and …ists, and decry the under representation of the lower classes, waist not a moment resorting to ageist and elitist arguments when things don’t go their way.
      What is happening?

      Perhaps they will live long enough to find out that their visions of the future were as off as those of the generations that preceded them.

      I’m still waiting for my moon vacation and the Age of Aquarius.

  14. I want my country back [link]

    From that article:

    This was never a referendum on the EU. It was a referendum on the modern world, […]

    Seems to me it was a referendum on the post-modern world.

    • Wow! Pablum, fear-mongering, race-mongering … that article has it all. What a warped view of the Brexit. It has in it everything wrong with Lefty propaganda.

  15. Crooked Billary strikes again. From the article:

    An exclusive interview with a security source who was present at the unplanned meeting Monday night on a Phoenix tarmac between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lorretta Lynch has shed additional light on an unusual summit that is embroiling the AG in charges of favoritism. As attorney general, Lynch heads the Department of Justice just as it is deciding whether to proceed with charges against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server during her tenure as President Obama’s secretary of state.

    According to this source, whose credentials were checked and confirmed by the Observer with sources inside both the FBI and the United States Secret Service, the attorney general was caught completely off guard by the meeting and the source dismisses suggestions that have been raised alleging that she waited there to see Bill Clinton or accommodated his request to see him. In fact, it seems from this source that it was Bill Clinton who was maneuvering for face time with the attorney general, because his plane had been scheduled to leave before hers arrived.

    http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-details-bill-clinton-maneuver-to-meet-loretta-lynch/

    • “the attorney general was caught completely off guard by the meeting and the source dismisses suggestions that have been raised alleging that she waited there to see Bill Clinton or accommodated his request to see him.”

      I don’t believe your source. Perhaps your source or you can explain to me how Bill Clinton got on Lynch’s plane without everyone knowing before hand what was going on and giving approval to it.

      You have Lynch traveling with a team of FBI agents and staff. You have Clinton traveling with a team of Secret Service Agents. I don’t care who you are, you don’t just walk onto a government plane unannounced. There had to be a coordination of both the Clinton and Lynch team and there was enough shared information such that the FBI agents were telling people no photos, no phones, no recordings. Why would they do that? That is prima facie evidence of attempting to hide this meeting and both Clinton and Lynch know the rules and the impropriety of an ex parte meeting between the AG who will be asked to recommend for or against indictment of someone who is the spouse of the person who she was having a meeting with and both know that he is a potential witness in one case and a potential defendant in another. This meeting was profoundly wrong and both parties to the meeting show a profound contempt for the law and for the American people as this meeting was with full awareness by both parties and there is nothing innocent about it. You’d have to be an incredible fool to buy into any explanation that Lynch or Clinton offer. Lynch needs to recuse herself and then resign. She is not capable of doing the job. This meeting is all the proof you need of that. And the cost is horrible if she stays. It corrupts our ability to have any belief in the government following the rule of law and though the consequences may not be felt immediately, they will be felt and they will be ugly.

      • You mean someone in the US actually believes the government follows the Rule of Law and the Constitution? Do they live in a hole or something?

  16. clip @jim2 | July 2, 2016 at 10:08 am in moderation

  17. bedeverethewise

    I notice Hillary’s plan for dealing with climate change doesn’t mention nuclear power. Therefore it is not a serious plan.

    It does talk about environmental justice and climate justice whatever the duck that means.

  18. Perhaps not as many government employees or recipients of government transfer payments but many productive people in the free enterprise marketplace who pay all the taxes and work to provide goods and services that others need and want to buy believe Trump is the only politician on their side; and, they believe Trump is the only politician in a position to make a difference when it comes to understanding that you don’t rob paychecks of the middle class to pay for unneeded and unwanted global warming hysteria and subsidize the rich to buy Teslas or grant credits to homeowners with swimming pools to put solar panels on their roofs.

    In many ways, the pair [two auto mechanics from Indianapolis] embodied a type of Trump voter political observers have learned to recognize: Blue collar, disconnected from politics, indifferent to the conservative doctrine that has defined the Republican Party for the last several decades.

  19. Re: “US Nat’l Dem platform calls for 100% power by renewables by 2050…”

    “…the platform panel, according to RL Miller, founder of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, did accept a goal of obtaining all U.S. energy from renewable fuels by 2050.”

    Voters should be aware that this one plank will cost them a lot of money. And the environmental benefit is not clearly greater than zero, once many thousands of wind turbines, thousands of miles of roads, thousands of miles of transmission lines, and many TWh of storage are built and maintained. Not to mention many thousands of rooftop solar installations put in place and periodically replaced to accommodate roofing repairs. And hundreds of millions of network-attached power controllers installed to chase optimum demand vs supply relationships.

    According to Wikipedia (and derived from the EIA) , renewables accounted for under 13.5% of US energy production in 2015, but a quarter of that was hydro which the “greenest greens” do not consider renewable. So lets say 10% of current production is green excluding hydro. Currently biomass is half of the green capacity but it is unclear how green biomass would be if it were expanded by a factor of 7-10 in the future. Meanwhile, solar employment alone topped 150,000 in 2015, to provide less than 1% of energy supply. Would it top a million to scale up by a factor of 10? At a loaded cost of $70,000 per job per year that would be a cost of over $200 per US resident annually to supply under 10% of the nation’s power.

    By 2050 it is safe to say that virtually all wind turbines now in use will be retired, so that over 20% of total capacity will need to be built out with wind if the 4 to 1 to 12 ratio of wind to solar to biomass continues and hydro is retired, as opposed to the 4% provided today.

    US wind nameplate capacity is now over 72,000 MW or the equivalent of about 36,000 2MW turbines. Assuming no siting restrictions, and assuming that increased penetration does not cause issues with load balancing (both are generous assumptions), then we will need to install the equivalent of 360,000 new 2MW turbines in the US to replace the old and to supply 20% of demand. More than one turbine for each 1,000 residents. Assume a cost of $3 million per turbine and that will be a capital cost of over $3,000 for each resident for the wind segment alone, plus the costs for needed grid alterations, storage and buffering solutions, and maintenance, amortized over a 20 year life span. Hint: the storage and buffering required will cost more than the wind turbines.

    Sadly, most of the representatives who voted for this plank likely have not idea of the cost/benefit ratio.

  20. David L. Hagen

    A World In Crisis And No Genius In Sight Peggy Noonan

    . . .Which has me thinking, again, of the concept of the genius cluster. They happen in history and no one knows why. It was a genius cluster that invented America. Somehow Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Jay and Monroe came together in the same place at the same time and invented something new in the history of man. I asked a great historian about it once. How did that happen? He’d thought about it too. “Providence,” he guessed.

    There was a small genius cluster in World War II—FDR, Churchill, de Gaulle. I should note I’m speaking of different kinds of political genius. There was a genius cluster in the 1980s— John Paul II, Reagan, Thatcher, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Lee Kuan Yew in his last decade of leadership in Singapore.
    everywhere seem lost.

    The leaders of the world aren’t a very impressive group right now. There’s a sense with some of them of playing out a historical or cultural string, that they’re placeholders in some way. Many are young, yet so much around them feels tired.

    Which has me thinking, again, of the concept of the genius cluster. They happen in history and no one knows why. It was a genius cluster that invented America. Somehow Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Jay and Monroe came together in the same place at the same time and invented something new in the history of man. I asked a great historian about it once. How did that happen? He’d thought about it too. “Providence,” he guessed.

    There was a small genius cluster in World War II—FDR, Churchill, de Gaulle. I should note I’m speaking of different kinds of political genius. There was a genius cluster in the 1980s— John Paul II, Reagan, Thatcher, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Lee Kuan Yew in his last decade of leadership in Singapore.

    The military genius cluster of World War II—Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, Patton, MacArthur, Nimitz, Bull Halsey, Stilwell—almost rivaled that of the Civil War—Grant, Lee, Stonewall, Sherman, Sheridan, Longstreet.

    Obviously genius clusters require deep crises, otherwise their gifts are not revealed. Historic figures need historic circumstances. Also members of genius clusters tend to pursue shared goals.

    We have those conditions now—the crises, and what should be shared goals.
    It is a world crying out for bigness, wisdom, steady hands and steady eyes.

    We could use a genius cluster. . . .
    “The villain has arrived while the hero is evolving.”
    Let’s hope some evolve soon. . . .
    I add only that the EU inculcated in its officials and apparatchiks an outrageous and insular snobbery that left them incapable of seeing critics as anything but ignorant, racist knuckle-draggers. They noticed, didn’t like it, and rebelled when they could.

    Here’s to rebellion. Happy 4th.

    Restore the Scientific Method.
    Benefit “We the People” above the “granted” alarmists.
    To the Revolution back to Sanity!

    • “Obviously genius clusters require deep crises, otherwise, their gifts are not revealed. ”
      Welcome to the time of the Stupid Cluster. The force with the stupid cluster must be strong as we have a crisis of grand proportion, in fact, we have many crises, and no one is on the horizon who qualifies as a genius on the level of Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et al. (I hope it’s not just the effect of time sanitizing them into such geniuses). Perhaps the genius cluster will manifest this time around in the peoples in the several nation-states that are being used as pawns in a great global game being played out by stupid elites who also seem to be breathtakingly ignorant in matters of social dynamics, history, and economics ( as eloquently demonstrated by Obama, both Clintons, Lynch, Kerry, the Pope, Hollande, Merkel and a gaggle of other lesser lights who play supporting roles in pushing and maintaining the latest iteration of Marxism).
      (If Trump could go more than a day without putting his foot in his mouth he might qualify as the rudiments of a genius cluster). Trump should get together with Viktor Orban, and others like him, and make common cause with the Europeans who are saying ‘No’ to the one world, no nation-state, no borders world.

  21. From the article:

    Obama’s Unaccompanied Minors Are Committing Horrific Crimes – Including Decapitation and Stoning

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/obamas-unaccompanied-minors-committing-horrific-crimes-including-decapitation-stoning/

  22. David L. Hagen

    The crisis of confidence – let alone “climate”?

    Legal experts say investigators could be looking into potential violations of Section 1924 of Title 18, which deals with the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, or even the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for anyone “through gross negligence,” to allow the loss, theft or removal of classified information or fails to promptly report such mishandling to his superior.

  23. RE: Hillary Clinton’s plan to tackle climate change

    While Clinton is wasting vast sums of other people’s money tilting at windmills — trying to wean the US off of fossil fuels — there are other people who are actually doing good and productive things:

    US Shale Oil’s Achilles’ Heel Shows Signs of Mending
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/145426/US_Shale_Oils_Achilles_Heel_Shows_Signs_of_Mending

    HOUSTON, July 1 (Reuters) – Since the beginning of the U.S. fracking revolution, oil producers have struggled with a vexing problem: after an initial burst, crude output from new shale wells falls much faster than from conventional wells.

    However, those well decline rates have been slowing across the United States over the past few years, according to data analysis provided exclusively to Reuters.

    The trend, if sustained, would help ameliorate the industry’s most glaring weakness and cement its importance for worldwide production in years to come. It also helps explain shale drillers’ resilience throughout the oil market’s two-year slump.

    While shale oil production revolutionized the oil industry over the past decade, bringing abundance of global oil supplies, high costs and rapid production declines have been its Achilles heel. That is beginning to change thanks to technological innovation….

    According to data compiled and analyzed by oilfield analytics firm NavPort for Reuters, output from the average new well in the Permian Basin of West Texas, the top U.S. oilfield, declined 18 percent from peak production through the fourth month of its life in 2015. That is much slower than the 31 percent drop seen for the same time frame in 2012 and the 28 percent decline in 2013, when the oil price crash started….

    A slower decline means producers need to drill fewer new wells to sustain output….

    The recent decline rates mark a dramatic improvement from first-year 90 percent declines in the early years of the shale boom that made some investors question the sector’s long-run viability…..

    Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources Co, a top Permian producer, credited improved fracking techniques for helping stabilize production, which shareholders rewarded by lifting Pioneer’s shares up about 9 percent over the past year.

    “We’re exposing more of the reservoir and breaking it up so we don’t get as sharp a decline,” Sheffield told a recent energy conference….

    Sharma of the University of Texas said that while shale well decline rates remained far above a 10 percent first-year decline a conventional well might experience, they marked a radical improvement compared with early years of hydraulic fracturing….

    Today’s production techniques use larger volumes of sand and pressurized fluids to frack more spots along longer well bores, to extract more oil from the wells.

    Pioneer fracks its wells every 15 feet today compared to every 60 feet in 2013. It costs extra $500,000 per well to do so, but its wells produce two-thirds more oil than just three years ago, boosting profitability, Pioneer said.

  24. Shibboleths like the country needs ever more federal funding of the Education/Governmental Complex and ever more immigrants who have no appreciation for the country’s laws and Judeo/Christian heritage are a subversion of American principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, self-actualization, and human rights.

  25. The Atlantic: How American politics went insane

    Looks like politics as usual to me.

  26. We live in an era where every presidential election is by far “the most important in history”.

    I can hardly contain my anxiety. (Yet I endeavor to persevere.)

  27. Great to see this roundup. There’s a lot of politicized narrative and aspiration being passed around as fact in the MSM. Do check out Sargon of Akkad’s channel for the kind of sensible (non caricature) Brexit coverage and discussion you just can not trust the media to deliver. https://youtube.com/watch?v=7eA7TRM61aI

  28. Danny Thomas

    Rud,
    Re: your 12:26. Why “(excepting social security and medicare)”? Shouldn’t there include a metric as to being paid out more than one put in? How would that be calculated for veterans benefits? Fossil fuel subsidies? Others?

    Net benefits? How would the blanket of Berkshire Hathaway which receives many subsidies for their renewables program but not for their railroad entities?

    • DT re the former (SS and Medicare), because those are social promises that people have relied upon for decades. The intent is not to disenfranchise retirees, who generally usefully contributed and paid taxes until retirement, and who probably still do at reduced rates. Ditto for veterans benefits.
      Paid out more than paid in doesn’t work as a concept because of the time value of money and accrual of benefits like SS over time. To be workable, it has to be something simple and annual, IMO. Probably part two of a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
      BErkshire Hathaway (or by extension its shareholders) does not receive net benefit, because its wind subsidies are in the form of tax credits and it still pays taxes. But I know of California dairy farmers who’s income is large only because of the milk price support system based on distance from Madison Wisonsin, who would be disenfranchised under alt. B.

    • Curious George

      Danny, money is the root of all evil. We probably agree that taxes should be paid by the ability to afford paying them – that means, a wealth tax, not an income tax. A little practical difficulty is how to measure wealth for this purpose. Especially in a legal system which searches not for truth but for a better lawyer.

  29. More Trump voters on the way … from the article:

    Murray Energy Corp., the largest privately held coal miner in the U.S., has warned that it may soon undertake one of the biggest layoffs in the sector during this time of low energy prices.

    In a notice sent to workers this week, Murray said it could lay off as many as 4,400 employees, or about 80% of its workforce, because of weak coal markets. The company said it anticipates “massive workforce reductions in September.”

    The law requires a 60-day waiting period before large layoffs occur.

    The American coal industry, especially in Appalachia, has languished as cheap natural gas replaces coal as fuel for power plants. World-wide demand for coal has also slumped, and new environmental regulations are making many coal mines unprofitable to operate.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/biggest-private-coal-producer-in-u-s-warns-of-massive-layoffs-1467412144

    • bedeverethewise

      Don’t worry, Hillary has a plan to revitalize coal communities, with 30 billion dollars and a bunch of meaningless buzz words.

  30. Beta Blocker

    “US Nat’l Dem platform calls for 100% power by renewables by 2050, but no fracking ban or carbon tax. Calls for Justice Dept to investigate Fossil Fuel Companies” http://buff.ly/28VAlkx

    It is impossible to reduce America’s reliance on fossil fuels to the extent the Democratic Party’s platform calls for through technology innovation alone. If we as the world’s second highest carbon emitting nation are to reach the platform’s carbon reduction goals, a carbon tax must be enacted, extensive energy conservation measures must be adopted, existing environmental law must be enforced to its maximum possible effectiveness, and a strong commitment must be made to nuclear power.

    The Republicans are certain to lose the 2016 presidential election, and the fallout from the Trump debacle will probably cost them control of the Congress as well. The way the election is now shaping up, the Democrats will gain complete control over the federal government and will maintain that control for years to come thereafter. More to the point, the 2016 election will give the Democrats a powerful mandate to pursue their platform’s environmental agenda as far and as fast as they want to take it.

    Once they are in full control of the government, if the Democrats don’t put a price on carbon; if they don’t enforce a mandated program of strict energy conservation measures; if they don’t use the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in regulating all of America’s carbon emissions; and if they don’t adopt a strong commitment to nuclear power; then their platform is merely words on paper written solely for the purpose of attracting environmentally conscious voters.

    • Your last paragraph Beta pretty much nails what will happen.

      • Beta Blocker

        The big question which remains to be answered is just how committed the Democrats are to actually achieving the steep emission reductions they say they want.

        Once the Democrats are in control of Congress, will they do anything more than enact massive subsidies and tax breaks for renewable energy projects?

        Once Hillary Clinton is president, will she put pressure on the EPA to go well beyond the Clean Power Plan and to use the full authority of the agency to force across-the-board reductions in all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants?

        Will the environmental activist groups continue to make a lot of noise about climate change while putting little or no pressure on the Executive Branch to broaden the EPA’s regulatory agenda to cover every major source of carbon emissions?

      • I probably could have been a bit more specific, as in your last sentence pretty much nails it.

        “…their platform is merely words on paper written solely for the purpose of attracting environmentally conscious voters.”

  31. This data-rich profile of Trump voters is an outstanding piece of journalism. [link]

    Those are the voters in the Republican primaries. They are always a perplexing lot. Here in CA I have given up hope of ever agreeing with the majority of primary voters of either major party.

  32. Curious George

    We have Prof. Michael E. Mann at PennState, Prof. Naomi Oreskes at Harvard, Prof. Paul Ehrlich at Stanford, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Washington, D.C. The Wayne State University has elected to drop its university-wide requirement in mathematics and is strongly considering adding a three-credit-hour requirement in “diversity” to the school’s general education curriculum.

    Why would President Obama or President Trump matter?

  33. David Wojick

    Here is a Brexit relevant excerpt from my weekly (subscription) newsletter Inside Public Access. (http://insidepublicaccess.com/)

    “The EU presently funds a lot of British researchers, as it should given that Britain pays over 12% of the EU’s operating budget. British universities reportedly get about 16% of their research funding from the EU, well over a billion dollars a year. Given that this 16% is an average, some universities probably get a significantly larger fraction of their revenue from EU funding.

    The EU funding of British science should end as soon as Britain stops paying its EU dues. Note that this could happen relatively quickly. There is a lot of talk about multi-year negotiations between the incoming Brexit government in Britain and the EU, under EU rules, but the political reality is that Britain can stop paying its dues anytime it wants to. It is hard to imagine a government whose mandate is to leave the EU continuing to send them billions of pounds that it could use for its own purposes.

    The key point is that there is no way that Britain can simply replace that EU funding (assuming it wants to), even if it has the money to do so. It will first have to go through its own lengthy competitive funding procedures. Many of the existing EU funded projects will probably be dropped in midstream, their funding wasted. There is no reason that the new British government should choose to continue these EU chosen project, quite the contrary given the Brexiteers apparent disdain for the EU. There may well be a multi-year gap in which little is funded to replace the present projects.

    Untangling the science funding is thus going to be a true mess, unless Britain can work a deal to simply pay for continued EU funding as an associated country. Some small non-EU countries do this. But given that Britain is handing Brussels a big budget cut such a side deal may not be possible. Moreover, the philosophy of Brexit would seem to preclude Britain ceding funding decisions to the EU, which these associate deals require. The fact that the research community came out loudly against Brexit does not help their case of need.”

  34. Bus error

    • Jimd

      I have previously posted an article that provides verifiable cost of compliance of eu rules. This comes to some 33 billion a year and covers amongst many other items the working time directive, farming and financial.

      http://www.cityam.com/211588/open-europe-reveals-100-eu-regulations-cost-britain-33bn

      Cost of compliance includes those areas where every business has to follow common rules whether or not they deal in Europe. It would be foolish to believe that all these could or should be repealed but it was estimated some 20 billion pounds of compliance was not necessary. To this can be added areas where we have had to cede business of which the fishing industry is a good example.

      So what with actual costs of membership plus these other costs the 350 million pounds is well within the overall costs.

      Tonyb

      • However, Farage admitted it was a mistake that day after the referendum. This goes to the credibility of the Leave campaign’s main arguments. Many were fooled by the bus. If it is such big letters and Boris stands in front of it, it must be true, they thought. Similarly the famous immigrants poster. Little did they know.

      • Jimd

        Firstly let me make it crystal clear this was first and foremost a referendum about democratic accountability and sovereignty. Out of this arose other issues which included being mighty fed up with the elite ignoring ordinary people on a variety of issues of which immigration was one and the overall costs which exceeded the amount quoted on the bus.

        The immigration poster, although not an image I would have chosen was shown nightly on the BBC for several months as refugees and economic migrants pushed their way through borders What do you believe it was purporting to show?

        Tonyb

      • The poster of refugees in another country was purporting to be something to do with the referendum, which it wasn’t because the exit has no impact on that flow, but many thought it was.

      • If it was a tiny amount, why was it in big numbers on the side of a bus! This is what I mean by misleading and fooling people. Maybe you knew it was tiny and they were just messing with people, but it is too late for them now.

      • Jimd

        Purporting To be something to do with the referendum. In what way? Why will the exit have no impact on the flow in due course? That element was about taking back control of our borders which flowed from giving away our soverignitY

        How would you like it if your continent was being invaded Over many months by legitimate refugees and economic migrants who decided what country they wanted to go for and even what town? How would you like it if a foreign head of state invited some in then demanded they be shared around amongst the other countries?

        Once again you are failing to understand what this was about. It was not about a trivial amount being diverted to the nhS no matter what huffpo might believe. It was about democratic accountability and the fact that the politicians have become ever more arrogant and have just ignored us.

        I don’t like being called a fruitcake or a loonie and being patronised . I voted remain in 1975 and this was the first opportunity we have been given to reverse the decision and show our disapproval that we were lied to about the nature of the organisation and our dismay at the behemoth it has become.

        The result was the largest democratic mandate in our history. Why you should want to dispute a democratic decision like this is beyond me.
        Tonyb

      • By far the biggest influx to Britain is from Europeans, not refugees, and in the other direction of young Britons going to Europe for opportunities. These are the people affected and their opportunities get the collateral damage because of this refugee fear that the Leave people succeeded in stirring up.

      • Jim D ” Farage admitted it was a mistake that day after the referendum. ”
        There was a Question Time before the referendum (9th Jun) with Farage on the panel. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07gbrq9/question-time-09062016 (available for 11 months) At 30mins the £350 million is discussed, at 44mins Farage clarifies at the request of Dimbleby the contributions and the rebate.
        The bus you are referring to was the Leave campaign bus and in no way connected to Farage out campaign.
        The fact is that £350 million is owed to the EU each week. Some of it comes back as the rebate which was negotiated by Thatcher but this is under continual review and may be abolished. Next year it is calculated to be 2 billion smaller due to the better economy relative to Germany and France. Some of it comes back as grants which the government has no control over. A large lump of it goes to building art galleries and cultural things with a big blue flag on them to bribe people into thinking the EU paid for it. Another chunk goes to Scotland to keep them sweet (they fell for that one.) Another chunk goes to farmers as subsidies to pay for things the EU decide It wants to spend money on. And we know what the farmers think of the EU!

