U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part XIII

by Judith Curry

Plus UK and Australia political issues.

794 responses to “U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part XIII

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

  2. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has been abolished. http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=2bf3520294&e=d3ab024ae2

    New UK ministers dominated by Climate Sceptics

    She has put the Brexit leaders in high profile positions so they either succeed or fail. If they fail, they’ll be the first scapegoat, not her.

    She is sending a clear message that the UK government has heard the peoples’ message. They want change. They do not want the old guard who defended “Stay” still in charge.

    What fantastic news, eh? Some of the good consequences of Brexit I was hoping for but expected to take a decade to achieve are beginning within a day of Theresa May becoming UK PM.

    May UK PM May lead the world to a renewal of The Age of Enlightenment.

    And May we please have a May PM for Australia too please.

  3. Trump’s poll numbers have improved somewhat. From the article:

    Nervous Senate Democrats raised concerns with Hillary Clinton during a private meeting in the Capitol Thursday over a recent poll showing Donald Trump leading or tied in several battleground states.

    “Some people were freaked out, they were looking down at the polls on Real Clear Politics and asking why it was so close,” said a Democratic senator who attended the meeting, referring to a website lawmakers were checking out on their personal devices.

    Clinton’s response?
    “She said there are other issues. People are unhappy and they don’t trust institutions,” the senator explained.

    A second Democratic source in the meeting confirmed there was “a mention of the Florida poll.”

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287845-democrats-freaked-out-about-polls-in-meeting-with-clinton

  4. David L. Hagen

    Is Brexit causing sanity to break out in the UK?
    PM May merges the Dept of Energy and Climate in with Business.
    Rise Of The Global Warming Skeptics In Britain

    Johnson, a noted global warming skeptic and leader of the campaign to leave the EU, will now represent Britain on the international stage, including at negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    Climate Change and Business departments merged in cabinet reshuffle

    The Department for Energy and Climate Change has be merged with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to create an entirely new governmental body.
    The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be headed up by Greg Clark MP, formerly the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
    Theresa May made the appointment as part of a far-reaching cabinet reshuffle that saw the former Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, bumped up to Home Secretary. . . .
    May has generally voted against measures to prevent climate change. She has specifically voted in favour of selling England’s state-owned forests and against the greater regulation of fracking to extract shale gas.

  5. From the article:

    “It sounds like here we go again,” he said. “We’re living in a whole different world. There’s no respect for law and order.

    “This is crazy what’s going on,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee added. “It’s a horrible thing. It’s bedlam … We have to get awfully tough and we have to get smart or we’re not going to have a society, we’re not going to have a world anymore.”

    Trump said he would sharply restrict immigration from countries with likely terrorist ties in the wake of the massacre.

    “This has to be dealt with very harshly,” he said. “I’d be making it very, very hard for people to come into our country from terrorist countries.”

    “Our country has tremendous problems,” Trump continued. “We don’t need any more problems. What are we doing? We’re trying to so nice, we’re trying to be so civil.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287847-trump-bastille-day-terrorist-attack-horrific

  6. Energy Companies Spend Big to Fight Colorado Ballot Initiatives
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/145661/Energy_Companies_Spend_Big_to_Fight_Colorado_Ballot_Initiatives?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-07-14&utm_content=&utm_campaign=industry_headlines_1

    Energy companies in Colorado are spending millions of dollars to derail a push by environmentalists….

    Environmental groups are now gathering signatures for two statewide initiatives that would transfer regulatory control of oil and gas development to local governments and create more stringent setback requirements to keep oil and gas activities away from occupied structures.

    A study by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a state agency tasked with encouraging energy development, found that 90 percent of the surface acreage in Colorado would be unavailable for oil and gas development under the new setback laws.

  7. As messy as it’s been, the Redimowit party is coalescing around Trump. There are still some stragglers, but the specter of Cr00ked Billary looms on the horizon. Even some Dimowits in the gutted Heartland are turning towards Trump. She is looking for any chink in his Teflon suit, but the polls are turning on her. It will be interesting how she handles desperation. Her anticipated coronation, may be melting in her grasp.