      • http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html
        This was on ITV after the election, and was well publicized at the time, but perhaps you missed it. Yes, it wasn’t his bus, but he said it was a mistake. It was Boris’s bus, and he is gone now after basically being booed off the stage, possibly as a result of his campaign tactics. Perhaps the Conservatives still in it can distance themselves from the Leave campaign sufficiently to retain some credibility. One of the leading candidates for PM was on the Remain side, so maybe there is hope for a more sober view to prevail. We will see.

      • Jim D “By far the biggest influx to Britain is from Europeans, not refugees,”
        Wrong!
        The largest influx into the UK is from outside the EU. 180,000 of the 300,000 over the last year are from outside the EU. Family reunions, right to a family life, large number of students going to university, doctors nurses etc.

      • Jim D “This was on ITV after the election”
        So what. Farage stated on the 9th Jun the figure was wrong.
        “It was Boris’s bus, and he is gone now after basically being booed off the stage, possibly as a result of his campaign tactics.”
        Fantasy! Try reading about Gove.
        “Perhaps the Conservatives still in it can distance themselves from the Leave campaign sufficiently to retain some credibility. One of the leading candidates for PM was on the Remain side, so maybe there is hope for a more sober view to prevail. We will see.”
        In first place is “Theresa May is pledging that there will be no turning back on Brexit ”
        Second Place is Andrea Leadsom who had a podium on the ITV Brexit debate for Leave.
        Do you ever bring any facts to a debate Jim or do you just spout whatever comes into your head at the time?
        Jim you are a buffoon.

      • > Do you ever bring any facts to a debate […]

        Not only did JimD brought one, but he also brought up the bus that goes with it.

        Do you dispute that fact, Eric, or you’re just here to play “so what” games?

      • Willard
        I gave a link to Farage on Question Time where he says
        “Can we just get to the truth of this. £350 million is wrong. Its higher than that, its higher than that”
        He then explains how it is higher than that.

      • OK, so how does leaving the EU stem the flow from outside the EU and refugees? All they stem is Europeans coming for jobs, and British going to Europe for them. You can tell tonyb about the relative numbers of refugees and other immigrants, which is what I was trying to get across.

      • Let me get this straight, Eric: the bus thing was a “mistake” because 350 million pounds was too low?

        You got to be kidding me:

        There was a problem with that factoid, however: It was transparently untrue. Technically, the U.K. made a 19.1 billion pounds gross payment to the EU budget in 2014, which works out to a bit more than 350 million pounds weekly. But, thanks to Margaret Thatcher’s hard-nosed negotiating in the 1980s, the country also gets a large rebate, worth about 4.9 billion pounds, which never leaves Her Majesty’s Treasury. The Brits also benefit from billions in assorted EU public sector subsidies. Count it all up, and the U.K.’s net contribution comes out to about 9.9 billion pounds, just over half the total trumpeted by the Brexiteers. (The sum falls even further if you start factoring in things like the research dollars the EU provides to British universities.)

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/06/27/brexit_supporters_are_starting_to_regret_350_million_nhs_lie.html

        Talking about buffoonery to defend Operation Trackback might have been suboptimal.

      • Eric, I just put things up to think about. Theresa May seems more rational about the value of the EU to Britain and is likely to get a better deal for Britain than someone who drove the Leave campaign. Perhaps you can hope that at least austerity is now dead, and the government will be more actively creating jobs as they try to stave off the now forecasted recession. That Cameron government have a lot of these problems to answer for, and it is a good riddance to their policies, but to be replaced with what?

      • Jim D “OK, so how does leaving the EU stem the flow from outside the EU and refugees?”
        The people coming from outside the EU are controlled in a way. They need a visa. If the EHCR is revoked or at least part of it then the right to a family life would mean that if they want a family life they can go to their family instead of bringing them here. Criminals could be deported. We won’t be forced to take a quota of the millions of refugees and economic migrants that Merkel invited into Europe. We won’t get 1 million plus immigrants from Romania, Bulgaria or more from Turkey, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro or Serbia. We won’t need to invite as many doctors and nurses to treat those immigrants.
        Cameron tried to get a reduction on people coming from the EU and failed. He got some non legal agreement to reduce benefits for the first few years after entry but it will only last for the next 12 years.
        Britain supported the entry of the Visgrad countries but it was those countries that objected the most to any controls.
        People say that we are a small island and we don’t have the space. I don’t agree with that. Only about 4% of the country is built on. What we don’t have is the infrastructure. We don’t have the schools and hospitals for that many more people coming every year. We can’t build a city the size of Newcastle every year. How many billions would that cost? Another cost of being in the EU.

      • Jim D “Theresa May seems more rational about the value of the EU to Britain and is likely to get a better deal for Britain than someone who drove the Leave campaign.”
        I disagree entirely. We don’t want Europhiles negotiating for us we want hard nosed negotiators.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3669569/EXCLUSIVE-Sir-Humphreys-derail-Brexit-Leave-camp-launches-stinging-attack-Foreign-Office-warning-pro-EU-fanatics-not-fight-Britain.html

      • Willard “Technically, the U.K. made a 19.1 billion pounds gross payment to the EU budget in 2014, which works out to a bit more than 350 million pounds weekly. But, thanks to Margaret Thatcher’s hard-nosed negotiating in the 1980s, the country also gets a large rebate, worth about 4.9 billion pounds, which never leaves Her Majesty’s Treasury. The Brits also benefit from billions in assorted EU public sector subsidies. Count it all up, and the U.K.’s net contribution comes out to about 9.9 billion pounds, just over half the total trumpeted by the Brexiteers”

        So we are handing over 14 billion. The 5 billion ‘grants’ that come back are decided in Brussels. Spent on increasing local council bureaucracy and not supporting local industry which is illegal in the EU. France and Germany don’t seem to have a problem subsidising their industry. They never call it a subsidy it is always some backdoor system.
        These figures are a not everything though. Next year our rebate is cut to 2 billion. We also hand over 2 billion in VAT which isn’t included in our ‘contributions’ or rebate. So we will be paying a full 19 billion to the EU. There are loads of other hidden costs which aren’t part of the contributions.

      • > So we are handing over 14 billion.

        It’s hard to hand over something that never leaves the treasury in the first place, Eric. What is handed over is less than 10 billions, even without “factoring things like the research dollars the EU provides to British universities.” Also, what you presented as “decided in Brussels” is actually “thanks to Margaret Thatcher’s hard-nosed negotiating in the 1980s.”

        ***

        > These figures are a not everything though.

        Before we chase down these accounting squirrels, Eric, please acknowledge that Nige’s doubling-down may not count as a valid response. If you could also acknowledge that the Leave scrubbed its website of that “350 million” numbers, that’d be great:

        Brexit: Vote Leave wipes NHS £350m claim and rest of its website after EU referendum

        The cached version includes a banner image touting the pledge to ‘give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week’ – which has already been walked back by Leave supporters

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-leave-wipes-nhs-350m-claim-and-rest-of-its-website-after-eu-referendum-a7105546.html

      • Willard “It’s hard to hand over something that never leaves the treasury in the first place, Eric. What is handed over is less than 10 billions, even without “factoring things like the research dollars the EU provides to British universities.” Also, what you presented as “decided in Brussels” is actually “thanks to Margaret Thatcher’s hard-nosed negotiating in the 1980s.”
        You have this the wrong way round.
        When we joined the EU they have some complicated way of working out how much each country should put in. If you are rich you pay more and if you are poor you pay less. This is worked out on how many farmers, fishermen you have, population, GDP loads of things. When they did the sums it was worked out that the UK would be paying a third as much again as Germany and France. For instance UK has a lot of very big farms but in France every house in the countryside has a few chickens, a pig and a bunch of vines in the back garden which they classed as farms and attracted a subsidy which reduced the amount France had to pay in. In Germany it was vines and probably pigs as well.
        We weren’t and aren’t a third as rich again as France and Germany but because of the CAP and other things they had worked out before we joined we were paying a third again contribution. It was that situation that Thatcher fought to address with our rebate. That is the money that would be going to Brussels but stays in the treasury. 4.9 billion soon to be reduced by 2 billion.
        The rest of the money does go to Brussels that is our contribution. They then spend it on subsidies here and we have no say in it. That is the money that can be applied for by universities for research but they must ask the EU for it. If nobody asked for it it wouldn’t ever come back here.
        One would think that the EU are fair and even handed when they decide what to hand out cash for but I am not convinced.
        On the ITV debate just before the referendum Paxman invited a researcher in the audience to air his views. He said that he was in child disease research and proportionally we get back 1.5 times more for research than we pay in. (don’t ask me how it is worked out) The member of the panel (I forget who) said that before we joined the EU we were doing 12.5% of world research into child illnesses and it has dropped down to 1.5% of world research since we joined the EU.
        Britain always has and always will put money into research and I fully support it but to hand money over to the EU which then distributes it how they see fit is just wrong.

      • > You have this the wrong way round.

        You have the author wrong, Eric.

        Thanks for your rationalization of Nige’s “mistake,” which was more a way of doubling down, even after the untruth has been scrubbed from the website, including the small note where all the monies weren’t promised to the NHS.

      • I don’t usually link to Wiki but here goes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate It covers what I said from memory fairly closely.

        The contributions have been unfair to Britain since we joined and they have had since 1985 when they accepted that to sort it out but we haven’t been able to get them to change the way that it is calculated in over 30 years. Go figure.

      • Andrea Leadsom one of the candidates for PM

        Worked on Fresh Start to try and get EU reform and failed.

      • Eric,

        Andrea Leadsom is extremely articulate, upbeat and as sharp as a tack.

        They say great leaders thrive during tough times, so maybe the stars will align and some great leadership will emerge for the UK.

      • Glenn
        She certainly has her head screwed on. Just the sort of person I would want fighting my corner

      • Eric,

        Very impressive.

        She sounds like my kinda gal.

    • From the guy who clearly rode the short bus to school.

      • Are you? Sorry to hear that. Anyway you got the ad hom market cornered here, so that is a success of some type.

  35. Scientist gives his opinion on Gove’s statement about experts. Cox says it is the road back to the cave.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/professor-brian-cox-michael-gove-experts_uk_5777dceee4b073366f0f20b5?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

    • Jimd

      You quoted huffpo which in itself quoted the guardian neither of which has a shred of credibility

      Tonyb

      • This quotes a scientist. OK, you may not give the scientist any credibility, being just another “expert”, but this is exactly what they are talking about.

      • Speaking of credibility:

        Any comments, TonyB?

      • Of course I give a scientist credibility but not for huffpo or the increasingly shrill guardian to report it accurately.

        Incidentally I do not think you realise that Farage was not part of the official leave campaign and there was considerable antipathy between his group and the official group

        How many people do you really think were influenced to change their vote or vote differently to what they may have done otherwise by a promise to divert what was , in the context of the NHS, a tiny amount of money to them?

        As I say, this was about democratic accountability and I can not imagine for a minute that you would support the US giving away its sovereignty and to appreciate it when you are told if you don’t like it you are a flat earther or deluded

        Tonyb

      • > Of course I give a scientist credibility but not for huffpo or the increasingly shrill guardian to report it accurately.

        Your ad hominem followed by a true Scotsman are duly noted, TonyB.

        Victory seems to get the better of your usual smarm. Lately, you seem to express yourself in a more straightforward manner. There’s still a rhetorical question or some shirt ripping here and there, but it looks positive.

      • You must ask farage. It was a stupid thing to say Perhaps promoted by his annoyance that the rules were bent in order to allow two million people to be registered late.

        Tonyb

      • > It was a stupid thing to say.

        Was it your opinion at the time?

        ***

        > Perhaps promoted by his annoyance […]

        They Made Him Do It.

    • Jimd

      I followed through your comment about experts. You did not appear to give context. He was talking about economists. Do You trust economists?

      Tonyb

      • There are experts among economists too, perhaps surprisingly to you. The pound still stands at $1.33. The Conservatives are calling off their austerity policy because they see the trouble ahead. Maybe they have experts too, or perhaps they saw the vote as being against Cameron’s austerity policy too, and to that extent, it succeeded, because he is gone along with that policy.

  36. From the article:

    “Paul Ryan is to blame for importing TB to Wisconsin, which increased 40 percent in 2015,” his challenger Paul Nehlen tells Breitbart News.
    Nehlen is running against Ryan in the Republican primary. It will be held on August 9 in Wisconsin’s First Congressional District, which “encompasses Kenosha and Racine counties and portions of Milwaukee, Rock, Walworth and Waukesha counties.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/01/challenger-paul-ryan-to-blame-for-importing-tb-to-wisconsin-after-40-percent-increase-in-2015/

  37. Jimd

    Very many of us were fed up with being patronised for caring that our democracy and sovereignity were being sudelined and when we expressed our anger were tokd by the prime minister and his predecessor that those wanting to leave the EU were Cranks and gadflies,Fruitcakes and loonies.

    How would you like it?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4875026.stm

    Tonyb

    • Are you a member of UKIP, TonyB?

      • I am not a member of ukip and have never voted for them. I think farage is divisive but deserves admiration for his perseverance and chutzpah. It take a lot of nerve to go to the European parliament and make the speech he did.They have been on a gravy train for years.

        He is irritated that he is not playing any role in the official negotiations to leave. He needs to hold people to account but i am glad he is in the background.

        Andrea ledsom would get my vote for party leader but I have never been a member of the Tory party either.

        I am PresIdent and only member of a plague on all your parties party.

        I think the Politicians may have got the message, if not I think a box on the ballot paper for ‘none of the above’ ‘ might point out to them how poorly many of them seRve us.
        Tonyb

      • catweazle666

        I am, Willard.

        Want to make something of it?

        Oh, and while I’m here –

        TRUMP 2016!

      • catweazle666

        Tonyb, if you liked that speech, you’ll LOVE this one!

      • > I am not a member of ukip and have never voted for them.

        Then why are you saying “many of us” when Flashman clearly referred to the UKIP party, according to your own source?

        I don’t think you can go full Jesus on UKIP when comes to time to play victim, but then wash your hands over their silliness out of sudden.

      • Willard

        it is gone 11pm. That may be why I do not begin to understand your comment. Very many of us merely means very many of my countrymen and women.

        Good night Willard.

        Tonyb

      • > it is gone 11pm. That may be why I do not begin to understand your comment.

        I hope that tomorrow you’ll understand that when you say “many of us” when citing a newsie where UKIP demands the Flashman an apology, you portray yourself as a member of the UKIP, or at least align yourself with them.

        It’s really not that complex, so simple in fact that I may even suspect this goes with your usual evasiveness when you get caught using cheap rhetorical trick like that.

        Good night.

    • The New Class knows that when its patronising isn’t working it just needs to double up on the patronising. That’s what the Guardian and HuffPo are for. If that doesn’t work…why, the doubling wasn’t enough.

      When the jelly won’t hold, add more gelatine. When the punters won’t comply, add more patronising.

      Eventually they’ll turn modern and integrative, those hierarcho-traditionalists!

    • Check out the “I want my country back” link by Laurie Penny. It reflects a view close to what many of us have, and it is well expressed, and you may feel patronized by it, but there it is. We have yet to see such a well articulated piece from the Leave side. All we seem to get is Farage. It is almost like they have no vision of what to do next, and no leader to take them there. Just a mess, much as predicted.

      • Neither articulate nor sane.

        There’s evidence that Laurie isn’t entirely soft-headed.

      • Explain the video. Did the editing go wrong?

      • I think it’s about posh, snobbish, demanding divas dressing and posing as SJW heroes. (Russell Brand Syndrome.)

        But I could be wrong, the video being so complex ‘n all.

      • Laurie Pennie: “….and yesterday the frightened, parochial lizard-brain of Britain voted….”

        Pennie surely has a low opinion of the majority of her fellow citizens.

        Oh well, the sensitivity Gestapo sure knows how to win friends and influence enemies.

      • My own attitude is changing now that the incompetent no-plan Leave leaders have been sidelined and austerity has been mothballed in preparation for tough times, which is a very different state from a week ago. Reality is kicking in. It is a risky venture and there will be a downward turn before (hopefully) adjustment occurs. It will be an interesting experiment with a nation of people that may yet fragment. Step one, get some leadership that actually has a plan. It may takes months.

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “Check out the “I want my country back” link by Laurie Penny. It reflects a view close to what many of us have,”

        Yes, whiny self-centred self-pitying rubbish from one of the entitlement generation, glad to see you own up to it.

      • So, what do you think about the increase in racist incidents since the result? Better country now?

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “So, what do you think about the increase in racist incidents since the result?”

        Like this, do you mean?

        http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/30/uk-rapper-threatens-gang-rape-nigel-farages-young-daughter/

        One of your Remainiacs, I believe.

      • Count on Breitbart. Do they tell you about increased racism too? Probably not, would be my guess. What’s your opinion on Germans?

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “What’s your opinion on Germans?”

        You really are a totally unpleasant piece of work, aren’t you?

        Having employed them and done considerable business with them, I find them efficient, polite and friendly. When I have travelled in Europe – which I have done regularly for around half a century, I have invariably got on well with the citizens of every country I’ve visited, including those behind the old Iron Curtain. There are always a few a’holes, but that’s humanity.

        So take your naked, slimy slurs and accusations of racism and stuff them, you sad little specimen.

        You whiny little special snowflake “Liberals” really can’t handle democracy when it doesn’t go your way, can you?

      • No, I think that is good. There’s only a few racial types you don’t like. Farage isn’t particularly fond of Europeans in general, but you buck that trend. Good for you.

      • catweazle666

        Here’s some more from your nice, right-on “Liberal” friends, Jimbo.

        https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/nigel-farage-is-receiving-online-death-threats-in-the-wake-o?utm_term=.gne8wvvQPy#.vez1NkkJaM

        But hey, just like you they mean well so that’s OK, right?

      • The time an MP was killed, it was by one on Farage’s side, so there may be online anger because of that. Plus he comes across as a bit of an upper class twit on TV.

      • catweazle666

        “The time an MP was killed, it was by one on Farage’s side”

        Another slanderous lie, Jimbo? You really can’t help yourself, can you?

      • He might have just been a maniac, but it is hard to tell on that side. It’s a thin line.

      • One doesn’t have to agree all the way with this guy, but these are some real concerns, beyond neo-Blairism, racism gotchas, and what’s kool for kidz:

        Some other concerns: Decline and debt in the Mediterranean; increased reliance on Russian energy sources if NATO’s ME adventurism doesn’t pay off; Germany-aligned and sorely pressed Turkey, with its hand on the migrant tap, wanting to get its hand on the energy tap…

        Then there’s the current power struggle between European Commission prez Juncker and Chancellor Merkel (golly, I wonder who wins that)…

        But maybe all such concerns are for the old and “stoopid”. Maybe the posh kidz with all the right tatts and working class affectations have got their heads around it all. Of course they do.

      • Peter Hitchens’ EU ‘n history overview.above. Contexts
        the thing whereby yer get a handle on the problem
        situation of the king and troops. Last bit sum-up of
        Brexit could be prescient. Are the Brits still up fer it
        …? Sure hope so.

    • To Hell in a handcart, what the undemocratic
      and $$$$$$$$ European Union has wrought

      .https://www.statista.com/chart/3644/youth-unemployment-still-unrelenting-in-europe/

      • Same article:
        ‘On a country by country basis, 71 percent of people in
        austerity-ravaged Greece find the EU unfavourable,
        along with 61 percent in France, 49 percent in Spain
        and 48 percent in the UK. Pew also found that 42 %
        of Europeans would like some powers returned to
        national governments with only 19 % believing
        national governments should transfer more power
        to the EU.’

  38. Confirms Trump’s thesis re trade deals and China. Establishment Republicans and Democrats have really screwed working-class Americans.

    What’s worse? The unholy alliance between Democrats and Republicans? Or the unholy alliance between Labor and Tories?

    The National Bureau of Economic Research: The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w18655

    This paper finds a link between the sharp drop in U.S. manufacturing employment beginning in 2001 and a change in U.S. trade policy that eliminated potential tariff increases on Chinese imports

    • Speaking of Deficit Donald:

      “Where are the ties made?” David Letterman asks. From offstage comes the answer: “The ties are made in China.” Trump doesn’t even respond. He just smirks.

      http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/donald-trumps-beautiful-chinese-ties

      • Since Liberal/Progressives don’t give a damn about American workers they have driven industry out of America, deliberately, with regulation, government policy, bad trade deals, etc. Hillary Clinton loudly proclaimed, presumably to loud cheering, that she wanted to put coal mines and coal miners out of business. A sentence like that will never leave Trumps lips.

        Now Trump wants to change the political landscape to favor American Industry – but he hasn’t been elected yet. He is playing to win by the current rules of the game. He wants to change the rules so they favor Americans.

        I saw a quote that was meant as a criticism, “They don’t want government to work. They want to defund it, break it, and use that as an excuse to sell off the broken pieces…”

        That writer’s viewpoint is deluded. Government is broken and corrupt. The “Global Warming” science is emblematic of the problem. The insidious hand of government infects and distorts everything it touches. The Federal Government should be pared down to its constitutionally mandated functions. The other functions should be sunsetted if not immediately terminated.

      • Danny Thomas

        ” but he hasn’t been elected yet, and he hasn’t told us how.”

        Fixed it for ya.

      • Danny Thomas | July 2, 2016 at 11:40 pm |
        ” but he hasn’t been elected yet, and he hasn’t told us how.”

        Fixed it for ya.

        ” but he hasn’t been elected yet, and he hasn’t told us how, but he’ll write a book telling us how he got elected after the election.”

        Fixed your fix.

        Trump’s domestic policy is he is going to cut regulation. If it was me I would make it illegal for the Federal government to regulate anything.

        Trump’s foreign policy is he is going to keep out the terrorists and illegal mexicans, and make better trade deals.

        Being President isn’t rocket science. You just have to have a plan, the simpler the better. Trump doesn’t have a lot of time to waste being president so he is going to keep things pretty basic.

      • Danny Thomas

        PA,

        But you see, it’s not you. It’s Trump. Writing a book after he’s elected? A Haiku is more likely.

        “You just have to have a plan, the simpler the better.” And I still have little idea as to what his plan is.

        “Trump doesn’t have a lot of time to waste being president so he is going to keep things pretty basic.” What else is he going to be doing if elected? Not sure this is clear.

      • Are you also against regulation for air and water pollution or is it just things like worker safety, drugs and consumer products you don’t want to regulate? Have you thought this thing through at all?

      • Jim D | July 3, 2016 at 12:08 am |
        Are you also against regulation for air and water pollution or is it just things like worker safety, drugs and consumer products you don’t want to regulate? Have you thought this thing through at all?

        There really isn’t any reason to regulate air or water as they are clean enough. The Federal staff can high-five themselves for mission accomplished and retire.

        If a state feels the urge to depress their economy and drive the riff-raff (middle class) and jobs into another state (as California is successfully doing) of course they can regulate things to their hearts content.

        The FDA is a useless agency. The USDA should take over the necessary FDA functions:
        1. making sure drugs are correctly made
        2. making sure drugs are correctly labeled.

        We don’t by law to prevent people from snorting raisins or doing inappropriate things with them. We have no more reason to be interested in what people do with drugs. If they don’t follow the label they have no legal recourse.

        The USDA, the military, and the border patrol are the only Federal agencies that do anything useful.

      • PA, already clean enough, not by accident of course. It takes a lot of effort. You want something more like Mexico where you can’t drink the water and the air is not so good either (like LA before regs). Luckily they don’t put people like you in charge.

      • Jim D | July 3, 2016 at 12:43 am |
        PA, already clean enough, not by accident of course. It takes a lot of effort. You want something more like Mexico where you can’t drink the water and the air is not so good either (like LA before regs). Luckily they don’t put people like you in charge.

        The original EPA legislation was enacted by Republicans. Everyone cares about a clean environment.

        The “Uberclean” environment is where people part ways.

        Given the source of evil is easy driving distance from my house (I have run there on 20+ mile training runs) I am more familiar with it than you are.

        Bureaucracy is all about mission creep and empire building. The ratcheting of regulations is emblematic of the problem. When the EPA started funding studies to support mission creep we should have terminated the agency.

        http://eelegal.org/2016/02/22/energywire-group-ee-legal-tells-court-epa-took-marching-orders-from-lobbyists/
        http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/242472-epa-accused-of-improper-lobbying-for-water-rule
        Backdoor lobbying by environmental groups and active lobbying by the EPA for new powers are reason enough to terminate it. At the very least these activities should be made felonies and prohibited by law if they aren’t already.

        If we are going to allow any Federal regulation going forward to exist the standard is “benefit exceeds cost”, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond the margin of error.

        If we can’t agree on that we should just turn it back to the states where constitutionally it belongs. The “precautionary principle” says that we shouldn’t take actions to cripple our economy without good reason.

    • Trump’s sure right on this one:

      Donald Trump: ‘I’m running against two parties’
      http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/01/trump-vs-everybody-jason-caroll-pkg.cnn

    • GS, it is considerably more complicated, but your chart does some justice.
      A personal anecdote.
      I was part of a four person BCG team tasked by Harley’s then corporate owner whether to pull the plug. 1977. The BoD wanted answer was yes.
      We came back no, and the rest is history. Harley lives, and I still ride.

      So, my most important contribution after spending >2months in Japan with a personal translator:
      In Japan, >750 cc motorcycle licenses then required the licencee to lay the bike down on its side and then right it. Almost nobody in Japan is able to fulfill this leverage requirement. Too short, bike too heavy. And, Harley then made no motorcycles < 750cc.
      Your call, safety or protectionism. After several years, ITC ruled protectionism. I think rightly so. Teaches how bad stuff can be disguised.
      An object lesson never since forgotten.

      • In the early 2000s, BMW Motorrad (USA) was at motorcycle shows demonstrating how people of slight build and diminutive stature could get a K1200 back on its wheels. It involved lifting with your legs, not your back.

        Still not easy but simple once you know the trick.

      • This kind of thing has a long history in Japan. In the late 1950s Ford was preparing a new compact but roomy platform that could easily be built with the driving position on the left or right. The goal was to capture the emerging import market in the US and much of the Pacific market from Australia to Japan.

        The Japanese caught wind of this and as soon as an article was available they took measurements. A new law appeared on the books forbidding the use of city roads during morning and evening rush hours for cars over a certain width, on the premise that they would constrict traffic. Of course the max width was several inches narrower than the new car, the Falcon. As a result, the Falcon had almost no utility in Japan and several Japanese car makers later built similar but narrower vehicles to fill that market space.

        This law remained on the books until the 1980s when Japanese car makers wanted to enter the US luxury market and found the width restrictions would be too limiting for them.

        Our “negotiators” have had a history of allowing asymmetrical protection schemes for generations. It is one of many things that voters are tired of.

    • for the remaining employed, is it better to pay the Welfare for those now unemployed and get the free stuff, or would it be better to make the stuff here and pay more for it?

      There is a balance in there somewhere, and it’s not “Everyone on the US on welfare,” though that’s what the free traders would have you believe.

  39. Here’s a very judicious, unbiased and even handed “expert” opinion from a “scientist” that Rubinite Democrats, Hillarymongers, and other assorted race-baiters are sure to like:

    The GOP’s Denial of Science Primed Them for the Illogic of Trump
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/06/30/donald_trump_is_the_inevitable_result_of_decades_of_gop_denial_of_reality.html

    I underestimated just how thoroughly the GOP had salted the Earth. Philosophical party planks of climate change denial, anti-evolution, anti-intellectualism, intolerance, and more have made it such that Trump can literally say almost anything, and it hardly affects his popularity….

    Trump’s numbers are certainly slumping, and I see no way he will be able to pivot toward anything resembling reality, no way for him to gather more middle-of-the-road votes. His racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic narcissism is too firmly entrenched for it to be otherwise.

    • Disposition Donald:

      In sum, Donald Trump’s basic personality traits suggest a presidency that could be highly combustible. One possible yield is an energetic, activist president who has a less than cordial relationship with the truth. He could be a daring and ruthlessly aggressive decision maker who desperately desires to create the strongest, tallest, shiniest, and most awesome result—and who never thinks twice about the collateral damage he will leave behind. Tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

      Oh, and I can haz images too:

      • That’s impressive. He got just a regular filling and he’s a billionaire! He is wise with his money!

      • It’s adamantium, jim. How the hell do you think he could chew Rubio and made it look as if it was guacamole?

        The most awesome adamantium.

        Now, imagine a whole adamantium wall.

      • willard,

        That Atlantic piece, is that an “expert” opinion by a “scientist”?

        Or is it an “expert” opinion by some other type of “expert,” like a comedian?

      • I’m glad you ask, Glenn. My answer comes as a two-step instructions:

        1. Click on the link;
        2. Read.

        If you have any questions about these instructions, please re-read them, and watch out for Mexican planes while you do:

      • willard,

        You mean you don’t know if it’s an “expert” opinion by a “scientist,” or an “expert” opinion by some other type of “expert,” like a comedian?

        You surely don’t know much about the “experts” you put so much faith in, do you?

      • Do you often play dumb when you ask rhetorical questions, Glenn, and have you heard of Trexit?

        Here:

        Call it ‘Trexit.’

        Members of the British Parliament and other foreign politicians want off Donald Trump’s email list, and are seeking to block the presidential candidate from asking them for campaign donations.

        “Please stop sending begging letters to MPs,” tweeted Stuart McDonald, a member of the British Parliament. “It’s pathetic.”

        http://fortune.com/2016/06/29/donald-trump-foreign-campaign-donations

        It’s also illegal, but pathetic is awesome enough for me.

      • willard,

        So then you don’t know if it’s an “expert” opinion by a “scientist,” or an “expert” opinion by some other type of “expert,” like a comedian?

        Oh well, despite the attempt at an ad hoc rescue there, I think I’m getting the picture: You don’t know much about the “experts” you put so much faith in. The only reason you consider them to be “experts” is because they say the things you want to hear.

      • So because I don’t respond to your rhetorical questions, you allow yourself to put thoughts in my mind?

        Is that your way to make Judy’s great again?

        Here, have another funny:

      • willard,

        So let’s see. You cite the NY Times, and then the Huffington Post.

        Are those “expert” opinions, in your august opinion?

      • The author of the Atlantic piece “is a professor of psychology and the director of the Foley Center for the Study of Lives at Northwestern University. He is the author of George W. Bush and the Redemptive Dream: A Psychological Portrait and The Art and Science of Personality Development.”
        You can tell because it says so at the end of the article.

      • > You can tell because it says so at the end of the article.

        The author also mentions it in the text.

        ***

        > You cite the NY Times, and then the Huffington Post.

        You might as well say that also I cited YouTube, Glenn.

        Ever heard of Robert Crumb?

        Here, have another one:

      • You can’t elect Trump because then most things would collapse.

  40. Industrial dishonesty:

    • Willard,

      So is this guy a “scientist,” or is he some other kind of “expert,” like a comedian?

    • willard,

      Here’s what your “experts” look like, along with the tools they used to work on the British economy.

      • Why would you go for a stock image, Glenn? Why don’t you go for the real deals? Let’s make Judy’s great again.

      • willard,

        Nice try at an ad hoc rescue.

        But I’m not the least bit interested in Salon’s opinion of Donald Trump.

        What I am interested in is how you decide who is an “expert” that you consider worthty of listening to.

        Daniel Yankelovich believed that the “best criterion for judging the quality of expert opinion is whether it proves to be right or not.”

        Did you see the graphs of the UK’s economic performance above. Or take a look at the graph below. Do you believe this is an economy that was managed by experts whose opinion “proved to be right”?

        If you do, then I can see why you believe some establishment “expert” like Michael Dougan is worthy of listenting to.

      • Dear Glenn,

        Your interests are your concerns alone. Perhaps when you’ll think through Yankelovich’s dictum you’ll stop using it as backing up your boringly repetitive messenger shooting, for it defeats it: if only truth matters, authority falters. That thinking through should at least come to realize what post hoc means: once you have access to truths, justified beliefs matter little.

        Ben Norton explains in simple terms how austerity measures fueled Brexit’s xenophobia. Interestingly, the social network between austerity propagandists and xenophobs is eerily similar:

      • °°°°°willard said:

        ….if only truth matters, authority falters. That thinking through should at least come to realize what post hoc means: once you have access to truths, justified beliefs matter little.

        And of course you, the Rubinite wing of the Democratic Party and the Romney wing of the Republican Party know sure truth when you see it, what with your mendacious smear campaign of slander and calumny.

        °°°°°willard said:

        Ben Norton explains in simple terms how austerity measures fueled Brexit’s xenophobia.

        So now, after all the swatty, peurile little smear antics, we get down to talking about something of actual substance.

        And in this you sound like someone who has drank liberally of the MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) Kool Aid. Just borrow and spend more money! It’s another one of those control knob theories the left-right establishment is so fond of, and this one particularly so since 1971. That’s when Nixon declared “We’re all Keynesians now.”

        But the UK and the US have already been there and done that, and as Jeffrey Snider has noted, what resulted was “jobless recoveries” and “nothing more than artificial growth through debt.”
        http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/08/02/the_fed_is_opaque_because_its_flying_blind_100522.html

        Or as David Stockman noted,

        Typically the private and public sectors would borrow $1.50 or $1.60 each year for every $1 of GDP growth. That was the golden constant. It had been at that ratio for 100 years save for some minor squiggles during the bottom of the Depression. By the time we got to the mid-’90s, we were borrowing $3 for every $1 of GDP growth. And by the time we got to the peak in 2006 or 2007, we were actually taking on $6 of new debt to grind out $1 of new GDP.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/david-stockman-youd-be-a-fool-to-hold-anything-but-cash-now-2012-3

      • willard,

        Here’s what your control knob, “in simple terms” theories have wrought.

        So do you have any other theories you want to regale us with?

      • Glenn,

        After rhetorical questions and stock images, all you got is more rhetorical questions about authority coupled by authoritative quotes, followed by the same graphics over and over again with yet again rhetorical questions?

        I’m starting to miss Don Don.

        Here, have some Dudette:

    • willard,

      Richard Feynman said that science was belief in the ignorance of experts.

      His statement seems like a good starting assumption to me.

      If 97% of experts agree, there’s a 97% chance that at least 97% of them are wrong 97% of the time.

      On the other hand, if an expert agrees with me, his opinion is 100% correct.

      Expert : X is an unknown quantity, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

      I’m with Feynman.

      Cheers.

      • MikeF,

        Feynman wasn’t known for his patience. He may not have had any with someone who portrays ignorance as a virtue, and he may easily have remarked that saying you’re with him defeats the very idea you’re trying to promote:

        The claim that the Leave campain has been powered by industrial dishonesty stands or falls on its own merits.

      • willard,

        Your expert gives an opinion. No science involved. He says he is a professor of law. I believe him. As Feynman said ” . . . In science . . .”, not in politics, or law, or climatology.

        In science, unless you have repeatable experiments, you have wishful thinking and hope. Warmists have ignorance, gullibility, and faith masquerading as scientific knowledge.

        CO2 heats nothing. Michael Mann is not a Nobel Laureate. No amount of frenetic hand waving or wishful thinking will change either of these facts.

        As to the leave campaign, a majority apparently voted to leave. The minority appear to be dissatisfied with the outcome, and have decided that the will of the majority is to be disregarded. What’s the point of voting if you aren’t prepared to accept the outcome? It looks like many of the experts got their knickers in a twist because the result didn’t go the way it was supposed to. The voters ignored all the expert prognostications!

        It seems that Nature ignores climatologists. Climatologists get their knickers in a twist because reality refuses to conform to the models.

        Experts. As Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.” It still seems like a good starting point to me.

        Cheers.

      • Today I learned ‘I am’ a scientist, tomorrow the whole world!

  41. dougbadgero

    The BREXIT articles are decidedly one sided.

    “I voted to leave because the EU is anti-democratic. The best estimates indicate that between 15% and 55% of the laws we are subject to in Britain are now passed by faceless, unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. How did we get here? By voting to join a free trade block in 1975 — and hanging around, making no effective protest, as the EU morphed into a political project, and bloated federalist super-state.

    I voted to leave because the EU is a boondoggle. They shuffle money from rich countries to poor countries (and also back to rich countries!) making decisions about what kinds of projects ought to be funded. (No, they don’t often consult with the citizens of either the country getting the project, or the countries paying for it.) A Portuguese golf resort, a Bavarian hunting lodge, a virtual clone of Malmo, Sweden in the video game Second Life. A hemp farm. Puppet theatre.

    I voted to leave because EU membership burns the wealth of British taxpayers — to the tune of £23 million a day. And that’s outside of the billions it costs British businesses to comply with often bizarre and Byzantine EU directives, such as those enforcing the curvature of bananas, banning diabetics from driving, and making it illegal to sell eggs by the dozen. There may be a reason Europe is the only continent in the world with a shrinking economy. (I also voted to leave so we can make our own trade agreements, on our own behalf, with the rest of the world.)

    I voted to leave because all of Britain’s attempts to change any or all of the above, from within, have failed — and were always going to fail.

    I voted to leave because while I think free trade, and free movement of capital, and frictionless borders — and not to mention Europe itself, and Britain being part of Europe — are all fantastic… none of those entails an anti-democratic, statist, wildly expensive European super-state.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/why-i-voted-for-brexit-eu-referendum-leave-214749510.html

    • > The best estimates indicate that between 15% and 55% of the laws we are subject to in Britain are now passed by faceless, unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

      A citation would be nice for these estimates.

      The only estimate I have is 0%.

      • David Springer

        Willard asks for a reference. Gets it. Then moves the goalpost. What a weak little sh*t.

    • David Springer

      Source: British House of Commons Research Paper 10/62

      http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf

      Thanks for asking, Willard. I’m left wondering why you weren’t able to find it yourself since it was pretty easy.

      Pgs 2-3

      EU regulations, unlike directives, are not usually transposed into legislation at national level, but rather into quasi-legislative measures, administrative rules, regulations or procedures etc which do not pass through a national parliamentary process. How, then, can one be worked out as a proportion of the other? The term ‘national obligation’ might be more appropriate, but is it possible to identify the sum of national obligations arising from EU laws? Increasing use of regulations, particularly Commission regulations, “decouples national transposition procedures” (Christensen), thereby increasing the unquantifiable element of EU activity. All measurements have their problems. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws, while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation. The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two approaches, and it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. Other EU ‘soft law’ measures under the Open Method of Coordination are difficult to quantify as they often take the form of objectives and common targets. Analyses rarely look into EU soft law, the role of EU standard setting or self-regulatory measures.

      • You answer “How much legislation comes from Europe,” Big Dave, not “How much legislation comes from faceless, unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.”

        Since all legislation is voted by elected members, that number is still 0%.

        You’d know all this if you watched the video linked earlier about Brexit’s industrial dishonesty.

        Thanks for playing.

  42. The Trump voter profile is interesting. They have an index of “distressful white experience” based on income growth in the last 10 years, education, and unemployment of the white population in counties with Republican primaries. It turns out that Trump gets most of his support from the “most distressful white experience” category in areas like Kentucky and Tennessee that have not fared well, while the least support comes from the more successful areas of Texas and Oklahoma that have been booming, also being more educated. So his support is from the ones who might consider themselves to have poor prospects in their area, and perhaps not enough education to go where the money is. These people have the kind of desperation that Trump feeds on with his promises, while for more successful and educated Americans his ideas fall on deaf ears because they are doing fine as it is. A shake up is not what they are looking for. Trump may have trouble getting those Republicans.

  43. Wow!

    The estalbishment has opened the tap and veritable rivers of money are flowing into the Clinton campaign, with Wall Street leading the charge by a wide margin.

    Our president from Wall Street is awaiting her coronation.

    Clinton brings in record $68 million in June
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/01/clinton-brings-in-record-68-million-in-june/

  44. The latest polls show Trump hanging in there, having regained the ground he temporarily lost, and in a statistical dead heat with Clinton.

    Even with Clinton’s enormous campaign chest, the vast amounts of money she is spending on negative advertising, a full court press by the mainstream media and its army of “experts” and pundits, all of which are dedicated to destroying Trump, he’s still standing.

  45. Lordy! Lordy!

    These writers for The Guardian and their fellow EU thugs don’t have a clue as to what democracy looks like, even after being hit in the face with it.

    Europe can’t rescue Britain. It’s too busy trying to save itself
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/02/europe-cant-rescue-britain-saving-itself-immigration

    In recent years Europe’s…democratic values [have been] shaken by populist movements….

    Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the leaders of Europe’s two largest and founding nations, cannot afford to give Britain opt-outs…without their own domestic scenarios being upended….

    The rise of destructive populism in Europe is the backdrop to the messages that EU leaders have sent out to Britain this week….

  46. Jim2 comments in moderation after a couple of days:

    jim2 | July 2, 2016 at 9:17 am

    jim2 | July 2, 2016 at 10:08 am

    • Ditto since yesterday. My reply was to JD re immigration so don’t know if that got it put in limbo?

    • Yes, yesterday, not 2 days ago. Dr. Curry may be taking some well deserved time off?

      • How dare she? :)
        Doesn’t she have a troop of little gnomes to help her out?

      • Its our 4 July Independence day weekend. 1776 and all that. She and Peter are undoubtly at their North Carolina mountain retreat about 3.5 hours out of Atlanta. About a half hour beyond my brothers 300 acre NC mountain retreat, just further up the same highway. About 1.5 hours beyond ours in north Georgia. And were I her, I would have the internet shut off also. She does so much here. Give her a deserved ‘vacation’.

      • Rud it was said in jest :)
        +100 for the vacation

    • Yeah, I’ve got one there as well. I’m beginning to get a suspicion about these comments being kicked into moderation: I’m wondering if WP is trying to keep people from reading certain types of comments.

      I’m not suggesting they’re targeting this blog: for most blogs, a comment that gets kicked into moderation might well have dropped off the comment list at the top of the page by the time it gets out. (Here, any time you take a restroom break lots drop off, but here it also works for the feed.)

      On that note:

  47. When are the anti-democracy establishment thugs on both sides of the Atlantic going to figure out that they’ve played the race card too many times, and that their race-baiting isn’t working any more?

    With the anti-democracy establishment thugs it’s slander, and then some more slander, and then even more slander.

    After Brexit: Reckoning With Britain’s Racism and Xenophobia
    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36651-after-brexit-reckoning-with-britain-s-racism-and-xenophobia

    [T]he campaign for Brexit — the infelicitous name given the political process — was, from the very first, fought on the grounds of xenophobia and racism….

    [W]hat has distinguished the EU free-trade pact from other free-trade pacts — notably the North American Free Trade Agreement — is the relatively unrestricted movement of people across internal European borders to seek jobs or residency elsewhere in the Union. And it is this free movement of people that has triggered a long festering xenophobia at the heart of British society….

    The long and brutal history of British colonialism and empire lies at the heart of so much British insularity and racism. The deep roots of this racism will likely influence the politics of tomorrow, as it has already done that of today.

  48. NIGEL FARAGE: Roadmap Plan for UK Departure from the EU
    http://thebrexitplan.com/

      • Good to see that some people have been thinking. This was quite a good talk, and maybe outside the EU, the UK can directly deal with the next level which is the alternative bureaucracy of the UN. The talk is more about hopes of what might happen, but it also doesn’t state that the preferred route is problem-free, and if it doesn’t happen, there is no second best option, and big problems ensue. Lots of uncertainty ahead. Competing with the EU instead of being part of it is a big step to take because the EU is a much larger economy and maybe can do better deals with third parties.

      • The process described by Christopher Booker bears many similarities to the one used by Lenin: call for the establishment of a general “authority” with apparently wide-spread constituency, penetrate, infiltrate, and subvert that “authority”, then change the rules so nobody can do it to you.

        Unfortunately (for the would-be Eureaucrats), too many people have studied Lenin’s methods.

      • This was quite a good talk, and maybe outside the EU, the UK can directly deal with the next level which is the alternative bureaucracy of the UN.

        The common problem with “high-level” bureaucrats, also common to many “high-level” managers in other hierarchies, it that they see those high positions as a status symbol to be fought for rather than a very difficult obligation to fulfill.

        Once they’ve fought their way to the high spot, they want to be able to do their job by rote formula, because they were never competent in the first place (except for bureaucratic infighting).

        The discussion beginning at 57:00 is particularly interesting. He portrays the EU bureaucracy as pretty much just rubber-stamping the decisions of the Global Standards Bodies.

        This fits my (admittedly limited) experience with high-level “bureaucrats” (“scare quotes” because it was in a corporate environment with some oversight by a competent CEO). You can’t argue with them because they really don’t understand what you’re talking about. In the EU milieu, this means they rubber-stamp regulations from elsewhere, and won’t even listen when you ask them to think about them.

        Big question is: is the “next level which is the alternative bureaucracy” (not exactly of the UN) like the EU bureaucracy? Or more like the FCC (US)? Or more like the FDA(US). If the last, it would probably be out of the frying pan into the fire.

      • I read around a bit, and it appears that Flexcit was entered in a competition for Brexit proposals a couple of years back. It didn’t win. This one did. It seems to aim at more separation from the EU than Flexcit. Projected GDP effect -2.6% to +1.1%.
        http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation

      • So what it boils down to is that the claims that “nobody has a plan” were just more MSM=BS. Why am I not surprised?

      • Strictly they don’t have a plan until they have a leader with a plan. They are not there yet, and weren’t at any time during the voting process, and may not be there for a few more months while they figure out who the leader is.

  49. Yep. Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party was not a friendly takeover.

    Trump’s GOP Friends Stand Outside Party Circle
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/01/trumps_gop_friends_stand_outside_party_circle.html

  50. Frank Luntz says that because of Janet Reno’s meeting with Bill Clinton, Obama will no longer be able to quash the indictment and protect Clinton.

    VIDEO: Frank Luntz: Hillary Will Be Indicted
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/01/frank_luntz_bill_clinton_sabotages_his_wifes_campaign_at_key_moments_hillary_will_be_indicted.html

  51. From the article:

    We’re Being Played by the Clintons
    July 01, 2016

    RUSH: Okay, folks, I’m gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can’t count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

      • David Springer

        Yes of course. Black men are never railroaded into rape convictions. Especially star athletes whose “victims” are groupies who willingly accompanied to them to their hotel rooms obviously seeking nothing more than good conversation from the rich and famous host.

        Oh wait…

      • bedeverethewise

        If you want to know which presidential candidate actually defended a rapist, blamed the victim, and then laughed about it.

      • I believe you, Juanita.

      • bedeverethewise

        No edbarbar, this is a different Clinton rape scandal. Juanita was the one who claimed, convincingly in my opinion, that she was raped by Bill and then threatened by Hillary to keep her mouth shut.

        This case is one where Hillary defended a man who was accused of beating and raping a 12 year old. Hillary successfully blamed the victim and was later recorded laughing about it.

    • Evan Jones

      Interesting, these “narrowed” columns.

      (Seems like what we have is a clear case of globilizatio through emocracy.)

  52. Why have the people tuned the “experts” out?

    °°°°°The point of view of the neoliberals:

    • Why Are Voters Ignoring Experts?
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-voters-ignoring-experts-by-jean-pisani-ferry-2016-07

    Because growing public distrust of the cognoscenti provides fertile ground to demagogues, it poses a threat to democracy.

    °°°°°A rejoinder:

    “Why Are Voters Ignoring Experts?”
    http://angrybearblog.com/2016/07/why-are-voters-ignoring-experts.html?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-are-voters-ignoring-experts

    People ignore experts because the experts have been systematically misleading them about what the benefits of policies are likely to be.