  8. Future historians will conclude the MSM was more interested in helping the Left demonize George Bush than of helping to fight the enemy at the beginning of WWIII.

    • Right on, Wag:

      • France is said to have strict gun control laws but the terrorist in Nice, France used a truck full of grenades and other arms as a weapon of mass destruction.

      • The tweet above was next in line.

        Let’s retell our story.

        The United States is said to have noise regulations, and yet:

      • Wee Weasel Willard wheezes about WMD and War. So, I suppose he thinks the US should have stayed out of war altogether in the Middle East?

        What about this? And, I’m not saying the US should have jumped in. This war was initiated in the UN. Would this war NOT upset the militant Muslims? If practical, I would be quite happy to see the Middle East implode and destroy itself.

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

      • David Springer

        Adblock Plus makes Weeping Willard’s messages disappear! Awesome!

        https://adblockplus.org/

        Vote Trump!

      • So, you must be Pro Trump, who came out against the Iraq war, unlike Hillary, who voted for it. And she engineered Libya, and was secretary of state when ISIS came to power. I think she quit because she made such a ME mess it was better to put some distance between the mess and her candidacy.

      • Danny, “If Newt had proposed a similar suggestion that those who ‘teach Christianity’ (as an example) be ‘expelled’. I have to wonder how that response would be received. (Guessing I’ll find out shortly after posting this because I’m a ‘lefty’.)”

        You could say the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas were “expelled” for teaching that their laws were above the laws of the land. Newt’s reference to Shira, or Shira Law, is that those teaching that their religious laws allow them to rape, pillage, plunder and kill in spite of the law of the land that prohibit rape, pillage, plundering and killing are a danger to society and should be expelled.

        If you talked with a moderate Muslim, they would mention that “Islamists” are one group that believe in a global caliphate and the execution of several groups of individuals in a rather strict interpretation of Shira law.

        I believe there are close to 1000 hate groups under surveillance in the US that claim a number of faiths that your average liberal wouldn’t mind expelling, unless they happen to be a constituency.

      • Danny Thomas

        “unless they happen to be a constituency.” That’s funny, and may include the dead huh? But at least I don’t see anyone actually suggesting they be deported (at least not yet).

      • Danny, “That’s funny, and may include the dead huh? But at least I don’t see anyone actually suggesting they be deported (at least not yet).”

        The dead vote does tend to be a democratic block :) I believe there are a large group of immigrants that don’t have citizenship which could be deported plus if you take an oath of allegiance to a foreign state, like say ISIL, you can be expatriated. I believe Newt is a bit of a historian :)

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.

        Yes, he is a noted historian. And has a bit of a shady side (as do many of ‘the political persuasion’) as ascribed to his being reprimanded by the house.

        Had he suggested the ‘removal’ of non citizens only I might have zero heartburn with his word choices. And for those who pledge allegiance to other than the U.S. we have treason oriented laws which could then apply.

        If only he’d said those things.

      • So much to do, so little time. In order:

        > So, you must be Pro [Dove Donald]:

        Notwithstanding the affirmation of the consequent, Dove Donald is a myth:

        ***

        > This war was initiated in the UN.

        Notwithstanding that an Invasion followed by an occupation is not exactly a war, jim’s claim is more of a “curveball” than anything else:

        The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally fought war which included the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces with the implicit assistance of the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

        ***

        Doubling-Down Donald is even reinventing the war on terrorism:

      • David Springer

        Yeah as soon as I heard Newt say we should test Muslims for belief in Sharia and deport them if found in support it was made apparent that Pence was the better choice for Veep. Newt can really stick his foot in his mouth on rare occasions.

        To be fair though in order to deport someone they cannot be citizens so he was necessarily not talking about Muslim-Americans. Knowing that however is beyond the grasp of lesser minds so Newt’s real sin is in not dumbing down his speech so people like Danny Thomas can understand it.