    °°°°°A more balanced view:

    • Why the World Is Rebelling Against ‘Experts’
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/03/brexit-and-beyond-the-great-unruly-rebellion-against-the-neo-liberal-crony-capitalists.html

    The Great Rebellion is much more than the triumph of nativism, stupidity and crudeness widely denounced in the mainstream media. Ethnic integration and even globalization will continue, but shaped by the wishes of democratic peoples, not corporate hegemons or bureaucratic know-it-alls. We can now once again aspire to a better world—better because it will be one that people, not autocrats, have decided to make.

    • Anti-immigrant, populist politics require a change of policies in the United States and Europe.

      The rich countries really do need border controls. The potential flow of migrants in search of peace, jobs, and generous social benefits will otherwise be overwhelming. Yet the pressures on migration will be unstoppable unless the source regions are themselves peaceful and economically viable. The United States should ask itself why its near-neighborhood is so violent, war torn, poor, and financially strapped (including the recent bankruptcy of Puerto Rico). And then it should look in the mirror, heaven forbid, to remember how US policies have contributed to these awful outcomes.

      The United States has been the magnet for narcotics trafficking; the overwhelming supplier of small arms throughout Central America and the Caribbean; the hub of regional organized crime; the author of countless CIA-led coups against democratic governments (too many to list here), often to protect US corporate interests; and the leading contributor to human-induced climate change that now creates environmental refugees. Through it all, the US political elite has been generally uncaring of the consequences.

      […]

      Africa’s astounding demographic surge, for example, would be decisively eased by a simple, humane, decent, and wise policy to ensure that every African child has the realistic prospect of at least a secondary-school education. The result would be a dramatic voluntary reduction of the sky-high fertility rate. Yet funding expanded access to education in poor countries requires that the US and Europe shift funds from wars and armaments to girls’ education.

      http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/06/27/brexit-symptom-globalization-deeper-ills/BY8fKiVi8BdpnZHCu3lv4I/story.html

    • willard,

      And just who, working in concert with their fellow neocons and neoliberals in the Republican Party, has done more to destablize the world and spread economic and political instalbity than Clinton Inc?

      Ever heard of a place called Libya, and what Clinton did there?

      Libya: How Hillary Clinton Destroyed a Country
      http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/03/libya-how-hillary-clinton-destroyed-a-country/

      And then there’s Honduras.

      Ice water runs through Clinton’s veins. She has no shame.

      “She’s Baldly Lying”: Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton’s Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup
      http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/shes_baldly_lying_dana_frank_responds

      And so, I think it’s really important when we talk about Hillary Clinton, the candidate, what she’s doing, to also talk about the…coup and the illegitimate election that followed it, that Hillary Clinton is celebrating so clearly in her statements, opened the door to this complete—almost complete destruction of the rule of law in Honduras….

      We certainly need to hold Hillary Clinton responsible and to say how terrifying and chilling it is that she would defend a military coup. Like, who is it that we’re talking about here?

  53. AUDIO: Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Plane Discussion “A Short, Chance Meeting” That “Was Purely Social”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/02/hillary_clinton_bill_clinton-loretta_lynch_plane_discussion_a_short_chance_meeting_that_was_purely_social.html

    Clinton’s story can be compared to what Christopher Sign, the local Phoenix reporter who broke the story, has to say:

  54. From NBC:

    [Trump] spread false rumors about American Muslims celebrating 9/11

    Despite what NBC or others may say, some US Muslims did celebrate. Maybe not thousands in NJ, but probably thousands in the world and many in the media reported it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/01/7-pieces-of-documentation-that-vindicate-trumps-claim-of-911-muslim-celebrations/

  55. As opposed to the NYTs

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails.html

    F.B.I. Interviews Hillary Clinton Over Private Email Server

    “The F.B.I. interviewed Hillary Clinton on Saturday morning for its investigation into whether she or her aides broke the law by corresponding through a private email server set up for her use as secretary of state, a controversy that has dogged her presidential campaign and provided fodder for her political rivals.

    The voluntary interview, which took place over three and a half hours at the F.B.I. headquarters in Washington, largely focused on the Justice Department’s central question: Did the actions of Mrs. Clinton or her staff rise to the level of criminal mishandling of classified information?”

    Interesting, but not surprising (to me anyway), Limbaugh:

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

    Bottom line: ‘don’t expect an indictment suckers!’

  56. Once upon a time, Detective Donald was on a case:

    • David Springer

      Evidence is compelling that Obama was born in Kenya to one of Ann Dunham’s visiting professors and then the starry-eyed 18 year-old Dunham was pillow-talked into claiming she’d whelped the waif herself in Hawaii so the prof’s son by a Kenyan wife could be an American. A simple inexpensive DNA test could easily confirm or deny Obama’s supposedly mixed parentage. Although Dunham was boffing the black visiting professor from Kenya she was also putting for radical communist American black activist Frank Marsall Davis. When cut by a buzz-saw it’s hard to determine which tooth did it. Dunham was nothing if not a slut so I suppose anything is possible but the total lack of any evidence she was ever pregnant with baby Barry slews the probabilities towards someone else being his biological mother.

      • Perfect, Big Dave:

        Another syllogism:

        1. Dodgy Donald is intentionally responsible for exploiting Chinese workers to sell his crap.

        2. Many Chinese factory workers commit suicide.

        The conclusion is left to Denizens.

        Go team!

      • David Springer

        Glad you liked it Willard. Don’t ever change. Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid. If you didn’t exist to represent others of your ilk we’d have to invent you.

      • Start here, Big Dave:

        Philosophical perplexity about intention begins with its appearance in three guises: intention for the future, as when I intend to complete this entry by the end of the month; the intention with which someone acts, as I am typing with the further intention of writing an introductory sentence; and intentional action, as in the fact that I am typing these words intentionally. As Elizabeth Anscombe wrote in a similar context, ‘it is implausible to say that the word is equivocal as it occurs in these different cases’ and from the fact that ‘we are tempted to speak of “different senses” of a word which is clearly not equivocal, we may infer that we are pretty much in the dark about the character of the concept which it represents’ (Anscombe 1963, p. 1).

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

        Troglodytes like you are on their way out. Rejoice.

      • David Springer

        Wee Willie wrote: “Troglodytes like you are on their way out.”

        The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

        ROFL

    • Well, I had considered this pretty much cut and dried.

      But if Obama spent $2 million dodging the issue it does raise a question. I have a couple of certified (embossed) copies of my birth certificate and it would cost me $0 (zero) to resolve the issue.

      What fact is Obama hiding that is worth more than $2 million dollars?

      • The truth is out there, PA.

        Since you like analytics:

      • David Springer

        Willard | July 3, 2016 at 2:04 pm |

        “The truth is out there, PA.”

        And someday Willard might even learn how to recognize it! Stranger things have happened!!!

  57. From the article:

    The U.S. military response in Benghazi, Libya was perplexingly inadequate the night Americans were attacked by Islamic extremist terrorists, Sept. 11, 2012. That’s one overarching conclusion reached by two leading Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee after a year and a half long investigation.

    “Until now the administration has led us to believe the military did not have assets-men or machines-close enough or ready enough to arrive in Benghazi in time to save lives,” said Republicans Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas. “An asset that could have made a difference would have been armed drones. And as the Committee learned, it would have been relatively fast and easy to arm a drone.”

    http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/house-benghazi-committee-completes-its-work

    • Benghazi! The promise of a promising day at Judy’s, jim.

      Disciplined Donald:

      • David Springer

        “Clinton murdered a US ambassador.”‘

        US Ambassador Stevens was murdered in Libya. Clinton is intentionally responsible for the events that led to it. Hence she’s a murderer. Some may argue that it was negligent not intentional which would make it manslaughter not murder but that’s putting too fine a point on it.

      • > US Ambassador Stevens was murdered in Libya. Clinton is intentionally responsible for the events that led to it. Hence she’s a murderer.

        Nice syllogism, Big Dave.

        Here’s another one:

        1. Donald sells ties from China.
        2. Donald has ties with China.
        3. Donald should build a wall around China.

      • Willard demonstrates the maxim “Apples and Oranges.”

      • You call that orange, jim?

        Here’s orange:

      • Congress reduced the funding for his security in their budget cutting spree so they are ultimately responsible.

      • Jim D says “Congress reduced the funding for his security …”

        I didn’t think your excuses for this totally incompetent boob in the White House could get any lamer, but I have to say, you outdid yourself with that one!

    • Benghazi is interesting. The official story is some deployable assets were in deployable condition and this is aside from the aircraft carriers.

      They had an aircraft carrier about 2000 miles away (the limit of F18 range).

      An F18 would have to carry drop tanks, would require refueling in or out (or both) to give it some hang time and weapons load, and the administration would have to get fly over permission from Saudi Arabia. The aircraft carrier has refueling planes.

      It does raise the question why there were no carriers in the Med and two carriers practically kissing each other in the Arabian gulf.

      On Benghazi the big knocks on Hillary are lack of foresight (they wanted support and assets could have been moved) and lying about what caused it (it wasn’t a movie).

      • From the article:

        Now that we have an understanding of the tactical constraints facing the DOD, there is a (hopefully) obvious solution that more alert readers probably picked up on.

        Hour 0-1. While the F-16s at Aviano are not on strip alert, given the genuine emergency it’s reasonable to expect that within an hour of the order being given a sober pilot or two could have been located, an aircraft fuelled and in the air with a minimal default loadout. In this scenario the aircraft may have had only ammunition for its 20mm cannon and pilot would be given a simple briefing on the way to the plane: Get to NAS Sigonella.

        Hour 1-2. Given that the distance from AFB Aviano to NAS Sigonella is only 610 miles, the pilot would be able to quickly attain altitude and cruise at above the standard cruising speed of 577 mph. The F-16 would be on the ground at NAS Sigonella within an hour of its departure from AFB Aviano. During this one hour flight two important things would happen:
        Via radio the pilot receives a more detailed briefing. The plan – a quick refuelling at NAS Sigonella and an immediate departure for Benghazi to fly a close air support (CAS) mission.
        NAS Sigonella is informed of the incoming F-16 and told to prepare for immediate refuelling of the aircraft upon its arrival.

        Hour 2-2.5. The F-16 arrives at NAS Sigonella and is immediately refuelled. While it’s possible to refuel an F-16 without even stopping the engines (hot-pit refuelling), it’s also possible that NAS Sigonella didn’t have a refuelling team available that was trained for this. Thus, let’s assume that the refuelling process takes a full 30 minutes before the F-16 is again airborne and enroute to Benghazi.

        Hour 2.5-3.5. Given it is only 468 miles from NAS Sigonella to Benghazi the F-16 is on station and providing close air support within 3.5 hours from the initial order.

        And, of course, subsequent F-16s could follow the same route at intervals to ensure that continuous air coverage was provided from that time on.

        http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/06/16/benghazi-the-mystery-of-the-missing-air-support/

    • bedeverethewise

      Benghazi teaches 3 things.

      First, the administration demonstrated a ridiculously naive view of the world. If we are nice to them, they will be nice to us. Kind of like walking up to an angry dog with all of the confidence of the dog whisperer and then being shocker when you get bit.

      Second, a shocking level of incompetence with regard to security. You have operations in a variety of places around the world, different places require different levels of security. Benghazi would be categorized as the most dangerous type of place.

      Finally when it all hits the fan, do you admit to one and two? No, you tell an obviously unbelievable lie. Was it a terrorist attack? No it was a youtube flash mob gone wrong. I know that politicians lie, but please try to come up with lie that is even remotely plausible. I don’t mind the lie so much, but at least respect me enough to think up a lie that doesn’t insult my intelligence.

  58. “I want my country back”
    It is absolutely amazing how many liberal people from Britain and across the world are demonstration how little they understand other people. They expect us to believe their expertise about ___ when they are completely incapable of understanding the simplest thing about their fellow countrymen?
    Ask any conservative. Conservatives have zero problem understanding the Leave side. Zero. “Who would want to be ruled by these people?”
    This isn’t hard.

  59. We really should set up competing lists of alleged Hillary vs Trump violations.

    For every “alleged” Trump wrong doing there is an “alleged” Hillary miscue that makes Trump’s issue look Pee Wee league. Hillary has moved dead bodies and destroyed foreign countries.

    • You got the Pee Wee league part right, PA:

      I’d settle for Bantam:

    • Danny Thomas

      Ah.

      The theory of Relativity!

    • PA,

      Proportionaility sure is taking a hit these days.

      Proportionality, accepted as a general principle of constitutional law by many countries, requires that government intrusions on freedoms be justified, that greater intrusions have stronger justifications, and that punishments reflect the relative severity of the offense.

      http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/constitutional-law-in-an-age-of-proportionality

      Thought crimes or speech crimes, for instance, are deemed just as egregious as property crimes or violent crimes in many cases, and on many campuses across the country have punishments just as severe. Trump’s alleged speech crimes justify the violent crimes committed against his supporters.

      What happend to the old saw, “Let the time fit the crime”? Or to Thomas Jefferson’s statute: “[I]t is time enough for the righful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order”? Or to the old saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”?

      The scales of justice are completely out of whack.

      • More stock images, Glenn. As great as Donald’s America!

        So far, the Domestic Donald has accomplished very little politically. Even his fingers look awesomely gigantic compared to his political track record, if only because they exist.

        But as the Auditor’s friend once said:

        And speaking of auditing little things:

        Donald has done a very good job of trying to keep a number of things out of the public record and shut down investigations, but I found two tax appeals he filed from the year 1984, one with the City of New York and one with the state. And in one of these two cases, Donald filed something called a Schedule C. That’s what a freelancer files. He reported zero income and $626,000 of expenses, with no receipts and no documentation. That’s something that could be construed as tax fraud.

        http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/16/david_cay_johnston_there_is_incredibly

      • willard:

        A friend told me that to look for evidences of dishonesty in little things, as someone who is dishonest in big things will also be dishonest in little things.

        It doesn’t surprise me at all that you wouldn’t discern the difference between someone who tells a white lie, or steals a pencil at the office, from someone who steals billions, or commits war crimes.

      • > It doesn’t surprise me at all that you wouldn’t discern the difference between someone who tells a white lie, or steals a pencil at the office, from someone who steals billions, or commits war crimes.

        Just as it doesn’t surprise me that would stuff your strawmen with straw, Glenn.

        Here, have some UKIP news:

      • Everybody hates to hear from someone and would like to shut them up.

        This is why I am for basically absolute freedom of speech.

        For example, administrators at universities, that receive Federal funds, who attempt to curtail speech should be sacked immediately. The first time an administrator raises the possibility of a speech.code he should be sacked, and if the student council explores the possibility of a speech code there should be a special election for the vacant positions.

        To my ears the words of the left sound just as vile as what they perceive hearing from the “intolerant right”.

        I’m willing to split the difference and let everyone speak, obeying common decorum. May the best ideas win.

      • David Springer

        A Schedule C with expenses greater than income is not unusual not at all indicative of tax fraud. It’s indicative of a business activity that didn’t earn a profit in that year. I love Schedule C and have filed one many times when I’ve had any income activities that weren’t reported on W-2 (regular earned income). For regular income you can’t, as a general rule, deduct commuting expenses, an office in your home, entertainment, or travel. For business income you generally can deduct all of the above if it is connected and beneficial to the business or even potentially beneficial.

        What kind of dope was it that wrote that Schedule C without a profit is tax fraud? In point of fact the rule of thumb with the IRS is that a profit isn’t expected to be shown in the first three years of any business and any business that reports no profit more than 3 years in a row should be classified as a hobby not a business. There are some notable exceptions and my favorite exception is a home rental business. The government wants a robust supply of affordable rental housing so they will let a home rental business lose money forever and instead limit how much of the loss can be written off against earned income to keep it from being abused by high regular income individuals.

      • David Springer

        It has been a couple decades since I had a home rental business but my recollection is that the loss limit against earned income is $25,000 per year. A nice deduction for someone with a $75,000/year day job but a pittance for a guy with a million dollars in earned income.

      • David Springer said:

        What kind of dope was it that wrote that Schedule C without a profit is tax fraud?

        It’s an indication of the type of mental giants one finds amongst the Hillarymongers.

      • The Billarymongers are reduced to grasping at shadows of straws.

  60. From the article:

    These latest sex attacks against young European women by migrant males comes just days after Swedish police, mindful of the migrant sex attacks at the Stockholm music festival over the past two summers, launched a new “Don’t Touch Me” wrist-band for young girls. Breitbart London reported earlier this week that “unaccompanied youth migrants from the Middle East” were responsible for attacks at the Stockholm, Arvika, Emmaboda, and Bråvalla music festivals over the past ten years.

    Stockholm authorities and festival organisers were accused of knowing about the attacks but decided not to speak up about them, because it would have been “irresponsible” to highlight migrant sex crime.

    Migrant sex attacks at music festivals are not limited to Sweden. Breitbart London reported in June on a similar attack at the Schlossgrabenfest music festival in Darmstadt, Germany, which was likened to the Cologne attacks in which over 1,000 men and women were assaulted and robbed.

    At Schlossgrabenfest, 26 young women reported being sexually assaulted by “Pakistani asylum seekers” who acted in packs of ten, isolating individual woman from their friends before “touching” them.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/03/foreign-men-blamed-after-mass-sex-assault-at-music-festival-youngest-victim-is-12-years-old/

  61. David Springer

    Willard, I’m glad you agree that Clinton murdered a US ambassador.

  62. David Springer

    Trump Supporters:

    Needs support:

    • That’s the attitude Denizens need, Big Dave. Daring Donald shares a similar attitude, an attitude toward women America is in dire need right now:

      • David Springer

        You have no way of knowing but great minds do indeed think alike.

      • David Springer

        Yeah Trump’s a regular Slick Willy when it comes to women, huh? The trail of stained dresses and violated cigars is breathtaking.

        Oh wait…

    • The biggest problem with Hillary is her overzealous careerism. Hillary wants to be president and doesn’t how many dead bodies she has to climb over to do it.

      This is actually an extreme understatement. Saying Hillary suffers from overzealous careerism is like calling a documentary on cannibalism a cooking show.

      • Danny Thomas

        And the biggest with Trump? (Or are there none?)

      • Well…

        I have two concerns about Trump

        1. He won’t cut into his day job to give the “President” position the time it deserves.

        On the other hand he doesn’t strike me as a micromanager so he isn’t going to have to put in that much time.

        The administration may look like an episode of “the apprentice”. He will set up his underlings with the tools to succeed and if they fail they get the ax.

        Fortunately his predecessor set the bar so low Trump could go golfing in Scotland and do a better job.

        2. The other issue is foreign policy.
        Given the state department seems to be out of control and causing more harm than good, I’m cautiously optimistic that the gut reaction of someone operating from American values will have a better result than the insult our friends, praise our enemies, and grovel at every opportunity approach of the current administration.

        Trump’s vast experience negotiating with real foreigners face to face may actually make him more effective than a professional politician. He has properties in Scotland, Canada, Dubai and other interests (mostly licensed) in Israel, Panama, India, Turkey, Korea, Dominican Republic and the Philippines.

        From what I can tell Hillary and Trump have about the same IQ.

        Neither Hillary nor Trump speak Mexican.

        Trump is a bit of an unknown quantity but that is better than a proven source of evil.

      • David Springer

        “1. He won’t cut into his day job to give the “President” position the time it deserves.”

        He’s certainly cutting into it 24/7 in order to campaign for the job. I held the same concern but he’s been doing little other than campaigning for many months now. Actions speak louder than words. When he flew to Scotland to check up on his new golf resort I thought “Well finally he’s taking time off from campaigning”. Then, lo and behold, he’s in a perfect time and place to get a sh*t-ton of free press with his reaction to the Brexit vote. So I think it was more the press conference he had in mind than any business concern about the resort. In summary he’s demonstrated by his actions that he can set aside Trump enterprises.

  63. David Springer

    Spotted Willard taking a leak in unisex bathroom:

  64. Bratty Taffy: archetype of the typical Hillarymonger and anti-Brexit crusader:

    • Too bad Big Dave ain’t on the tweeter yet.

      • willard,

        This is one more example of the Hillarymongers’ complete lack of any sense of proportionality.

        But the Hillarymongers have blown it so grotesquely out of proportion that not even the CNN pundits are buying it, and acknowledge that Trump’s star tweet pales in comparison to the Clinton-Reno affair:

        Backlash over Donald Trump star tweet
        http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/02/trump-star-tweet-clinton-backlash.cnn

      • “Proportionality” has too many syllables, Glenn.

        Try “too easily offended”:

      • willard,

        No, proportionality is the correct term, even though you and the rest of the Hillarymongers and anti-Brexiters have no comprehension of the term whatsoever.

        Your remoteness from reality seems to have no bounds.

        Anti-Trump protesters – VIOLENCE, HATE, and INTOLERANCE – compilation

      • Sure, Glenn. “Hillarymongers,” “Hillarymongers,” “Hillarymongers.”

        Here, have some press credentials from Decorum Donald:

      • willard (@nevaudit) | July 3, 2016 at 7:08 pm |

        Try “too easily offended”:

        I’m not sure what your point is.

        Trump’s supporters are right, people are too easily offended. This is yet another indication that Trump supporters are smarter than Hillary supporters.

        The Trump campaign seems to be trying to cure the overly-sensitive Hillary supporters. Repeated exposure to the Trump campaign should mitigate their problem.

      • > I’m not sure what your point is.

        Try reading the article, PA, e.g.:

        It’s About Racial and Gender Discrimination, Not Ideological Principles

        Those who disdain attempts to speak in ways that are more sensitive to others often say they are “just telling it like it is.” From this point of view, those who are pressured to adopt more inclusive language are the victims of an oppressive culture that is attempting to suppress their individuality. If this were the case, we would expect to see differences emerge along ideological lines. However, this argument is not consistent with the empirical evidence. Our model found that resistance to “political correctness” transcends ideological divisions, with liberals being just as likely to express “anti-pc” sentiments as moderates and conservatives, once we control for race and partisanship.

        http://www.salon.com/2016/07/03/language_matters_concerns_about_political_correctness_are_deeply_intertwined_with_race/

        Your “we’re more intelligent than them” was a nice try, though.

      • David Springer

        Dirty stinking jews. There’s no way this is her first time.

      • stevenreincarnated

        On a positive note, if Trump is anti Semitic perhaps Sharpton will get to keep his key to the Whitehouse.

      • willard (@nevaudit) | July 3, 2016 at 8:26 pm |
        > I’m not sure what your point is.

        Try reading the article, PA, e.g.:

        It’s About Racial and Gender Discrimination, Not Ideological Principles

        Hispanic and Asian aren’t races.

        Humorous factoid: 90% of “white” mexicans (hispanics no less) live the US.

        It could be inferred that Blacks (who really are a race either) are about twice as racist than whites from FBI hate crimes data.

        You want to entitle artificially packaged victim groups.

        If it weren’t for the hypocrisy of the almost absolute discrimination against conservatives in fields like psychology you might appear to have a case at first glance. The fact that no dissenting opinion or balanced viewpoint is allowed invalidates your argument.

        When 40% (the representation in the general population) of psychologists are doing the studies that you claim support your view, instead of less than 1%, I’ll listen. Because then I will have a range of studies that present a balanced picture.

        Until then, no dice. No support for gagging the few people you couldn’t get to any other way.

      • > Hispanic and Asian aren’t races.

        But white and black are, I suppose.

        The model the authors are referring to ain’t the chart you’re reading, PA.