      • David Springer,

        Gingrich may be doing this to open up some breathing room for Trump.

        It seems to me that Trump has softened his anti-Muslim rhethoric. It is only natural that he would do this in an attempt to re-position himself more toward the center for the general election. Gingrinch, by staking out a more extreme position, makes Trump seem more moderate in comparison.

      • > Gingrinch, by staking out a more extreme position, makes [Deporting Donald] seem more moderate in comparison.

        While this would be reminiscent of Big Dave’s role in the jim & Glenn show, Newt only suggests what Deportation Donald already did:

      • David Springer

        Don’t like Weak Willard’s thread bombing? Adblock Plus blocks all his nonsense. Get it now. https://adblockplus.org/

        P.S. Vote Trump! The not extremely careless one.

      • Trump has segued from banning Muslims to banning people from terrorist countries. It takes religion, race, ethnicity, whatever; out of the equation. Smart move.

      • Deportation Donald may need to be even smarter than that:

        Perhaps Deporration Donald ought to demand that deportees pay the $400 billion to $600 billion themselves.

    • Willard,

      The question in my mind is this: Will Trump put an end to neoliberalism and the US/NATO imperial adventures in North Africa and the Middle East? These, in my opinion, are the ultimate, if not the immediate, causes of the mass immigration and mayhem now being experienced by Europe.

      An article you posted on the last politics thread answers the question with a big “NO!”:

      The Donald Trump dove myth: why he’s actually a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton
      http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton

      However, I very much disagree with the conclusion this article comes to.

      Trump is somewhat of a wild card, an unknown, because he has no track record as a policy maker that we can scrutinize.

      Clinton, however, has a very long track record, and everything about it screams neoliberal and neoconservative, putting her in the same league with Blair and Bush.

      • > The question in my mind is […]

        Your mind is the lesser of my concerns, Glenn. Outside of it, there are lots of questions. I mean, lots. Just take all the questions that we could ask Delegate Donald about Paladino’s “hung for treason”:

    • Wagathon,

      If we are ever going to move past neoliberalism and neoconservatism, some sacred cows must be gorged:

      Donald Trump attacks George W. Bush on 9/11, Iraq

      And of course Nancy Pelosi wasn’t going to impeach George Bush, because both she and Bush are playing on the same neolib/neocon team.

      • Fight terrorism there or here? The Bush/Cheney strategy was over there whereas the Obama/Clinton Plan is to import terrorists.

      • Wagathon,

        Why buy into the establishment’s BS?

        We see the same thing happening domestically here within the United States.

        First the establishment takes a wrecking ball to people’s livelihood:

        Then it destroy’s the rule of law, preferring instead the rule of strongwomen who set themselves above the law.

        Then, when all hell breaks loose, the establishment tries to blame it on racial or religious differences, or the police, or guns. Any whipping boy will do, just so long as we don’t look too closely at the guys and gals in charge.

        What are they going to blame the violence on now? Trucks?

      • And here’s some more “Change you can believe in”: the rapid decline in race relations in the United States since Obama took office that has come about due to overplaying the blame game:

        The only major political figure I’ve seen of late to make a major issue of the structural causes of racial tension and violence, more than just the obligatory tip of the hat, is Newt Gingrich:

        AUDIO: Newt Gingrich interview
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/newt_gingrich_talks_about_empathizing_with_black_lives_matter_on_sean_hannity_show.html

        SEAN HANNITY: You’re also saying that we cannot ignore the socio-economic conditions that many Americans are still suffering under…

        Now the president said by every measure, everybody’s better off. By every measure that I see everybody is worse off, and the people who are most disproportionately negatively impacted by all this is the minority communities in America.

        NEWT GINGRICH: And Black teenage employment has become horrendous, 60%. That leads to alienation and the sense that no one cares about them and that they have no future. And that’s about as dangerous as you can get.

      • Danny Thomas

        “And that’s about as dangerous as you can get.”