        The authors analyze racial resentment elsewhere, e.g.:

        On just about every measure, support for Trump increased along with the measured racial animus. As the chart below shows, increased levels of racial stereotyping among white respondents — as measured by belief that black people, Muslims and Hispanics are “lazy” or “violent” — strongly increases support for Trump, even after controlling for other factors. The opposite is true, however, when it comes to support for Marco Rubio. Among white respondents, support for Rubio decreases with belief in racial stereotypes:

        http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/yes_trumps_secret_weapon_is_racism_why_bigotry_not_the_economy_is_the_biggest_factor_driving_his_rise/

        While I support an economic interpretation myself, there is a case to be made that bigotry could be the biggest factor Disgust Donald’s rise

        ***

        > Until then, no dice.

        As if you got any in your hands.

      • PA,

        I read both of the articles written by Sean McElwee that willard linked.

        McElwee is what Rogers Brubaker would call an “ethnographic specialist” or “ethnographic entrepreneur.”

        And as Brubaker goes on to explain, these people “live ‘off’ as well as ‘for'” race. They “make their living” off of racial politics.

        McElwee therefore has an interest in inciting and inflaming racial resentments and hatreds as much as is possible. He places whites, and especially whites who support Trump, into a discreet group, which he then stigmatizes, stereotypes and demonizes.

        If you watch the video I have linked, “Anti-Trump protesters – VIOLENCE, HATE, and INTOLERANCE – compilation,” you can see how the hatreds and resentments engendered and celebrated by McElwee and willard manifest themselves in the street. So the game they are playing is a dangerous one, and is not benign.

        McElwee and willard are the mirror image of the “closed-minded reactionaries” of the 1960s white South, as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. called them, who “gain prominence and power by the dissemination of false ideas, and by deliberately appealing to the deepest hate responses within the human mind.”

      • PA,

        I would add that the strategies and tactics being urged by willard and McElwee are the exact opposite of those King pursuded throughout his lifetime:

        Violence solves no social problems; it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Through the vistas of time a voice still cries to every potential Peter, “Put up your sword!” The shores of history are white with the bleached bones of nations and communities that failed to follow this command. If the American Negro and other victims of oppression succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle for justice, unborn generations will live in a desolate night of bitterness, and their chief legacy will be an endless reign of chaos….

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

        — REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Circle, 1958

      • David Springer

        Not that facts are a welcome intrusion but PA is correct. Hispanic and Asian are not races. Those are regional not racial categories. Hispanics may have blue, green, or brown eyes. Asians may be black, white, or brown. Anthropologists identify 3 and sometimes 4 races of man and they are physical features of the individual not the country or continent of origin. The usual 3 are: negroid, mongoloid, and caucasoid. Australoid is sometimes given as a fourth.

        This is not to say that the term “race” isn’t so widely abused that it has no other meaning. If Jews can be a “race” then all bets are off. What would that make Sammy Davis Jr. bi-racial (black and Jewish). That would mean Methodists could be a race separate from Baptists. Atheists would be yet another racial distinction! At some point it becomes ridiculous and in my opinion that point was passed at least 50 years ago.

        The notion that Trump is a racist is just mud slinging by the left. Trump is a nationalist and judging by the nationality of his wives he’s doesn’t hold that very dear either else he would’ve restricted himself to marrying American women. The only color The Donald is concerned about is green and in this case it’s the color of money not trees. As far as the offended Jewess one might remind the misguided girl that Donald’s beloved daughter Ivanka is Jewish. I don’t believe for a New York minute that Donald gives a tinker’s damn about religion so long as that religion isn’t one that promotes violence and intolerance. Islam promotes both. Women are chattel and infidels are to be converted or killed for example. Islam is a cancerous growth on the human race and needs to be excised.

      • David Springer said:

        What would that make Sammy Davis Jr. bi-racial (black and Jewish).

        I had a reform Jewish acquaintance in San Antonio who used to joke about “gay black Jewish women.” He called them “fourfers,” and noted they were in line to demand all sorts of reparations from the broader society.

      • David Springer

        Amerindian is better than black for getting free cheese. Just ask Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. :-)

      • David,

        A lot of beggars aren’t even grateful for what they get.

        Here in Mexico they have a name for them. They call them limosneros con garrote (beggars with a club).

        Here are a couple of YouTube videos which illustrate the phenomenon.

        The first shows a man giving 50 centavos to a beggar. She is so offended by the small amount (about 3₡ usd) that she throws the coin back into his truck.

        The second video contrasts the difference between a humble beggar that is truly in need, and a group of young “beggars,” in reality thugs, who work in groups on the local buses, intimidating and collecting money from the passengers.

    • willard (@nevaudit) | July 3, 2016 at 8:26 pm |
      > I’m not sure what your point is.

      Try reading the article, PA, e.g.:

      “Sticks and stones…”

    • David Springer

      Most remarkable is the firearm. I didn’t recognize it. It looked like a Barrett .50 cal M82 sniper rifle that is the standard for US military today but the magazine is located behind the trigger which looked very odd to me.

      Turns out it’s a Barret M95 sniper rifle. Magazine behind the trigger makes it a class of rifle called a “bullpup”. I learn something new every day!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M95

      These are popular sniper rifles in non-US military units so I would guess the t-shirt designer is not a US citizen.

      • David Springer

        The Donald doesn’t care for guns much personally but one of his sons does. He’s been an NRA member for life which is probably more out of American tradition than anything else. So the gun is a bit odd aside from it not being an American military model but at least it’s made in America at Christiana, Tennessee.

        Other oddities include the big belt buckle, blue jeans, and what appears to be cowboy boots. Trump’s a city slicker who may not even own a pair of blue jeans to say nothing of not having any cowboy boots in his wardrobe. Ronald Reagan wore jeans and cowboy boots and Trump is often compared to Reagan so I’m thinking that’s what the shirt’s designer had in mind.

        The big belt buckle might be a rodeo belt but that isn’t part of the Reagan look. It very well may be a World Wrestling Entertainment prize belt. Trump is a fan and has close association with the WWE through hosting WWE events on Trump Enterprises properties.

    • VIDEO: All The Attention Goes To Trump’s Most Stylish Fan
      http://cw33.com/2015/09/15/all-the-attention-goes-to-trumps-most-stylish-fan/

      It’s amazing the amount of hatred and bullying this woman was subjected to on the internet because of her dress.

      willard, you and Sean McElwee are doing a great job with your hate mongering.

      • David Springer

        But I thought women hate The Donald?

      • David,

        Only in the Hillarymongers’ wildest dreams.

      • David Springer

        My middle daughter (31 years) is a liberal. Bernie Sanders is her guy. She’s heartbroken. I reminded her yesterday that Bernie hasn’t conceded and there’s still a good chance Cr00ked Hillary will get indicted or her health problems become too great or both. She hates both Hillary and The Donald and won’t vote for either she’ll just stay home and not vote at all.

        My wife, who’s hispanic, non-registered but votes Republican, evangelical by practice and Catholic on paper, hates Hillary, doesn’t care for Trump or Sanders, likes Jeb Bush, probably won’t vote either.

        Turnout just isn’t looking good for the Democrats this year. Republicans on the other easily set new all-time records for number of primary voters. The difference between Trump supporters and others are Trump supporters will turn-out in massive numbers. Landslide numbers considering how many people secretly like him but are too politically correct to admit it in public. I think there’s a lot of Trump supporters that are in the closet so to speak.

      • > Turnout just isn’t looking good for the Democrats this year.

        Between your three persons model and Nat’s, Big Dave:

        the choice is hard to make.

  65. I have the brand newest iPad, and it has been laboring for the past half hour to follow this thread given too many photoshopped politically slanted images. None of which are enlightening.
    IMO, this blog is great when it focusses on climate science and energy. You all deteriorate it very rapidly when it strays into pure politics. I tried to wrench it back a bit with a legal analysis of Article 50. Got ‘Trumped’ by a disgusting image of his open mouth revealing a standard old mercury/ silver filling. So what? In re climate, energy, immigration…
    Denizens, you should be able to do better. Please try.

    • You just made Willard’s day, sorry to say.

    • bedeverethewise

      Are you sure that was a mercury amalgam filling? He may have just eaten and Oreo.

    • David Springer

      Apple products are sh*t. My Windows desktop isn’t having any problems at all with Willard’s spam. I’ll try my Nexus 7 Android tablet as soon as it charges up. My Samsung Galaxy S6 isn’t having any problem either.

      • When it’ll charge, tell me if you can read that article, Big Dave:

        The lawsuit was filed by Jill Harth who then went by Jill Harth Houraney on April 25, 1997. Harth, who was in her early 30’s at the time, alleged that Trump engaged in hostile and offensive sexual behavior towards her from 1992 to 1997 including “groping” her under her dress on several occasions, “forcibly” moving her to his daughter’s bedroom in an attempt to have sex with her, and repeatedly, aggressively and inappropriately propositioning her for sex. She called it “sexually abusive” and LawNewz.com spoke to her in an exclusive interview.

        The 12-page complaint is filled with sordid allegations against Trump, often very specific, and including dates and times. At other points in the filing, she presents second hand accounts of even more boorish behavior that she attributes to Trump.

        http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

      • But she says now she would vote for him and he is a friend. Sounds like she’s furious alright.

      • Seems that she’s a bit richer too, jim. Fancy that for a foreign policy.

        Another settlement for the unsettling Donald:

      • David Springer

        A millionaire workaholic playboy notorious for dating beautiful young fashion models is accused, without substantial evidence or witnesses, of groping them.

        Shocking.

        That said, it didn’t stop people like you from supporting Bill Clinton who while in the office of POTUS left behind sperm soiled dresses, violated cigars, impeachment for lying about it, in addition to rape charges while governor of Arkansas.

        The hypocritical double standards are strong in you, Wee Willard. Leave the dark side of the force, little buddy. Lesser men than you have managed to come right. It’s usually by getting right with God first but who knows maybe you could be a rare exception a faithless little prig but with enough integrity to abandon the double standards.

      • Seems that Jill’s “lack of substantial evidence” still got her a big settlement from a guy who bragged in a book that he doesn’t settle lawsuits, “because once you settle lawsuits, everybody sues you.”

        What’s up with that, Big Dave?

        God sure works in mysterious ways – presumably having created someone like you, who have the nerve to invoke His name after all you wrote in this thread alone.

        Pray tell more about double standards.

  66. “The New Yorker: British Lose Right to Claim That Americans Are Dumber [link]”

    As a Limey born in Philadelphia, might I suggest something else: That the writers for the New Yorker take their publication, in a clenched fist, turn it sideways, and…

    • We can compare interviews with prospective PM candidates with the rantings and tweetings of Trump to see if the British have really lost that right (I don’t think so, but I am an ex-pat, so I might be biased).

  67. From the article:

    Originally ten local young Muslim men of Somali descent were hit with terror charges, but six of those charged pleaded guilty and waived a trail. Now, the remaining three, Mohamed Abdihamid Farah, 21; Abdurahman Yasin Daud, 21; and Guled Ali Omar, 20, were all found guilty after a three-week trial. A fourth Minnesota Muslim, Abdirahman Bashir, turned state’s witness and provided key evidence to convict the three.

    The guilty verdicts all carry a possible life sentence.

    But according to Scott W. Johnson, writing for City Journal, the atmosphere around the trial needs to be reported on, too, because it seemed from his firsthand experience that the local Muslim community did not blame the convicted jihadis for the charges. Instead, they acted as if these young men were just being persecuted by an out-of-control government intent on sending innocent Muslims to jail.

    Johnson described the intense security the government had arranged for the safety of all concerned, yet even with the high level of security, the brother of one of the defendants was caught trying to smuggle six-inch-long scissors into the courtroom. The same man was also seen apparently casing the exits and elevators of the courthouse. Officials eventually banned him from the building until the trial was over.

    This young man was not the only person to be banished from the courthouse as authorities had to take that measure with others who showed a desire to disrupt the proceedings.

    Johnson also witnessed the hijab-wearing girlfriend of one of the defendants attempting to beat up her boyfriend’s mother because he was cooperating with authorities.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/29/trial-10-minnesota-jihadis-guilty-ignored-media/

    • From that other article, jim:

      MINNEAPOLIS – Minneapolis Police are investigating a double shooting in the Dinkytown area early Wednesday morning as a hate crime against two Muslim men.

      A group of five young men, all dressed in traditional Muslim robes, were in a car headed to Ramadan overnight prayers when they were confronted by the gunman at the intersection of 14th Ave. S.E. and 6th Street S.E.. at 2:00 a.m.

      Hussein Gelle, one of two victims recovering from bullet wounds to their legs, told KARE the gunman fired at those who fled the vehicle, and then ordered Gelle and another passenger to stay in the backseat.

      “He was standing about 10 feet away from the car, and I thought it was over. But then he started shooting again and got both of us in the backseat, shot us in the legs.”

      The driver of the car then sped away, and took Gelle and the other man to the University of Minnesota Medical Center for treatment. The attacker remains at large, but Minneapolis police are asking for witnesses to come forward.

      http://www.kare11.com/news/crime/police-2-muslim-men-shot-likely-hate-crime/260972058

      • It probably will be the case that the shooter was a Muslim trying to stir the pot. We’ll see how this develops.

      • This incident smells. First of all, no one else saw the shooter. The story is solely from the Muslims. Second, the Muslims claim the shooter was trying to kill them. If that’s the case, why is it that only the legs are injured? No one with any idea of how to use a gun would shoot at legs, but someone trying to stage a shooting would. Also, I wonder if the bullet was hollow point or FMJ. I’m betting FMJ.

      • David Springer

        Man Bites Dog. Two young white hoodlums assault five black guys dressed up like Malcom X. Nobody dies. Two non-life threatening gunshot wounds to the leg. Trump protesters cause more bloodshed among Trump supporters fercrisakes and it’s on a regular basis not Dog Bites Man Man Bites Dog basis.

      • David Springer

        What I smell, Jim, is cheap whiskey on the two white guys which handily explains the wounds to the legs-only of back seat passengers from point-blank range. They probably fired through the door thinking it would be a warning and shrapnel from the door caused the wounds.

        If you hate someone in the back seat of a car and want to kill them with a handgun at point blank range you don’t shoot through the door at their legs. You shoot them in the face through the window.

      • Here is a version of the story that appears to be different, …

        The victims told police that as they were stopped at a corner near 14th Avenue and 6th Street SE. in Dinkytown, two white men approached their car on foot and began to curse Muslims and Islam, then flashed a gun, trying to start a fight. When the men in the car drove off, the shooter or shooters fired into the back of the vehicle, wounding two of the men inside. At least seven shots were fired, Hussein said.

        So in this account, the shooter was shooting as the vehicle left the scene. What to believe. It seems less believable that the bullet(s) penetrated the entire rear of the vehicle only to hit their legs. It would more likely hit their back it seems to me. Looks fishy.

      • It probably will be the case that the shooter was a Muslim trying to stir the pot.

        I generally stir my pots with a spoon…

      • > It probably will be the case […]

        “Probably will,” jim?

        Please continue – the truth is out there.

    • willard,

      I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

      Do you think that liars should not be allowed to stand for office? Or those people who change their minds when new facts come to light? If you also disbar hypocrites, and the non politically correct, there won’t be many, if any, people left.

      Democracy seems laudable in theory, but the practice sometimes doesn’t live up to expectations.

      Good luck, anyway. Everything works out for the best, except when it doesn’t!

      Cheers.

      • > I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

        Reading can do miracles, MikeF. Try it. For example:

        Proposition 1. The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, is not even remotely qualified to carry out the duties of the presidency of the United States of America.

        https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/it-ought-to-be-common-knowledge-that-donald-trump-is-not-fit-for-the-presidency-of-the-united-states-of-america/

        Thank you for your concerns.

      • willard,

        I wasn’t aware that one needed qualifications to stand for election. I’m guessing there aren’t any prescribed educational qualifications, as this would defeat the theoretical attractions of democracy.

        Who decides who is qualified? An expert, perhaps? You?

        Here’s a radical idea – maybe voters could select the person they prefer. Or do you want the voters to satisfy your requirements, before you judge them sufficiently qualified to be allowed to vote?

        I advocate truly free speech. Let everyone say what they wish. If voters are all completely dense and irrational, and incapable of sorting the wheat from the chaff, then so be it.

        That’s life – look at the number of supposedly intelligent people who claim to believe in the miraculous heating powers of CO2!

        Cheers.

      • David Springer

        Qualifications for president of US:

        1) 35 years of age;
        2) resident 14 years;
        3) native born;

        There are no other qualifications other than convincing a majority of electoral college members to vote for them. Virtually every state appoints all its college electors by whoever wins the state vote for president. Electors are apportioned mostly by state population in addition to two freebies just for being a separate state,

        Elitists, like Willard, don’t like this qualification system. The hoi polloi can act up and elect someone who is off the two-party reservation. Someone like Donald Trump.

      • > I wasn’t aware that one needed qualifications to stand for election.

        In return, I was aware that you’d risk running with the incorrect meaning of the term “qualified” to play dumb, MikeF.

        To each his own alright.

        You could replace Donald for anything else for all I care:

        Silver’s model gives Trump a 19 percent chance of winning the election. Right now he has Clinton taking the popular vote by seven points and absolutely crushing Trump in the Electoral College, 353 to 184. Considering that the polarized electorate means each candidate is starting out with a floor of probably 50 million or so votes, these numbers indicate Trump is performing no better against Clinton than a rock covered in orange spray paint would. The GOP’s only chance might be to toss him overboard at the convention and nominate an inanimate carbon rod.

        http://www.salon.com/2016/06/30/the_math_is_with_hillary_she_surging_in_the_polls_and_many_republicans_are_in_denial/

    • Thank you for repeatedly spelling his name correctly, it helps.

    • David Springer

      How many of those are accurate? I perused the list and “laziness is a trait in blacks” looked the most suspicious. Sure enough, it’s a claim made by a disgruntled fired employee who said he overheard Trump say that to a black accountant in his employ. What was racist Donald doing hiring a black accountant in the first place? Did David Duke, a real racist, hire black accountants at his business? But nooooooooo… the libtard mind ignores things that cause cognitive dissonance in rational minds.

    • David Springer

      How many of those are accurate? I perused the list and “laziness is a trait in blacks” looked the most suspicious. Sure enough, it’s a claim made by a disgruntled fired employee who said he overheard Trump say that to a black accountant in his employ. What was racist Donald doing hiring a black accountant in the first place? Did David Duke, a real racist, hire black accountants at his business? But nooooooooo… the libtard mind ignores things that cause cognitive dissonance in rational minds.

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fusion-misattributes-racist-quote-to-donald-trump/article/2567872

  68. Check out Google’s r@c1st banner for the 4th. Notice something odd about the color of the stars. Is Google trying to say something here?

    • I wonder if that will trigger the same sort of backlash from willard and the rest of the sensitivity Gestapo as Trump’s star tweet did?

      • Cracker Country.

      • David Springer

        Hot dogs and corn on the cob. No fried chicken or watermelon in sight.

      • David Springer

        Having an “interracial” family myself we had three kinds of German sausage, Mexican tortillas to wrap them, American BBQ’ed chicken wings, and a Belgian beer Stella-Artois.

        Hey I got it! “American” should be considered a race too! Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket.

      • David Springer

        I almost forgot. Served Arab coffee grown in South America.

        AND now that I think about it a fruit plate that included watermelon, pineapple, honeydew, blueberries, and black cherries.

      • Here, Glenn, just because you try to pull me in:

        This July 4, let’s not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

        Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can’t be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.

        But I’m reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would’ve been abolished earlier, American Indians would’ve faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.

        http://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/american-revolution-mistake

        Next time, beware your wishes.

      • 1776 was Amexit.

  69. Bill Black: BREXIT – Tony Blair
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/bill-black-brexit-tony-blair.html

    Tony Blair disgraced his office as Prime Minister and continues to disgrace it as lobbyist for murderous kleptocrats.

    Blair’s column [in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/tony-blair-brexits-stunning-coup.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region ] claims personal credit for a series of supposed triumph, blames the BREXIT vote on the Tories, and throws Jeremy Corbin, his successor as Labour Party leader, under the bus.

    The title of Blair’s article refers to the democratic vote in favor of BREXIT as a “coup,” which helps explain why he specializes in getting ever wealthier by fronting for tyrants and kleptocrats who he presents as evolving democrats.

    The English language is just one of the things Blair helps torture.

    Blair’s central complaint is against “populism.” He is enraged that the UK voters “demonized” “the experts” who warned that BREXIT would cause an economic catastrophe….

    Blair is outraged that after the sordid record of the bankers’ crimes, abuses, and staggering incompetence the public refused to defer to those bankers as “the experts” on BREXIT.

    The campaign made the word “expert” virtually a term of abuse, and when experts warned of the economic harm that would follow Brexit, they were castigated as “scaremongers.”

    ***

    The political center has lost its power to persuade and its essential means of connection to the people it seeks to represent. Instead, we are seeing a convergence of the far left and far right. The right attacks immigrants while the left rails at bankers, but the spirit of insurgency, the venting of anger at those in power and the addiction to simple, demagogic answers to complex problems are the same for both extremes. Underlying it all is a shared hostility to globalization.

    The first sentence of the quotation contains two clues to Blair’s ideology. The “political center” is conclusively presumed to be correct and to be “seek[ing] to represent” the poor and progressives. Neither presumption is true, as Blair’s policies proved… Blair repositioned the UK “center” far to the right….

    Blair’s use of “right” and “left” is also false. There are plenty of folks on the right that are appalled by the City’s bankers’ frauds and abuses and people on the left that are worried about large scale immigration.,,,

    Blair is in despair because it has become clear to most citizens of the UK that he and far too many political leaders represent their own self-interest. Blair is in despair because most citizens in the UK despise the bankers who made him politically powerful and wealthy while crushing the economy and view the bankers as dishonest and financially incompetent or malicious. Blair’s fundamental attack is on democracy. He implicitly claims that only people that he considers to be members of his redefined “center” are capable of devising policies worthy of enactment….

    The idea that the UK “center” has the exclusive “capacity” “to analyze” and “find solutions” is preposterous and arrogant.

    More basically, when there is a democratic vote decided by the majority as there was on BREXIT, the “center” wins the vote. Blair refuses to recognize the majority of UK citizens who made up the “center” on this particular issue….

    For Blair, however, the “center” of the UK voters on this issue who voted in favor of BREXIT are consigned to being extremists who are unreasonable people because they disagreed with Blair’s policy preference.

  70. David Springer

    The preference among women for Hillary is in my opinion totally explained by her being the first female to run for POTUS ever. A major party member, senator, and secretary of state makes it a legitimate choice.

    Trump’s similarly large preference among men is in my opinion totally explained by him talking like a typical NYC construction foreman rather than the effeminate politically correct alternatives.

  71. David Springer

    If you like the doctor you have, you can keep the doctor you have under the Affordable Care Act. Barrack Obama for president.

    If you like the federal government you have, you can keep the federal government you have. Hillary Clinton for president.

    Federal government approval rating:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx

    Questions? Trump for President.

    • Danny Thomas

      Questions? Yep. Over here, over here.

      Um. We were sold just recently on Hope and CHANGE. Is there any reason to expect things will be different this time, and based on what?

      • David Springer

        Based on picking someone from outside the world of professional politicians. That hasn’t happened since Eisenhower so far as I know.

        But realistically Hillary is frickin’ campaigning mostly for the status quo and Trump is campaigning against it. They both have the friends and enemies to prove their positions are for real too.

      • Danny Thomas

        The American public has voted on similar before:
        “Change[edit]
        Change was Obama’s fundamental motif in his campaign for Republican, Democratic, and undecided audiences.[1] In addition to inspiring his Yes We Can campaign slogan, the ideology of change separated Obama from his opponents.[1] During his campaign, change was the second most stated concept in Obama’s speeches, falling behind the economy.[2] Change also became a part of Obama’s slogan, “Change we can believe in,” which appeared on banners, podiums, and posters.