        There are things which are more ‘dangerous’.
        “Even Gov. Mike Pence, Trump’s apparent vice-presidential pick (which Gingrich lobbied hard to become), labeled Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban “offensive and unconstitutional.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/15/newt-gingrich-says-the-media-is-overreacting-to-his-plan-to-test-all-muslims-but-thats-what-he-proposed/?tid=a_inl

        Gingrich. The go-to guy. Why let silly little ole’ constitutional amendments get in the way.

      • Another bit of disingenuous propaganda from Danny the Lefty. There is no Const. Amendment that says the US can control who can immigrate. They aren’t citizens. We can keep them out for whatever reason we choose.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        Really? What did Newtie say? “If you’re a school which is teaching Sharia, you want to expel it from the country.” Does not exclude citizens.

        “Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

        But it’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • Danny, we may be stuck with the Muslims that are already here. Those are the people on whom we need to concentrate surveillance and infiltration.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,
        That may well be. But that is NOT what Newt proposed. You’re quick to damn me for ‘leftiness’. How about a word of rejection of Newt’s proposal which impinges on the 1st amendment of the constitution. Unless, of course, you’re willing to give up those ‘rights’. Then, I suppose, we play a game of pick and choose.

        Policies are important. It’s why I harp on them.

      • Newt has the right idea, but it may not be implementable in the form he suggests. We could start prosecuting treason again, that could be legal and help a lot. Imam’s that encourage killing infidels could be put to death for treason.

      • Danny

        Surely it also says that everyone has a right to free will and if that is denied it is punishable?

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag1_user.html#amdt1b_hd2

        I am not sure that not all women in Islam could be called able to exercise their free will and surely Sharia courts are there to interpret the will of god rather than the law o the land? Of course the law of the land should trump everything, but in practice in closed societies sharia will be taken as the final word.

        tonyb

      • Danny Thomas

        Tonyb,
        Free speech (even for Newt whom suggest we go against the 1st’s right of freedom of religion by ‘expelling’ those who teach Sharia with no regard for citizenship) is a valuable right.

        My issue is the selective use of the amendments. If one goes in any fashion towards restraint of anything pertaining to the 2nd (gun rights) then it’s all out responses in support of the amendment. Yet here, Jim2 (&Newt) seem to support limitations of applicability of the 1st’s (freedom of religion).

        If Newt had proposed a similar suggestion that those who ‘teach Christianity’ (as an example) be ‘expelled’. I have to wonder how that response would be received. (Guessing I’ll find out shortly after posting this because I’m a ‘lefty’.)

        The selectivity is farcical.

      • Danny Thomas

        Tonyb,
        Further thought. We’re effectively discussing ‘extremism’. IMO it’s an ‘extreme’ response to be willing to ‘set aside’ the rights of any citizen to lead us towards some ‘ideal’ of a particular segment of the entirety. The ‘entirety’ is all of the U.S. citizenry. Not those groups with whom one disagrees. Much like marriage, it takes work to live in our republic. The easy choice is to remove rights of those with whom we disagree. The tougher choice is to enforce the rights detailed in the amendments for all. Selectivity is an immature approach.

        Some don’t care for work.

      • First things first. It’s important to get all the facts, and not just part of them.

        First priority should be to get Gingrich’s comments straight from the horse’s mouth, and not filtered through the highly elitist lens of the billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post, which has shown itself to be one of the most biased propaganda rags around:

        VIDEO: Gingrich response to Nice attack: We Should Test Every Muslim in U.S. And If They Believe In Sharia Deport Them

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/14/gingrich_we_should_test_every_muslim_in_us_and_if_they_believe_in_sharia_deport_them.html

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        Let’s do that.

        Newt’s words (from your link): “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door. We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.”

        No freedom of religion in that suggestion. “Every person” “Deported” (even citizens?). Maybe Newt needs a ‘highly elitist’ filter, but I won’t suggest that occur as it would impinge on his right to free speech.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Nice ad hoc rescue, quickly changing the subject to another topic.

        But what’s your opinion on the structural causes of violence? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they are important? Do you believe they need to be addressed? And if so, how?