        “American Exceptionalism[edit]
        American exceptionalism is a rhetorical device that elicits support from the audience and convinces listeners that the speaker can restore the United States to greatness.[1] Using American exceptionalism promoted confidence in Obama, his campaign, and the national identity of the United States. American exceptionalism helped Obama establish a separation between the old administration and his new leadership.[1]

        Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan are other politicians known for their use of American exceptionalism to further the ideal that the United States is the hegemon of the world.[1] Although related to patriotism, exceptionalism is a stronger belief that the United States is the exception to the rules of history.[1]”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_rhetoric_of_Barack_Obama

        Memory jogs?

      • We understand you ask a disingenuous question in an attempt to create the illusion that all the candidates are the same. But we already know you are in the tank for Billary.

      • Danny Thomas

        Not even close Jim. I haven’t fully decided who I’ll vote for (as it may be a write in). But as with Trump’s approach is easy to vet using the ‘I’m against’ method. Being ‘for’ something takes a bit more work and I’m looking forward to when he stops being just a sales guy and provides substance.

        You’ll note that recent experience was cited in response to Dave’s comment. That experience was under the banner of “Hope & Change”. How happy did that make you Jim?

        I recognize that you also take the easy way out finding reasons to be against Clinton. But try actually doing some work and find reasons to be for whichever candidate you chose. You come across as being so full of fear and conspiracy. You’re leaving out the hope and exceptional part.

        And Happy Independence Day!

      • One is who is financing their campaigns.

        At this time in the 2008 election cycle, Obama had raised about $270 million.
        http://www.opensecrets.org/Pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008

        And just like Clinton, the biggest contributor was Wall Street:

        Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

        In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters. …

        http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/10/guess-which-president-has-raked-in-the-most-wall-street-bucks-in-a-generation/

        Now compare that to Trump. So far he’s raised $66 million, of which $46 million was his own money. That leaves only $20 million that came from outside contributions.

        https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

        $270 million with $0 of that being Obama’s money, vs. $66 million with $46 million of that being Trump’s money.

        One thing about it, if Trump wins the election, he won’t be bought and paid for in the way Obama was, or Clinton will be.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        Evaluation as of this date is premature. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-rnc-fundraising-225042 “The list multiple state and federal lawmakers, former ambassadors, business executives and high-powered megadonors such as Larry Nichols, the chairman emeritus of Devon Energy.”

        It is naive to suggest that anyone who attains the highest office of the land will enter the doors not beholding to anyone. And you don’t come across as naive.

        Holding political office entails ‘making deals’ which implies parties on the other side. A contract cannot exist without a meeting of the minds.

        It helps to look at details.

      • Trump’s fundraising is not going well. In Denver last week the place was half empty. It probably barely covered his plane travel cost.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Here’s how it works accoring to Nicccolo Machiavelli, writing in The Prince:

        [W]hen a private citizen becomes the ruler of his country not through perfidy or intolerable violence but rather through the aid of his fellow citizens, we may call what ensues a civil principality.

        I say that one becomes the ruler of such a principality through the support of either the common people or the nobles, for these two opposing parties are to be found in every city; and they originate from the fact that the common people do not want to be commanded or oppressed by the nobles, whereas the nobles do want to command and oppress them….

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

        Besides, it is impossible to satisfy the nobles fairly without injuring others, whereas it is indeed possible to do so with respect to the people, for their wishes have more right, since they seek to avoid oppression while the nobles seek to oppress.

      • Danny Thomas

        “[W]hen a private citizen becomes the ruler of his country not through perfidy or intolerable violence but rather through the aid of his fellow citizens, we may call what ensues a civil principality.”

        perfidy–deceitfulness; untrustworthiness.

        The top paragraph describes our electoral process. It’s how Trump and Clinton have achieved their positions.

        Who, among any candidate, cannot be described as perfidious?
        Clinton most assuredly has her warts. That some try to portray Trump as having none is disingenuous.

      • David Springer

        Trump is not for American hegemony. He’s an isolationist fercrisakes.

        What planet do you live on, Danny?

        Americans are tired of being the ones tasked with keeping the world an orderly place. It’s an impossible and lately thankless task that consumes vast amounts of American blood and treasure. Trump has tapped into that. The establishment of both parties are war hawks beholden to the military-industrial complex and of foreign governments (Arab gov’ts included) interested in the US enforcing the status quo around the world.

        Phuck that. We’re tapped out from being the world’s police since 1945 and the only superpower since 1991. Someone else’s turn. Or at least fairly share in the burden. That is Trump’s position. Mine too. And evidently people like me are legion.

      • David Springer

        Sure Danny, compare Trump to vulture capitalist Romney. I voted Libertarian in 2012. Trump at least makes money on building businesses not breaking up and selling the pieces of businesses that others built. No comparison really.

      • Danny Thomas

        Romney? Romney (for whom I did not vote) is as ‘perfidious’ as it comes.

        The comparison was with Obama’s rhetoric (which sounded a lot like Trump’s does today and that is the point since so many here are ‘ecstatic’ with Obama’s performance it bears being referenced.). Rhetoric is a sales tool. Content is important.

      • Danny, what do you mean? Trump’s rhetoric is nothing like Obama’s. His is all I, me, mine, America is the worst, Rosie O’Donnell, etc. Obama is about we, yes we can, progress for America. The only thing they have in common is that they are rhetoric, but Trump says nothing actually substantial or history based or even educational, while you can learn from Obama and the way he connects ideas together. The difference is like that between primitive grunts and actual speech.

      • Danny Thomas

        JimD,
        Change is the common thread. The difficulty IMO is that I have no idea what Trump wants to change to. Partly, this may be because he also has no idea.

      • Yes. Contrast with Obama who had many ideas, and people signed on to them. With Trump, they don’t know because he has changed his view on almost anything he has said, sometimes multiple times. The statistics on Trump support show that his primary base was those with the greatest level of “distressed white experience”, decreasing income and jobs and low education levels in their counties. Trump finds people for them to blame, and usually it is foreigners which suits them fine.

      • °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        Evaluation as of this date is premature.

        I disagree.

        I myslef don’t make a habit of basing decisions on speculation and prophecy when I can make them the more old-fashined way: by looking at the past. These past events are what we call facts.

        And if we look at the facts — at Clinton’s past — what we see is a track record on the economy, on foreign relations, on military engagement, on energy, on honesty and forthrightness, that is not a good one. Her track record when it comes to her official duties, to be blunt, stinks.

        So with Clinton we know what we are going to get: more of the same. And that’s not good.

        With Trump we don’t know exactly what we’re going to get because he doesn’t have a track record in public office. But we do know it can’t be worse than Clinton. Even if there’s only a one-out-of-ten chance that he will be better, that’s a 10% chance for improvement that we don’t have with Clinton.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        It helps to look at details.

        Yes, it does “help to look at details.” And here are the details.

        These are Trump’s total outside and PAC contributions through June 21, 2016. And there is nothing there to indicate that Trump has sold out to Wall Street, or anybody else as far as that is concerned, the way Clinton already has:

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        “I myslef don’t make a habit of basing decisions on speculation and prophecy when I can make them the more old-fashined way: by looking at the past. These past events are what we call facts.”

        Somewhat of a dichotomy with:

        “With Trump we don’t know exactly what we’re going to get because he doesn’t have a track record in public office. But we do know it can’t be worse than Clinton. ”

        How do we KNOW it can’t be worse than Clinton. Where’s ‘the facts’ there?

        Trump, and most here have verified same, is not putting forth much except arguments ‘against’ things w/o bothering to tell us what he’s for.

        If he were to be here blogging with this kind of approach you guys would belittle and berate him to no end.

      • Danny Thomas

        And Glenn. Premature is premature:
        “Trump’s White House ambitions need to be fueled by about $1 billion, and investors — including a cadre of boldface names hailing from New York and Wall Street — are getting ready to bet on the presumptive GOP nominee for president.” http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/27/donald-trump-is-coming-to-wall-street.html

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Clinton most assuredly has her warts. That some try to portray Trump as having none is disingenuous.

        But no one I know outside the Trump campaign is saying Trump has “none.” What they’re saying is that he has less.

        Your argument boils down to saying that having half a loaf is the same as no bread.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        “What they’re saying is that he has less.”

        Lesser of two evils approach?

        This is why I keep stating that in depth substance would be of interest were Trump to provide it. But he has not to date.

        A life time governmental figure is much more easily vetted due to the public nature of her dealings. We, frankly, do not have access to the private dealings of a private person. So in lieu, seeking out policy oriented ‘projections’ from the candidate (the unknown) seems prudent.

        You yourself stated ‘the facts’ we know about Clinton. This may provide sufficient reason to not vote for her. This does not then logically lead to Trump being the best choice just because he’s not her. Why not Gary or Jill? Or a write in?

      • Danny Thomas said:

        How do we KNOW it can’t be worse than Clinton. Where’s ‘the facts’ there?

        Have you ever looked at Clinton’s track record? Have you taken a look at who is financing her campagin?

        It’s called proven, demonstrated performance. And it doesn’t get much worse than her’s, nor the neoliberal/neoconservative establishment that owns her.

        Ever heard of this one?

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        It was your choice of analysis. You take a ‘known’ (the facts/Clinton’s history) and compare with an unknown and surmise that the unknown will be less detrimental.

        Not good science, Glenn. Not good science. Even I know that.

        Going for “Hope and Change” compares well with just going for ‘Change’ (an unknown quantity). Please now look back at your posting of the definition of insanity, and apply.

        Or alternatively, provide substance.

      • David Springer said:

        They both have the friends and enemies to prove their positions are for real too.

        Yep.

        Trump is hated equally by the Rubinite Democrats, the Romeny Republicans and the neocon faithful.

        That in itself is quite an endorsement of Trump, whereas Clinton is merely awaiting her coronation as the president from Wall Street.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        “Trump’s White House ambitions need to be fueled by about $1 billion, and investors — including a cadre of boldface names hailing from New York and Wall Street — are getting ready to bet on the presumptive GOP nominee for president.”

        But again, all your arm waving is based on speculation, not on what has already happened.

        Where have we seen this rhetorical strategy used before? Can we say Warmists/Alarmists? Can we say Brexit?

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        Arm waving? Guess you didn’t read this. It’s dated in the past and not in the future by the way: “The list multiple state and federal lawmakers, former ambassadors, business executives and high-powered megadonors such as Larry Nichols, the chairman emeritus of Devon Energy. Todd Christie, the brother of the New Jersey governor who endorsed Trump earlier this year, is also on the list, as are Dave Tamasi, a former bundler for Chris Christie, and Gary Kirke, an Iowa power broker who briefly boosted Christie’s effort.

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-rnc-fundraising-225042#ixzz4DSxuGGNP

        But I’m sure the ‘projection’ that should Trump be elected he will be beholding to no one (isn’t that what you’ve forecast). Right?

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Lesser of two evils approach?

        That’s right.

        If you can find the perfect candidate, by all means vote for him or her.

      • Danny Thomas

        Perfect candidate? What’s that?

        I suppose an alternative approach is to vote for an unknown vs. a known (with evidence of parameters like them or not all while a presumption of lesser of two evils based on vapor).

        Now of course the immediate above sentence presumes a choice limited to two when that is not the case in the real world.

      • David Springer

        Danny,

        I don’t really see any parallels between and Obama and Trump aside from “change the status quo” as the main part of the message. The promised change is pretty much largely in different directions; progressive vs. pragmatic; global interests vs. American interests. The progressive agenda is new world order under what amounts to benevolent dictators who have our best interests at heart. That obviously wasn’t a small promise and unsurprisingly the opposite happened. The European Union, which Obama would have loved to make into transatlantic union ruled from Brussels to further the progressive agenda, had just the opposite effect. The European Union is collapsing and Americans too want their borders sewn up instead of the current situation where they’re almost as porous as individual member nations in the European Union thanks to our current progressive in chief Obama who won’t throw anyone out once they pass through the border by any conveyance and we pretty much allow anyone to get a visitor’s Visa. Mexicans don’t need to sneak across the border they just have to say they’re tourists to get into the country legally.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        “I don’t really see any parallels between and Obama and Trump aside from “change the status quo” as the main part of the message.” Agreed. We have evidence as to Obama’s dealings. We do not regarding Trump and his polices.

        To then therefore make the leap that Clinton (as an extension of Obama) would somehow be worse is not based in evidence. In fact, I might suggest, that the process of alienation (Obama & Trump) of those who control the legislative branch might be less than optimal and they (Congress) might be considered allies. So how might (the presumed, based on ‘actions speak louder than words’) application of the same form of strategy vs. those less friendly be received? I’d suggest it’s an unknown.

        You have detailed much to be concerned with regarding a ‘progessive’ approach. Yet no detail is offered as to the alternative(s). This is due to your candidate’s choice to not offer substance.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Glenn,

        It was your choice of analysis. You take a ‘known’ (the facts/Clinton’s history) and compare with an unknown and surmise that the unknown will be less detrimental.

        Not good science, Glenn. Not good science. Even I know that.

        Danny, I notice how you conveniently fail to mention this part of my original analysis:

        With Trump we don’t know exactly what we’re going to get because he doesn’t have a track record in public office. But we do know it can’t be worse than Clinton. Even if there’s only a one-out-of-ten chance that he will be better, that’s a 10% chance for improvement that we don’t have with Clinton.

        And you’re right. It’s not “good science” because it’s not science at all. It’s called politics.

        Do you have a “scientific” way of predicting what a candidate will do in the future? Maybe you believe what they say they will do is a good predictor?

        Well, whatever your methods may be, if you don’t mind I believe I’ll fall back on that time-tested old standby, looking at a person’s track record. And when I look at Clinton’s track record I come up with a big fat zero.

        So with Clinton there aren’t even any possibilities of improvement. But with Trump there’s the possiblity of some upside.

        So here’s the deal: If somebody offers you a new $250,000 house if you can pick the three of clubs out of a deck of cards, and it’s a free rip for you because you’re not going to lose anything if you fail to draw the three of clubs, do you refuse to draw because the odds are only 1 in 52 that you will win the house?

        Well maybe you wouldn’t take that chance because you’re too afraid of being wrong. But I sure to heck would take the chance.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “Do you have a “scientific” way of predicting what a candidate will do in the future? ” Based on the Clinton evidence one could rightly be concerned. This ‘fact’ in no way is ‘Trumped’ by a lack of information about another candidate.

        If we’re playing ‘what if’ then: “Even if there’s only a one-out-of-ten chance that he will be better, that’s a 10% chance for improvement that we don’t have with Clinton.” What if there’s a 10% chance he’s worse. Or more?

        And on what would that decision be based? Vacillating rhetoric?

        I am not afraid at all. Either way, America will do fine. Can’t backtrack much more that we have over the past 8 years with shared responsibility for those 8.

        But you see, I’ve not made a decision. I have leanings for and against several choices (including two write ins). You, however, appear to have made a faith based choice (a-okay by the way) and are totally unreceptive to either your candidate’s future inputs or any other candidate’s offerings.

        I am asking for (and not receiving) further data (policies) before deciding. I have much issue with some of what’s been offered to date and much appreciation for some. If I find out the 3 of clubs is not even in the deck I need not waste might time./ Right now, I may know there’s a joker but I’ve asked to see that 3 and it won’t be shown.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Arm waving? Guess you didn’t read this. It’s dated in the past and not in the future by the way: “The list multiple state and federal lawmakers, former ambassadors, business executives and high-powered megadonors such as Larry Nichols, the chairman emeritus of Devon Energy. Todd Christie, the brother of the New Jersey governor who endorsed Trump earlier this year, is also on the list, as are Dave Tamasi, a former bundler for Chris Christie, and Gary Kirke, an Iowa power broker who briefly boosted Christie’s effort.

        Yes, arm waving.

        You, in typical Hillarymonger style, have absolutely no sense of proportionality.

        I, on the other hand, have a hard time understaning what’s so difficult to understand about this — the vast difference between the amount of contributions the two candidates have received to date:

        • Contributions to Clinton presidential campaign through June 16, 2016: $ $314,118,075
        • Candidate self-financing: $0 (0%)
        https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019

        • Contributions to Trump presidential campaign through Jun3 16, 2016: $$66,350,567
        • Candidate self-financing $45,703,185 (72%)
        https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

        What is it about this that you find so difficult to understand?

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        “What is it about this that you find so difficult to understand?” Seriously?

        What I find difficult to understand is that you chose to not understand. What has been done to date has little bearing on what will occur between now and November. Trump will need near $1B. $66Million is the reference point? I showed evidence of a ramp up (especially towards Wall Street) that you’ve decided for some reason to ignore. That was 3 days ago. Should, at the end of it all, you discover that Clinton has been outfunded by ‘Wall Street’ contributions to Trump then how would your argument go?

        Unless of course you’re suggesting that anything that happens between now and the actual election is unimportant. Then I’d have to ask if that includes indictment.

        But I guess this has to do with a stated preference for making decisions based on ‘the facts’ and a modifier of “With Trump we don’t know exactly what we’re going to get because he doesn’t have a track record in public office.”

        What I’m proposing is lacking the information now is no reason to decide now. Evidence shows Trump’s stance on funding is in transition. Why not evaluate that new evidence as opposed to damning the alternative which (somehow?) leads to acceptance of the unknown?

        I’m a lukewarmer for similar reasons. I’m seeking further information. Based on that information I will become either greater or less concerned. But any positioning based on today is subject to change based on tomorrow. Apparently, that is not your method.

      • David Springer

        Windbag Stelle has a valid point, Danny. The facts on the ground at this point in time is that Trump spent far less money than anyone in recent decades to win a very competitive Republican primary and so far is running a dead heat against presumptive nominee Clinton even in battleground states.

        Your speculation that he needs a billion dollars of other people’s money to win is exactly that; speculation. The facts on the ground speak to a different story about how much he needs. I don’t believe a billion dollars is anywhere near enough to buy the presidency for Hillary. I don’t believe it CAN be bought in this cycle for any amount of money. Populist elections don’t depend on paid media saturation. Trump smashed all previous records in getting people to show up and vote in primaries and he did it on a shoestring with mostly his own money. He’s got the mainstream virtually saturated with his name 24/7. You can’t swing a dead cat without seeing Trump’s face, hearing his voice, in print, and/or others talking about him in the same venues. I’ve never seen anything like it. I think free media exposure is superior to paid-for attack ads too by a long shot.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        My trend based suggestion that $1B is needed is equally as valid as: “The facts on the ground speak to a different story about how much he needs.”

        Trump has not run the head to head campaign vs. Clinton yet. Any results are speculative. Yours and mine.

        But facts on the ground include the Politico offering that his funding campaign is growing. How that turns out is to be determined.

        I concur that free attention is better than not.

        But the entirety of the conversation included the ‘projection’ (forecast, actually) that Trump (should he be elected) will be beholding to no one. Falsify that!

      • David Springer

        Obama blames a segment of America, white people who cling to their guns and religion, for America’s problems. That’s about half the electorate. Divisive? You betcha.

        Trump doesn’t blame Americans. He blames foreigners and the globalist establishments in both parties in Washington.

        Which is the message more likely to be better received by a majority of American voters? That half of them are to blame for what’s wrong in America or the blame falls on failed political leadership, i.e. the establishment in both parties, in bed with multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex?

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        “failed political leadership,” exactly what I’d guess we’re all hoping to avoid.

        Sounds like you’re comfortable that rhetoric is what matters w/r/t ‘messaging’, not substance.

      • °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        What if there’s a 10% chance he’s worse. Or more?

        If you want to make the argument that it can get worse than Clinton, then go for it. Make that argument. Nobody’s stopping you.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        I am not afraid at all. Either way, America will do fine. Can’t backtrack much more that we have over the past 8 years with shared responsibility for those 8.

        Well actually that’s not true. Clinton was gung ho for getting us involved in another shooting war in Syria. So if she would have been calling the shots and not Obama, we’d be involved in another Vietnam/Afghanisgan/Iraq type quagmire at best, and WWIII at worst.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        If I find out the 3 of clubs is not even in the deck I need not waste might time.

        If you believe that Trump offers no upside over Clinton, then go for it. Make that argument. Once again, nobody’s stopping you.

      • Danny Thomas

        Making a case against Trump is not the issue. I can do that with his words and actions alone. Same can be said for Clinton. Show me specific policy oriented reasons to be FOR Trump. You’re the gung ho. Make your case. So far, I got faith as the answer. And that’s just fine. But don’t wrap in up in pretty paper to make the content out to look like more than what it is.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Perfect candidate? What’s that?

        Well I sure the heck don’t know. You’re the one who raised the issue about the “lesser of two evils approach.”

      • Danny Thomas

        Yes I did. And I have ‘facts’ (as they’re known) on one candidate and lack facts on the others. So I have no idea who the ‘lesser evil’ may indeed be. The known vs. the unknown.

      • Danny Thomas

        Clinton will be a worse president than Trump.

        “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

      • °°°°Danny Thomas said:

        What I find difficult to understand is that you chose to not understand. What has been done to date has little bearing on what will occur between now and November.

        There’s that crystal ball of yours again.

        That’s tantamount to saying that what Clinton’s “done to date has little bearing” on what she would do in the presidency.

        Good luck with that one.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        Should, at the end of it all, you discover that Clinton has been outfunded by ‘Wall Street’ contributions to Trump then how would your argument go?

        Right. I wonder what the possibilities of that are. And maybe while I’m at it, I can go ahead and start figuring out what I’m going to do with all those millions when I win the Power Ball.

        But no, I think I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        What I’m proposing is lacking the information now is no reason to decide now.

        If that’s what you want to do, then go for it. Nobody’s stopping you. But don’t mount your high horse and look down upon those who believe they already have enough information to make up their minds.

        In reality, you are very much making an argument, but you seem to prefer playing coy. But I agree with what jim2 said above, I doubt many people are buying it.

      • Danny Thomas

        “That’s tantamount to saying that what Clinton’s “done to date has little bearing” on what she would do in the presidency.” What kind of pretzel is that? What Clinton has done (and Trump) are fair game for evaluation. Clinton has put for detailed policies (some okay, some not so much). Where are Trump’s? Show me Glenn. Stop telling me. I got that your vote is for Trump based on faith and so as to vote against Clinton.

        I know ‘no one is stopping me’ just like I don’t care that you’ve made a decision and closed your mind to further information. That’s just fine.

        Coy? About what? That I’m not a fan of Trump. That I am a fan of Jon Huntsman (potential write in, but likely a wasted vote) with Kasich being in that vein but a bit lesser.

        So I’m looking at Trump and Clinton harder. Clinton I got stuff. Trump I got faith (from you). For me to decide I’ll await further information.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Show me specific policy oriented reasons to be FOR Trump.

        I’ve already pointed out the great discrepency in campaign contributions, and how Trump is not bought and paid for the way Clinton already is. But you don’t like that, preferring instead to speculate that Trump will raise over $1 billion of outside money before November.

        And then there’s the thing about friends and enemies. Hillary has the entire cohort of global kleptocrats and warmongers lined up behind her, whereas they curse the ground that Trump walks on.

        I think for many people these are tell tale signs that Hillary is just more of the same, and Trump offers a break from the past. You disagree, and you’ve argued that point. So we know where you stand.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “I think for many people these are tell tale signs that Hillary is just more of the same, and Trump offers a break from the past.” Maybe Brexit is an indication that the past ain’t so bad that the majority preferred to return there. But how would one know?

        Yes for the first part (see, I’m not arguing that), and we don’t know for the second as we have almost NO IDEA what Trump’s policies will be because he hasn’t put them forth.

        Evidence vs. Faith. “So we know where you stand.” Does that make you right and me wrong? I don’t see you as being wrong, just to be clear.

      • Danny Thomas:

        ….you’ve made a decision and closed your mind to further information.

        Well there you go with that crystal ball again.

      • Danny Thomas

        Evidence based on your lack of consideration of future (see Politico) campaign funding and the then declaration that due to the funding (only to date) he will be unbeholding to contributors.

        So if I’m wrong, correct me.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        …we don’t know for the second as we have almost NO IDEA what Trump’s policies will be because he hasn’t put them forth.

        But Clinton has, right?

        That seems to be the entire impetus of your argument.

        Well let me put a bug in your ear: Clinton carrying through on her energy policies has about the same chances of happening as this:

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        Clinton’s: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ (& energy). Detailed, and provides the ability to evaluate. Then one can decide.

        And Trumps? Is it gonna get passed?
        https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/

        Based on his presentation, his top ‘issue’ is Trump University. It’s the physically largest box and the header. It earned a second box at the bottom right.

        Show me. Don’t tell me.

      • Danny Thomas:

        Evidence based on your lack of consideration of future (see Politico) campaign funding and the then declaration that due to the funding (only to date) he will be unbeholding to contributors.

        So if I’m wrong, correct me.

        Well it is true that I prefer to rely on what has already happened, rather than a bunch of “What ifs” and speculation about what might happen in the future.

        I don’t put much stock in your crystal ball, or that of any of the pundits and “experts” as far as that is concerned.

      • Danny Thomas

        “I don’t put much stock in your crystal ball,” Fine. Yet you’re making a case asking me to ‘put much stock’ in yours. Don’t you find that interesting?

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Clinton’s: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ (& energy). Detailed, and provides the ability to evaluate. Then one can decide.

        If you believe Clinton’s campaign promises, then man do I have a great deal on a wonderful piece of oceanfront property in Arizona for you.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        You are surprising me here with your attempts to misrepresent and belittle me. It matters not if I ‘believe’ Clinton’s ‘promises’. It matters that I can evaluate them. Fulfillment comes after.

        I cannot evaluate Trumps ‘energy policy’ (offered up as example by you) because I cannot find it. It’s not on his site. Wouldn’t one expect it to be found there if he has one?

        I’ll leave it to you. If you can provide his policy, great. If not, that’s okay too. I get that you don’t like Clinton and apparently not her energy policy. But at least you can make that evaluation.

        (Geez, stumbled on it by happenstance in a press release dated May 26: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan

        maybe new information is of interest)
        “This includes renewable energies and the technologies of the future. It includes nuclear, wind and solar energy – but not to the exclusion of other energy.” Good. IMO. I’m for all of the above.

        And I’m not for opening all federal lands for exploration. They have more than one value so case specific.

        Policy decisions will be public and transparent. (Good, now get them out there).

        Now it can be evaluated.

        “He pledged to save the coal industry, though gave few specifics.” Imagine that.

        “Obama rejected a permit for the pipeline in November, but Trump said he would approve it if the U.S. gets a share of the Canadian corporation’s profits in return.” Interesting. Will have to parse that train of thought out. Wondering if others will do the same to us in return.

        “But Trump didn’t leave the environment behind completely, promising to protect clean air and clean water.” Need more information here”.

        “The fossil fuel industry is typically supportive of Republicans, and Trump began courting its support over the past few weeks.” Can anyone say ‘beholding’?

        http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/281430-trump-outlines-america-first-energy-plan

      • From Jim D:

        “Obama is about we, yes we can, progress for America. ….. Trump says nothing actually substantial or history based or even educational, while you can learn from Obama and the way he connects ideas together. The difference is like that between primitive grunts and actual speech.”

        Conmen are known for their ability to speak well and connect ideas together. The “we” they are most interested in seeing progress for is themselves.

    • My question is why does it end in 2009? Republicans took Congress in 2010, and I want to see how they did.

      • David Springer

        Yeah Jim, sorry. I didn’t notice the end date on the first one until it posted and was replacing it at the time of your complaint.

      • From Jim D:

        “threatening the US credit rating”

        And we all remember how debilitating that was. Oh, wait a minute, despite all of the fear mongering, turns out degrading US government credit rating did none of the terrible things “experts” claimed it would. Rather it led to all time highs in the sale of Treasury bonds, at record low interest rates. Something to remember when you hear about the experts telling us how Brexit is going to be economically destructive to Britain.

    • David Springer

      More recent chart of federal government approval:

      Reagan/Bush from 1980-1992 last seen at the far left were up in the 70% approval range for president. Under Clinton it rapidly declined to 45% range and stayed there. Shrub Bush had a 4-year honeymoon in the 55% range from the 9/11 attach then getting us bogged down in Iraq drew his approval down to 40% range. Obama enjoyed a very brief honeymoon at 51% on inauguration day with a precipitous decline in the first year to the 35% range where he remained for the next seven years.

      Not a pretty picture. The last president with an admirable approval rating was Reagan/Bush and Bush just rode on the popularity tails of Reagan in my opinion. Reagan was unpopular and despite nearly a decade of experience as CEO of the largest state in the union by population and economy considered an outsider. Reagan was a celebrity actor and prominent Hollywood Democrat before joining the republican party and rising to its helm.

      The parallels between Reagan and Trump are several. Rich, actors, former democrats, stepping up when nationalism was at an ebb due to Vietnam and the unending cold war, vast deep economic distress in the middle class due to staggering stagflation under Jimmy Carter…

      It’s time for a change. Vote Trump.

      • David Springer

        correction: Reagan was unpopular Reagan was unpopular as a primary candidate

      • It’s time for a change. Vote Trump.

      • What stands out is the bums in Congress, nearly defaulting on the national debt, threatening the US credit rating, and shutting down the government with further threats throughout the Obama term. The public blames them for these self-inflicted wounds, and that is where change is needed.

      • David Springer

        Suicide is hardly painless for anyone who loves you and is left behind to mourn. In that case suicide is selfish.

      • David Springer

        Jimmy D either congress is a drama queen or you are. They didn’t default on national debt, they didn’t damage US credit rating, and they didn’t shut down the government. At least not since the tea party got a few people in there.

        I would ask you to note that the highest approval rating for congress was a long climb up from a then-historic low of 18% with the Democratic congress in power at the beginning of Clinton’s first term. Then in 1994 with the election of a Republican congress and Newt Gingrich’s famous contract with American congressional approval steadily climbed until it had more than doubled by 2003 all while Republicans were a majority the whole time in the House, 8 of the 10 years in the Senate.

        Congressional approval rose the whole time Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, by the way. He’s an amazing fellow with regard to experience in all aspects of federal government including foreign affairs and military. For over two decades, Gingrich has taught at the United States Air Force’s Air University, where he is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course. In addition, he is an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University and teaches officers from all of the defense services.

        Unfortunately for Newt he wasn’t an establishment guy and despite congressional approval rising and his own reelection he was blamed for losing 5 Republican house seats in 1998, he was asked to resign as speaker (which he did) and then resigned in disgust from the House altogether in 1999. It started a decades long decline that continues to this day not long after Newt was gone and we got involved in Iraq. Adding insult to injury at the loss of this great genius in government affairs Newt Gingrich promised to balance the US budget in 1994 and in 1999 after five short years he kept the promise when Bill Clinton signed a balanced budget into law in 1999. Then the Neocons took over in 2000. Neocons suck every bit as much as Neolibs. It’s been downhill ever since Newt left.

        Trump is an idiot if he doesn’t tap Gingrich as his VP. I supported Gingrich for President and would rather have him than Trump if it was one or the other. The combination, if they can manage to get their giant egos working in tandem for common goals, will be unbelievable at getting change and restoring the people’s confidence in government. So what if Newt is a workaholic who ignored his wives to better get his job as servant of the people done.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

      • David Springer

        Jimmy D either congress is a drama queen or you are. They didn’t default on national debt, they didn’t damage US credit rating, and they didn’t shut down the government. At least not since the tea party got a few people in there.

        I would ask you to note that the highest approval rating for congress was a long climb up from a then-historic low of 18% with the Democratic congress in power at the beginning of Clinton’s first term. Then in 1994 with the election of a Republican congress and Newt Gingrich’s famous contract with American congressional approval steadily climbed until it had more than doubled by 2003 all while Republicans were a majority the whole time in the House, 8 of the 10 years in the Senate.

        Congressional approval rose the whole time Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, by the way. He’s an amazing fellow with regard to experience in all aspects of federal government including foreign affairs and military. For over two decades, Gingrich has taught at the United States Air Force’s Air University, where he is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course. In addition, he is an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University and teaches officers from all of the defense services.

        Unfortunately for Newt he wasn’t an establishment guy and despite congressional approval rising and his own reelection he was blamed for losing 5 Republican house seats in 1998, he was asked to resign as speaker (which he did) and then resigned in disgust from the House altogether in 1999. It started a decades long decline that continues to this day not long after Newt was gone and we got involved in Iraq. Adding insult to injury at the loss of this great genius in government affairs Newt Gingrich promised to balance the US budget in 1994 and in 1999 after five short years he kept the promise when Bill Clinton signed a balanced budget into law in 1999. Then the Neocons took over in 2000. Neocons suck every bit as much as Neolibs. It’s been downhill ever since Newt left.

        Trump is an idi0t if he doesn’t tap Gingrich as his VP. I supported Gingrich for President and would rather have him than Trump if it was one or the other. The combination, if they can manage to get their giant egos working in tandem for common goals, will be unbelievable at getting change and restoring the people’s confidence in government. So what if Newt is a workaholic who ignored his wives to better get his job as servant of the people done.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

      • I would be surprised if Trump chose Gingrich. Those personalities don’t listen to other people and won’t admit to mistakes. They would have some rip-roaring arguments with each other. But Gingrich is more intellectual, meaning he can back up his arguments with facts, which is the kind of person Trump deplores because he already has an inferiority complex and being exposed as a know-nothing by Gingrich’s condescending manner is not good for the ego. It’s a dynamic that doesn’t work. Trump needs a yes-man for his ego.

  72. David Wojick

    Some good stuff on Brexit and science, including an ongoing debate with me: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/06/30/brexit-risks-to-the-knowledge-economy-and-the-money-scrum/.

  73. From the article:

    The grandma immediately moved toward her bedroom to retrieve her handgun and, as she did, the sound of breaking glass filled the house. She said, “It was really scary,” and added, “I decided that it’s either them or me, you know. I had to save my life.”

    The grandma stood inside her bedroom with the gun raised and trained on the doorway. She said it wasn’t long until “one of them came to the door here and opened it and when he did I had the gun in his face.”

    She said the looks on the faces of all three suspects convinced her they never dreamed a grandma would have a gun.

    “I called them bastards and I said I’m gonna kill you! All three of them started running for the door.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/03/armed-grandma-foiled-invasion-decided/

    • > From the article: […]

      You mean, the Breitbart’s, jim.

      Here:

      • David Springer

        It is considered terrorism when white guys do it. Tim McVeigh is the prime example and still in the #2 position for US body count in domestic terror attacks behind 9/11. The US gov’t itself I believe is in #3 in domestic terror when Bill Clinton’s goons burned down the Christian “Branch Davidian” cult’s compound in Texas in 1993 killing 79 people inside. Thanks for asking. Why isn’t it considered terrorism when the federal government does it to US citizens is my question.

      • > It is considered terrorism when white guys do it.

        Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Some other times, Denizens dismiss hate crimes just by their smell.

        The question pertained to media coverage, but thanks anyway for answering a question that wasn’t asked.

        ***

        > Why isn’t it considered terrorism when the federal government does it to US citizens is my question.

        I’m not sure why you’d restrict this question to U.S citizens. Is that you’re way to dog whistle the B word?

      • David Springer

        Can you imagine what would happen if the US government burned down a peaceful Muslim compound inside the US burning to death 79 Muslims inside? Yet Bill Clinton got away with doing it to a Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business and weren’t bothering anyone else.

        Hard to believe, isn’t it?

      • By “Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business,” you’re referring to Waco, right?

      • David Springer

        Timothy McVeigh wasn’t called a terrorist frequently and often in US media?

        I’m sorry, Willard. I get forgetting you live on another planet. On this planet Tim McVeigh was big news and was accused of domestic terrorism by every branch of government, the media, and virtually all the people. And he’s a bible belt cracker. Your complaint of a double standard is without merit.

      • In the Waco case, the more likely case is for martyrdom, as is seen sometimes with these sects. That is, they set their own fires.

      • David Springer

        Yeah Jim, surely it was mere coincidence that the fires started when US agents began to assault the compound by firing incendiary grenades through the windows. Six years after the federal terrorist act, after denying any grenades that could start fires were used, they admitted they used grenades which could start fires. Why? Because indendiary grenades can’t be picked up and thrown out plus the incendiary grenades produce gas so quickly and rapidly that it obscures the approach of the agents who launched it. Combination tear gas and smoke grenade in other words. The downside of the grenades which make for a safer approach for attackers? Lethality in the attack by starting fires in wooden buildings. It would been more human if they’d just demolished the compound with a few 500 pounders dropped from the air instantly killing the families inside instead of making parents watch their children burn to death or succumbed first by shielding their children with their own bodies. Clinton out to be impaled not given another shot at running the country.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/09/waco_twofer_pyrotechnic_tear_gas_and_delta_force.html

      • Why would you have a siege for six weeks if you just wanted to kill them? It was not what you would call terrorism.

      • David Springer

        The US federal government couldn’t sustain a siege on a small enclosed religious compound in Bumphuck, Texas, indefinitely to say nothing of longer than six weeks? That’s your story and you’re sticking with it Jimmy Dean?

        Sieges often lasted for YEARS on castles in Europe in the old days fercrisakes.

      • David Springer

        Clinton wanted to set an example for what happens to those who peacefully defy federal thuggery, bother no one, and live out in remote unpopulated areas.

        He could have held Ruby Ridge and Waco under siege his entire presidency but that would look weak. More groups that wanted to live alone out in the boonies to peacefully follow their religions and principles would be emboldened. Can’t have that. That’s no way to march towards a world government.

      • If you need to go back before the Hockey Stick itself to get one single piece of evidence that the media once called a white guy a terrorist, Big Dave, the ground on which you stand are as shaky as usual. You could add the Unabomber for good measures, but then you’d beg to be asked:Were Timothy Mcveigh and the Unabomber the Only White Terrorists?.

        ***

        Restricting what the U.S government does to its own citizens may not be a valid way to characterize terrorism. It’s more likely a way to peddle in Waco. Here’s a description of the “Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business”:

        On February 27, 1993, the Waco Tribune-Herald began publishing “The Sinful Messiah”, a series of articles by Mark England and Darlene McCormick, who alleged that Koresh had physically abused children in the compound and had committed statutory rape by taking multiple underage brides. Koresh was also said to advocate polygamy for himself and declared himself married to several female residents of the small community. According to the paper, Koresh declared he was entitled to at least 140 wives, that he was entitled to claim any of the females in the group as his, that he had fathered at least a dozen children, and that some of these mothers became brides as young as 12 or 13 years old.

        In addition to allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct, Koresh and his followers were suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

        The truth is out there.

      • Willard – the same reason it’s not terrorism when black gang members in Chicago kill a dozen people in a weekend. Kapish? They aren’t trying to change the very fabric of Western Civilization like the radical elements of Islam. It must be embarrassing to have to act like such a m0r0n for the lefty cause.

      • > They aren’t trying to change the very fabric of Western Civilization like the radical elements of Islam.

        You have another example than “the radical element of Islam,” jim2?

        You might try to try to learn about the concept of terrorism before resorting to namecalling. If reading would go against your populist ideology too much, here, have some podcast:

        https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/03/09/ep72-terrorism/

    • From Willard:

      “On February 27, 1993, the Waco Tribune-Herald began publishing “The Sinful Messiah”, a series of articles by Mark England and Darlene McCormick, who alleged that Koresh had physically abused children in the compound and had committed statutory rape by taking multiple underage brides. Koresh was also said to advocate polygamy for himself and declared himself married to several female residents of the small community. According to the paper, Koresh declared he was entitled to at least 140 wives, that he was entitled to claim any of the females in the group as his, that he had fathered at least a dozen children, and that some of these mothers became brides as young as 12 or 13 years old.”

      And because of that they all had to die, right? Funny how dead children are preferred to “alleged” abused ones. But then it is Trenchcoat Willard.

      What Willard apparently wants us to forget is that the issue with Waco wasn’t whether or not Koresh might have committed prosecutable crimes, but in the heavy handed incompetence with which the Federal government went about handling the issue.

      • > What Willard apparently wants us to forget […]

        Denizens ought to forget about the idea that the Federal intervention at Waco was “domestic” terrorism, unless they substantiate their conspiracy theory with both an ideological component and an intent to terrorize.

        Denizens also ought to forget about minimizing Koresh’s operation as a “Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business.”

        Sometimes, ripping off one’s shirt and screaming “Freedom!” just ain’t enough.

      • Seeing as how I never claimed “that the Federal intervention at Waco was “domestic” terrorism”, or tried “minimizing Koresh’s operation as a “Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business.” this is simply more of you opening up your trench coat to shock us. BS is BS Willard. You should go back to counting squirrels.

  74. David Springer

    The Bill Clinton domestic terrorism is reinforced pattern-wise by Ruby Ridge. Only one white family was assassinated there vs. two dozen families at Waco but the point is that there is no question it was intentional killing of a family who just wanted to be left alone and weren’t bothering anyone. They were taken out by FBI snipers. That was in the first year Clinton had a gang of federal thugs at his disposal. Waco was his encore performance. And that’s when trust in the presidency went into the sh*tter. It has yet to recover.

  75. David Springer

    Willard | July 4, 2016 at 3:16 pm |

    “By “Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business,” you’re referring to Waco, right?”

    Gee Willard, I thought that me saying “Bill Clinton’s goons burned down the Christian “Branch Davidian” cult’s compound in Texas in 1993 killing 79 people inside” couldn’t possibly refer to somewhere other than Waco. Why would you possibly need to ask?

  76. David Springer

    Clinton promises to maintain the status quo. Obama III. Literally.

    I believe she can do that if elected and I know I don’t want that.

    Trump promises to upset the status quo apple cart. He’s already got a good start on doing just that. Establishment two-party luminaries on both sides of the aisle in Washington have all but declared him public enemy #1 with few exceptions.

    I believe Trump can upset the apple cart and it needs to be upset. That’s enough for now. POTUS is limited in what he can accomplish especially in one term but the more popular with the people of course the more congress critters are compelled to work with him if they want to stay in office.

    • Danny Thomas

      “I believe she can do that if elected and I know I don’t want that.” Understandable.

      “I believe Trump can upset the apple cart and it needs to be upset. That’s enough for now. POTUS is limited in what he can accomplish especially in one term but the more popular with the people of course the more congress critters are compelled to work with him if they want to stay in office.”

      Potus is limited, except in it’s ability to absorb blame and maybe generate some havoc. And let’s look at a couple other ‘one termer’s’ (did they receive blame or create havoc?): http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/tp/One-Term-Presidents.htm

      Issues. Upsetting an apple cart does not make for positive relations with the proprietors. Congress, being the proprietor (in this case) make not take kindly to a strategy of alienation. Evidence for that is the current administration and it’s relationship with congress. This being touted as a positive is viewed differently by some (me included). And how do you propose Trump will reign? Via Executive orders due to a strategy of alienation? That’s not well received by some.

      But if you’re gonna suggest we look forward and expect an improved relationship with congress I’d suggest it would be fair to do the same with the campaign funding question.

      • David Springer

        Jimmy Dean, his “misteps” so far have him demolishing 16 opponents in the primary, setting new records by wide margins for number of showing up to vote in republican primaries, and running in a dead heat with the presumptive Democrat. And he did it spending a small fraction of the money his opponents spent AND mostly from his own pocket to the tune of nearly $50 million. The spending by OTHER republicans to defeat Trump in the primaries was unprecedented. A massive effort to stop Trump… didn’t. It just made him more popular. Trump is the forbidden fruit.

        I’d say those are phucking amazing steps so far. It’s what convinced me. If he can beat up the Republican establishment like paper dolls and not spend much money to do it he’s got what it takes to be president and he’s got in spades.

        Meanwhile Hillary is still figuring out how to mollify Bernie and his followers without going so far to the left she loses not just a majority but damn near all the independents. The republican party has pivoted from the neocons and ultra conservatives to the political middle. Trump is winning among independents because of this shift and he’s losing precious few neocons and ultra conservatives in payment for it. Who would they vote for instead – their greatest enemy of all time the Clintons? Or for someone who’s been both Republican and Democrat for many years and approaches issues individually instead of in en-masse party platforms. Amazing. An independent thinker.

    • A President needs a core of advisers and Clinton has a brain-trust that the Dems like (Mr. Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Biden, etc.). Trump? Who knows who he listens to apart from himself. Mostly he is retracting statements and tweets, so his first instincts don’t look so good. People supporting him are put in tough positions to defend his latest misstep, and have not said anything about any “good” ideas Trump has had, probably because they are just slogans and they can’t see much behind them. So instead of attacking clean energy, healthcare, minimum wage, freedom of choice, like good Republicans do, they are a bit fazed because Trump’s latest view on these is not known to them.

      • Not bad Jim.

        I would only point out that the “brain-trust” you refer to might be part of the reason Trump is getting the amount of support he has. As in entrenched interests and career political operatives.

      • Sure, subjects like healthcare for all, minimum wage, freedom of choice, tolerance, environmental protection, integrating immigrants, do turn some people off, and those people go to Trump. He presents that choice.

  77. David Springer

    Wee Willard expects me to apologize because there were so few white terrorists committing mass murders that I had to go back to Tim McVeigh in 1995 for an example.

    Sorry Willie. I ain’t apologizing for good behavior.

    • > I ain’t apologizing for good behavior.

      You were doing alright when you were talking about your own, Big Dave, Why you’d need to portray Koresh’s operation as a “Christian sect that just wanted to be left alone to mind their own business” is beyond me. Unless you’d say that David was a regular Slick Willy when it comes to women?

      I can understand why you’d want to be able to say “terrorist” and “Clinton” in the same sentence, but I wouldn’t call that good behavior.

      Speaking of whom, here would be what Detonating Donald could bring to state terrorism:

  78. David Springer

    Alright Wee Willerd, just for you. A more recent example of white US domestic terrorist.

    USA today called James Eagan Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter in 2012, a lone-wolf terrorist. Usually terrorists are associated with terrorist groups. Like the Orlando shooter declared for ISIS.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1

    Thanks for asking and better luck next time in getting the answer you want.

  79. David Springer

    USA today called the 2012 white Aurora shooter a lone-wolf terrorist.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1

    • USA Today reported otters’ words, Big Dave:

      Police believe Holmes acted alone.

      They also mention “investigators probing the attack on a Sikh temple said they are treating the shootings as a “domestic terrorism type incident.””

      A comment mentions that Holmes has been deferring to Alice Walker.

    • David Springer

      So they called Holmes a terrorist but maybe didn’t get the adjective “lone wolf” right? Is that what is left of the point you wanted to make? I’ll concede the press didn’t prove he acted alone. Would you like to talk about Lee Harvey Oswald being a lone terrorist or not next? It’s the classic case of my lifetime and it’s still in dispute 50 years later.

      Thanks for playing of course. Better luck next time.

      • > So they called Holmes a terrorist […]

        “They” being the authorities, Big Dave, not the journalists you could find.

        Here’s FOX News on the Aurora affair:

        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/18/colorado-theater-massacre-victims-demand-to-know-whereabouts-shooter.html

        Check the subhead: Mass murderer.

        Since you mention Aurora:

        Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word “terrorism” was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that “terrorism” either.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

      • Some people initially thought to be terrorists later get relabeled as crazy. There are several examples, Holmes being one, perhaps the Orlando shooter another, Dylan Roof another, the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter, the person who shot Gabby Giffords, the shooter of MP Jo Cox, etc. There is a thin line, but some extremists are also clinically psychotic.

      • > There is a thin line, but some extremists are also clinically psychotic.

        This is the point of the New Yorker’s essay Big Dave googled.

        Please, don’t tell him.

      • David Springer

        So USA Today quoted someone interviewed for the article calling Aurora a terrorist.

        That’s still a major media outlet printing what you wanted. It’s actually not their business to assign labels like that but to quote a range of other conclusions. Coming to conclusions like lone wolf and terrorist is called making the news. Journalists should be reporting the news not making it. But I suppose it’s so common to make news now it’s the new norm for the free press. That needs change too.

      • > It’s actually not their business to assign labels like that but to quote a range of other conclusions.

        So I guess it was none of FOX’ business to classify the Aurora events as a mass shooting. Right, Big Dave?

        ***

        > That’s still a major media outlet printing what you wanted.

        Not really. Here would be something more like it:

        The actions of mentally deranged individuals, such as the shooters at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Aurora, whose purpose was nothing more than to kill as many people as possible, are terrible and terrifying, but they are not terrorism.

        By contrast, the killing of doctors who provide abortions and their patients is driven by a desire to intimidate and coerce abortion providers and their patients. The killings send a broad and chilling message that abortion will be met with violence. It seems likely that Robert Dear, who reportedly vowed “no more body parts” to law enforcement, falls into this category. Similarly, according to his writings, Dylann Roof slaughtered nine African Americans during bible study at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston with the intent of starting a “race war.” His racially motivated killings became the most recent chapter in what Attorney General Loretta Lynch called our oldest form of domestic terrorism—the use of violence to intimidate and oppress people because of race.

        http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/

        Robert Dear and Dylann Roof both satisfy the FBI definition, and yet the press will instead insist that they are deranged instead. If you want to include ideology as the secret ingredient of terrorism, add to ISIS-like radicalism anti-government, anti-abortion, white supremacism, and many other forms of freedom fightin’.

        ***

        > It’s actually not their business to assign labels like that but to quote a range of other conclusions.

        So I guess it was none of FOX’ business to classify the Aurora events as a mass shooting. Right, Big Dave?

      • > It’s actually not their business to assign labels like that but to quote a range of other conclusions.

        So I guess it was none of FOX’ business to classify the Aurora events as a mass shooting, right?

        ***

        > That’s still a major media outlet printing what you wanted.

        Not really. Here would be something more like it:

        The actions of mentally deranged individuals, such as the shooters at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Aurora, whose purpose was nothing more than to kill as many people as possible, are terrible and terrifying, but they are not terrorism.

        By contrast, the killing of doctors who provide abortions and their patients is driven by a desire to intimidate and coerce abortion providers and their patients. The killings send a broad and chilling message that abortion will be met with violence. It seems likely that Robert Dear, who reportedly vowed “no more body parts” to law enforcement, falls into this category. Similarly, according to his writings, Dylann Roof slaughtered nine African Americans during bible study at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston with the intent of starting a “race war.” His racially motivated killings became the most recent chapter in what Attorney General Loretta Lynch called our oldest form of domestic terrorism—the use of violence to intimidate and oppress people because of race.

        http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/

        Robert Dear and Dylann Roof both satisfy the FBI definition, and yet the press will instead insist that they are deranged instead. If you want to include ideology as the secret ingredient of terrorism, add to islamic radicalism all the forms of violent fights for freedom: anti-government, anti-abortion, white supremacism, etc.

      • Who’da thunk? Willard’s bafflegab gets shot down by Jim D.

        Honestly Jim, one of your better comments.

      • So timmy boy comes late to the party and misreads. Nothing new under the sun.

        That there is a thin like between being labeled terrorist or just psychotic is the freaking point.

  80. David Springer

    Pounding on Willerd a little more:

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/line-terrorism-mental-illness

    New Yorker magazine in 2014 called Lee Harvey Oswald, a white guy, a terrorist who identified with and acted in the name of Marxism.

    Times change Wee Willie. We might apply labels differently now than before. Terrorism is the new #1 threat facing the western world. Nobody much worries about communists anymore.

    • > New Yorker magazine in 2014 called Lee Harvey Oswald, a white guy, a terrorist who identified with and acted in the name of Marxism.

      First, it would be the author, Big Dave, in that case Jeet Heer, who’s a contributor. Please mind how the journalism world works.

      Second, here’s what was said:

      What seems to be the problem, rather, is the fusion of radical jihadist ideology with other personal problems, whether they be alienation, anomie, or various shades of mental illness. In a world where “clash of civilizations” rhetoric is pervasive, it is possible that radical Islam offers the same appeal to some unstable individuals that anarchism had for Leon Czolgosz, who killed President William McKinley in 1901, and that Marxism had for Lee Harvey Oswald. If you are alienated from the existing social order, the possibility of joining, even as a “lone wolf” killer, any larger social movement that promises to overturn that society may be attractive. For a person radicalized in this manner, the fantasy of political violence is a chance to gain agency, make history, and be part of something larger.

      http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/line-terrorism-mental-illness

      Where has Oswald been “called” a terrorist, again?

      While we can explore interesting subtleties behind the concept of terrorism, Big Dave, if you are having problems identifying subjects and predicates, we might need to have more manageable pedagogical objectives.

  81. From the article:

    Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages.

    … Mr. Foxman seems pleased that Mr. Trump has elevated the issue of discriminatory policies at social clubs. “He put the light on Palm Beach,” Mr. Foxman says. “Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.”

    In recent weeks, Mr. Foxman says, the league has received calls from Jewish residents telling of how Palm Beach clubs are changing. Locals concur that in the past year, organizations such as the Bath and Tennis Club have begun to admit Jewish patrons. The Palm Beach Civic Association, which for many years was believed to engage in discriminatory behavior, this month named a Jewish resident as its chief officer.
    In other words? In other words, long before he was running for president, there was Donald Trump battling racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach society. Using every tool at his disposal.

    http://spectator.org/64643_when-trump-fought-racists/

  82. The Clinton campaign has various talking points. This is one of them, repeated by the MSNBC pundit Chuck Todd, and it’s the same talking point that Danny Thomas keeps hammering away at:

    Chuck Todd vs. Sen. Cotton: You Made The Case Against Hillary, But You Can’t Make One For Trump
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/03/chuck_todd_vs_sen_cotton_you_made_the_case_against_hillary_but_you_cant_make_one_for_trump.html

    Senator Cotton does indeed make the case for Trump, but it is summarily ignored and dismissed by Todd.

    • Danny Thomas

      Don’t make us guess. Is it because ‘it’s not Hillary’? Write in someone?
      ‘Not Hillary’ is not a reason to vote ‘for’ someone.

      • There you go, right on cue with your talking point straight from the Clinton campaign headquarters.

      • Danny Thomas

        Talking point. So, Glenn with your crystal ball (did you steal mine, you said I had one?). Where exactly did I hear the statement you’re referencing? Ya see, I’m not clear on the ‘talking point’.

        If it’s something her camp states that I said above, along the lines of ‘it’s not Hillary so vote for Trump’ I’d love a link. Oh, and I fully agree. I doubt they do, but whatever. It’s kinda like someone saying because Donald Trump isn’t Glenn Stehle you should vote for Trump. Sounds silly when ya read it out like that huh?

        But it’s still your choice. And you can correct me by not making us guess. Or not.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Everybody knows you’re in the tank for Hillary.

        Your “You Made The Case Against Hillary, But You Can’t Make One For Trump” boilerplate is the same talking point Chuck Todd uses in the video I linked above.

        It’s a persuasive argument when there are two candidates with as high of negatives as Clinton and Trump,

        You are not at all transparent.

        You’re not fooling anyone.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        You know what. You can keep the crystal ball. It doesn’t work.

        “Everybody knows” (broad assertion especially since I’m an undecided voter).

        So I guess you take all your cues from Cotton? He looks bad in that interview and I guess your feelings are hurt as you expressed similar so you try to misportray me? You feel poorly because you’re unable to make a case either, other than ‘not Hillary’. Don’t be mad at me.

  83. Scott Adams writes of another talking point the Clinton campaign keeps hammering away at (can we say willard?):

    Clinton has a solid lead in the polls, assuming the polls are accurate. How can that be?

    The quick answer is that Clinton’s side is totally winning the persuasion battle.

    Confused?

    Clinton’s side includes more than her campaign team. It also includes pundits, supporters on social media, and the liberal-leaning parts of the mainstream media. While the Clinton campaign itself has been notably weak with its persuasion game, the folks on her side have been viciously effective at branding Trump a crazy racist.

    Nothing else in this election matters.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146605145036/persuasion-update-clinton-vs-trump

    Adams, however, predicts Trump will respond appropriately:

    I now update my prediction of a Trump landslide to say that if he doesn’t give a speech on the topic of racism – to neutralize the crazy racist label – he loses. There is nothing he can do with policy tweaks, debate performances, advertising, interviews, or anything else that would remove the tarring he received from the Clinton side. But a persuasive speech could do it.

    How?

    Trump needs to convince Americans of all types that he loves them and plans to protect them from outside forces. Here’s a simple and persuasive formulation for that:

    Example: “If you are an American citizen – of any color, ethnicity, gender, or religion – I love you, and I’ll fight for you. I support the melting pot of America, and I will fight to protect each of you from crime, terrorism, and economic risks.”

    That’s the basic idea. Talking about policies won’t be enough. To become president, Trump has to embrace the melting pot. And he has to embrace the value of American diversity, loudly.

    If Trump doesn’t directly address the elephant in the room – the accusation that he is a crazy racist – he loses. If he makes a case for the value of American diversity – and does it persuasively – he wins in a landslide.

    I expect him to do the latter.

  84. As in ’92, This Election Hinges on Pocketbook Issues
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/30/as_in_92_this_election_hinges_on_pocketbook_issues_131055.html

    Previously in this series: Part 1, Stagnating wages; Part 2, NAFTA; Part 3, High cost of college.; Part 4, Rising health-care premiums.

    “It’s the economy, stupid.”

    Today, Americans’ economic distress and frustration are every bit as intense as they were 24 years ago. It is these feelings that have fueled the rise of Donald Trump. And one big question of the 2016 election is whether any establishment political figure can calm the fears of the middle class.

    It seems to me that it would be prudent for Trump to marry the economic issue with the race issue. After all, under the status quo, who is it that has lost the most economically?

  85. Also Trump could keep up the campaign to strengthen our borders, while softening his stance on deporting immigrants already in the country. These policies have broad support across the racial-ethnic spectrum.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

    • I appreciate all the information you post here, I don’t have time to read it all, but still … thanks.

  86. David Springer

    More crumbs for Wee Willerd:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/justice-department-domestic-terror-council/

    “The Justice Department identified white supremacists as the most violent of the domestic terror groups”

    How many times do you want to lose the point you were trying to make that the press won’t publish anything that calls any white people terrorists? Pure unadulterated hokum.

  87. David Springer

    S’more beat down for Wee Willy:

    http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

    Since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have, according to research by the New America Foundation.

    The NAF report does not use the term “white right-wing terrorists”. That is the author at Time Magazine who used it.

    Game, set, match.

    Thanks for playing. Better luck next time Willy.

    • > That is the author at Time Magazine who used it.

      S’more swing and miss from Big Dave:

      Study Says White Extremists […]

      “Study says,” Big Dave. Not “the MSM says.” No “I say.”

      Sometimes, it’s hard to read the first two words that jump at you on a page. So let’s see if Big Dave has reached the end of the very first paragraph he quotes:

      Since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have, according to research by the New America Foundation.

      Not “according to me” or “according to Fox & Breitbart’s,” Big Dave.

      According to research by the New America Foundation.

      Please, do continue to swing and miss. One day, you’ll bunt one.

    • From the article:

      – Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Reg­istered Democrat and Muslim.
      – Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
      – Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
      – James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu­py guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
      – Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
      – Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
      – James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.

      http://patriotupdate.com/mass-murderers-democrats/

  88. Clinton’s email problems may not be over. From the article:

    The Justice Department declined to comment on the decision, but the loss could not have come as much of a surprise since at oral arguments in the Holdren case in January the judges were clearly deeply skeptical of the government’s position.

    The group pressing for broader access to Holdren’s email hailed the ruling as an important precedent.

    “While today’s ruling is a major victory for government transparency, it’s stunning that it takes a court decision for federal employees to be held accountable to the law,” CEI senior fellow Marlo Lewis said. “The ‘most transparent administration in history’ has proven over and over that it has no intention of actually letting the American public know what it is doing. … Director Holdren is not the first agency head to be found using private email for his government work, but as we continue our legal battle in this case, we seek for this unlawful behavior to come to an end.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/private-email-freedom-of-information-225100http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/private-email-freedom-of-information-225100

  89. From the article:

    On Tuesday, Comey spent 15 minutes meticulously detailing every illegality of Clinton—including her negligent behavior and obstruction of the investigation. And yet, at the end of it all, he offered the absurdly counterintuitive position that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges in such a case.

    Well, everything the director said challenged that conclusion. At one point, for example, Comey explained that any “reasonable person should have known this was not an appropriate venue for classified emails.” Only minutes before that, Comey also said that “gross negligence” would suffice for prosecution. So is he accusing the presidential candidate of being too dumb to comprehend what a top secret document is or how an email account works? Because any other explanation makes no sense.

    According to the FBI, Clinton sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of them contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. Worse still, “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey explained.

    There are few, if any, scenarios I can conceive of that are more grossly negligent when it comes to classified documents than sending them through an unsecured email account in a place where hostile actors can access them. Perhaps Comey could offer the nation an example of what it takes to be prosecuted. What if Hillary left a folder marked “top secret” in front of the Chinese embassy in Russia? Would that do it? I doubt it.

    Here’s another question that worth asking: Do presidential candidates have to admit they intended to commit a crime for the FBI to recommend the Justice Department prosecute? In the case of Clinton, it seems so. The FBI doesn’t believe there was intentional misconduct on the part of Clinton. Why did she ignore FIOA requests and fight Congress every step of the way? Why did Hillary lie or mislead law enforcement and the public if it was just an innocent mistake?

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/05/hillary-clinton-is-above-the-law/

  90. From the article:

    The threat of a devastating cyber attack on the U.S. electrical grid is increasing due to the Obama administration’s politically correct policies that spend vast sums on green and smart grid technologies while failing to secure power grids from cyber attack.

    A report by the Manhattan Institute, a New York think tank, warns that the push to integrate wind and solar electrical power into the $6 trillion electric utility system has created new vulnerabilities that other nations could exploit in a future cyber war.

    “Electric grids have always been vulnerable to natural hazards and malicious physical attacks,” writes Mark Mills, a physicist and engineer who authored the Manhattan Institute report. “Now the U.S. faces a new risk—cyber attacks—that could threaten public safety and greatly disrupt daily life.”

    The U.S. electrical power network is not made up of a single grid, but a complex web of eight regional “supergrids” linked to thousands of local grids. Under a drive for improved efficiency, government policymakers and regulators in recent years have spent tens of billions of dollars on so-called “smart grid” technology. But the efficiency drive has not been matched with new technology that will secure grids against cyber attacks.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cyber-threat-obamas-green-policies-threaten-americas-energy-security/

  91. Beta Blocker

    With the FBI’s announcement completely exonerating Hillary Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing while she was Secretary of State, the 2016 presidential election is all but over.

    Nothing now stands in the way of Hillary Clinton becoming President, most probably in a landslide vote of epic proportions which gives control of Congress back to the Democrats with a substantial majority in both houses. With their forthcoming victory in November, the Democrats will have a powerful mandate for pressing forward with their climate action agenda,just as far and as fast as they want to take it.

    As I observed earlier up-thread, if the Democrats don’t put a price on carbon; if they don’t enforce a mandated program of strict energy conservation measures; if they don’t use the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in regulating all of America’s carbon emissions; and if they don’t adopt a strong commitment to nuclear power; then their policy platform is merely words on paper written solely for the purpose of attracting environmentally conscious voters.

    The big question which remains to be answered is just how committed the Democrats are to actually achieving the steep emission reductions they say they want. Talk is cheap, but actions which are highly effective in reducing America’s GHG emissions will also be very expensive.

    Once the Democrats are in control of Congress, will they do anything more than enact massive subsidies and tax breaks for renewable energy projects? Will they reject a carbon tax and will they refuse to enact a ban on fracking?

    Once Hillary Clinton is president, will she put pressure on the EPA to go well beyond the Clean Power Plan and to use the full authority of the agency to force across-the-board reductions in all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants?

    Will the environmental activist groups continue to make a lot of noise about climate change while putting little or no pressure on the Executive Branch to broaden the EPA’s regulatory agenda to cover every major source of carbon emissions, thus ignoring the only carbon reduction strategy which has any real chance of succeeding?

    • While I’m not holding my breath, there is still a possibility of her having any security clearance revoked by State. How ironic would it be for the daily briefing to commence with “Please excuse us Madame President, but you will have to leave the room, since you don’t have the necessary clearance to hear the information contained in your daily brief.”

    • And did you pay attention to Director Comey’s response when asked about Hillary having apparently lied, more than once, in her testimony to the FBI, Congress and the press? While the latter instance is not a crime, I believe the first two are, if she was under oath.

      I don’t believe Hillary has cleared the forest just yet.

  92. From the article:

    Twenty-seven recently resettled refugees were among the 117 cases of active tuberculosis (TB) diagnosed in Wisconsin in 2014 and 2015, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. That makes the Badger State the new refugee TB capital of the United States.
    Wisconsin replaces Louisiana as the state with the most reported cases of active TB among recently resettled refugees in the country.

    As Breitbart News has reported previously, twenty-one cases of active TB were diagnosed among recently resettled refugees in Louisiana between 2011 and 2015.

    Six other states have reported recently resettled refugees have been diagnosed with active TB: Florida (eleven), Colorado (ten), Idaho (seven), Indiana (four), Kentucky (nine in one county), and North Dakota (four in one county).

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/wisconsin-now-refugee-tb-capital-us-twenty-seven-cases-two-years/

  93. From the article:

    President Barack Obama’s domestic anti-jihad strategy has failed to persuade Muslim communities, or Islamic political groups, to help suppress Islamic terrorism, The Washington Post admits.
    The paper’s headline tried to feebly hide Obama’s failure behind a sliver of supposedly good news: “How a Muslim advocacy group in Florida is doing what the government has so far failed to do.”

    The article repeatedly describes the failure of Obama’s anti-jihadi strategy to win support from hard-line Islamic political groups, or even the cooperation of mosque clerics who declare themselves to be legitimate political leaders of Muslims living inside the United States.

    An FBI plan … only heightened suspicions among some civil rights and Muslim community leaders … Meanwhile, in Boston, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, federal pilot programs announced in 2014 to prevent extremism have met such fierce resistance from local Muslims that the first two remain mired in the developmental stage. In Minneapolis, officials were compelled to change the program’s name from “Countering Violent Extremism” to “Building Community Resilience.”

    The article ends up cheerleading for the creation of Muslim-run police-like groups in Muslim neighborhoods — which would be a big step toward the creation of self-segregating Islamic-run enclaves within the United States.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/05/washington-post-obama-cve-fail/

  94. One big step closer to Redimowit unity. From the article:

    Colorado Senate Candidate Darryl Glenn: ‘I Proudly Stand with Donald Trump’

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/04/colorado-senate-candidate-darryl-glenn-i-proudly-stand-with-donald-trump/

  95. From the article:
    It’s that simple, really. Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic and he’s not a racist. …
    In my opinion, accusations like “racist” and “anti-Semite” are being thrown around with a carelessness that risks rendering these words meaningless.

    If even the slightest infraction against what the speech police have deemed correct speech is instantly shouted down with taunts of “racist” then what is left to condemn the actual racists? What do we call the people who won’t hire minorities or beat others up for their religion?

    This is not idle philosophy to me. I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors. On December 7, 1941—Pearl Harbor Day—the Nazis surrounded the ghetto of Novogroduk, and sorted the residents into two lines: those selected to die were put on the right; those who would live were put on the left. My grandmother’s sister, Esther, raced into a building to hide. A boy who had seen her running dragged her out and she was one of about 5100 Jews to be killed during this first slaughter of the Jews in Novogrudok. On the night before Rosh Hashana 1943, the 250 Jews who remained of the town’s 20,000 plotted an escape through a tunnel they had painstakingly dug beneath the fence. The searchlights were disabled and the Jews removed nails from the metal roof so that it would rattle in the wind and hopefully mask the sounds of the escaping prisoners.

    My grandmother and her sister didn’t want to leave their father behind. They went to the back of the line to be near him. When the first Jews emerged from the tunnel, the Nazis were waiting for them and began shooting. My grandmother’s brother Chanon, for whom my father is named, was killed along with about 50 others. My grandmother made it to the woods, where she joined the Bielski Brigade of partisan resistance fighters. There she met my grandfather, who had escaped from a labor camp called Voritz. He had lived in a hole in the woods—a literal hole that he had dug—for three years, foraging for food, staying out of sight and sleeping in that hole for the duration of the brutal Russian winter.

    I go into these details, which I have never discussed, because it’s important to me that people understand where I’m coming from when I report that I know the difference between actual, dangerous intolerance versus these labels that get tossed around in an effort to score political points.

    The difference between me and the journalists and Twitter throngs who find it so convenient to dismiss my father in law is simple. I know him and they don’t.

    It doesn’t take a ton of courage to join a mob. It’s actually the easiest thing to do. What’s a little harder is to weigh carefully a person’s actions over the course of a long and exceptionally distinguished career. The best lesson I have learned from watching this election from the front row is that we are all better off when we challenge what we believe to be truths and seek the people who disagree with us to try and understand their point of view.


    The fact is that my father in law is an incredibly loving and tolerant person who has embraced my family and our Judaism since I began dating my wife. His support has been unwavering and from the heart. I have personally seen him embrace people of all racial and religious backgrounds, at his companies and in his personal life. This caricature that some want to paint as someone who has “allowed” or encouraged intolerance just doesn’t reflect the Donald Trump I know. The from-the-heart reactions of this man are instinctively pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Just last week, at an event in New Hampshire, an audience member asked about wasting money on “Zionist Israel.” My father-in-law didn’t miss a beat in replying that “Israel is a very, important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100 percent.” No script, no handlers, no TelePrompter—just a strong opinion from the heart.

    http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/

    • http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/200pm-water-cooler-762016.html#comment-2629634

      sandra y.
      July 6, 2016 at 8:03 pm
      This is not the first hint of anti-semitism coming from the Trump camp, by any means. And it is not the first time Trump-ists got in trouble for picking up and reTweeting the messages of the white supremacists. The vicious and extensive antisemitic attacks on journalists with Jewish sounding names are well documented and are continuously going on.
      I agree that cutting any slack for this as yet another sloppy mistake affirming the white supremacists’ sites is unacceptable. I am a Sanders supporter all the way, BUT this image of the red star filled me, and fills me, with dread.

      Reply ↓
      Yves Smith
      July 6, 2016 at 8:31 pm
      A Star of David is an open star. A sheriff’s star is a closed star.

      And did you manage to miss that his daughter Ivanka, and hence some of his grandchildren, are Jewish? And Orthodox to boot? And his Orthodox son in law is playing a very active role in the campaign? In fact, they seem to be the closest to him of all his children. They are certainly the most involved in his presidential bid.

      So you are effectively saying an Orthodox Jew is responsible for anti-Semitic messaging. This is how desperate the anti Trump crowd is to beat him with any stick they can pick up. It’s up there with Sanders supporters being called anti-Semitic because he’s recommended being evenhanded about Palestine. Let’s see, the people who are supporting the first serious Jewish candidate for president have a problem with Jews?

      There is a lot wrong with Trump but he would have gotten all of nowhere in New York City real estate if he could not get on well with Jews. There are few goyim in that business.

  96. Article clip @jim2 | July 6, 2016 at 9:30 pm in moderation