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        Thank you for the compliment.

        “But what’s your opinion on the structural causes of violence? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they are important? Do you believe they need to be addressed? And if so, how?”

        “And if so, how?” My first choice would not be removal of the rights detailed in the amendments.

        The rest is above my pay grade. I have opinions, but they are exactly that, opinions. Some are distasteful even in my own mind. But I look to the guidance of the constitution and associated amendments for a road map.

        Can you detail answers to the questions you posed? Actually, I’d only be concerned with the last one. Would you propose ignoring the 1st amendment in order to achieve that which you perceive to be the ‘desired’ outcome? This is Newt’s suggestion. Thoughts?

        Again, my issue is with the selectivity of application of the bill of rights. It surprises me when some who support a portion of those rights come out in defense of one who wishes to selectively apply them.

      • Danny Thomas

        I know nothing of Jeffery Goldberg nor his qualifications, but here’s an interesting perspective one might wish to consider: “For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Gingrich ought to call for the investigation of these sharia-supporting Israelis.”

        http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/gingrich-nice-sharia/491471/

        But there’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • Thankless Euros have been using global warming to back-stab America for decades. France was to have a pass from the beginning based on being mostly nuclear. Germany’s built-in protection from ever paying a dime came from being provided credits for replacing all of the dated and unproductive communist-era energy production facilities in East Germany (which is what Germany would have done irrespective of Gore’s anti-America carbon-trading scheme). Bush had the temerity to support America with his whole heart and call BS on the raping America’s free enterprise economy to fund relentless expansion of Western socialism; and, that is why the Eurocommies and the Leftist establishment and MSM in the US still hate Bush.

      • Danny, had to leave for a bit. Thinking about this a bit more, Sharia LAW is that part of Islam the defines the GOVERNMENT of Islam, not the religion; even though it is based on the religion.

        In the US, we need to make it legally very clear that no law other than US law is legal in the US. It would be ILLEGAL and therefore punishable by US LAW to practice Sharia LAW. Anyone who practices Sharia LAW could then be deported or jailed, preferably deported.

        I think we could make it work.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,
        Aha! Common ground. I agree that ‘our’ law trumps. Having said that, how does one go about ‘enforcement’ of religious oriented systems which are more strict than ‘our’ law? That is a completely different conversation than one which ‘bans muslims’.

        We can get there Jim, just not at the cost of restrictions on our constitution/amendments and that was the issue I have with Newt’s proposal. A bridge too far.

        You may see me as ‘a lefty’ yet place a mirror in front of your face when you realize that I’m suggesting that an interpretation of the 1st is in fact more along the lines of a non selective approach. Much as you’ve done with the 2nd.

        If we wish to discuss no immigration for any without vetting (to be determined) then that would not be selecting out any particular group. I fear for the slippery slope and where it leads.

        As a follow up, no where am I suggesting Clinton as an improved alternative no matter how much you wish to read that in to my words. Still looking for reasons to vote ‘for’ a candidate.

        Regards,

      • Danny Thomas,

        Well you surely are good at changing the subject.

        But my questions are not about Locke’s political liberalism, but about another Enlightenment notion: the belief that “men would not come in conflict with one another, if the opportunities were wide enough.” (Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History) “This assumption was shared by our Jeffersonians with the French Enlightenment.”

        As Azar Gat explains:

        The more the rulers and elite were able to use their control over the machinery of the state and their socio-economic clout to coerce or sway the social body, the more it meant that it was mainly for the attainment of their interests that politics — and war — were geared….

        The glaring inequality in the distribution of the benefits and costs of war has contributed to the Enlightenment belief that the occurrence of war was made possible only because of that inequality, wherein an elite minority harvested the benefits of war while leaving its risks and price to the rest of the population.

        — AZAR GAT, War in Human Civilization

        Many, including Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Bill of Rights), argue that the political liberalism you speak of was impossible if economic inequalities were too great.

        Speaking of the French officers who fought in the Ameerican War of Independence, Jefferson warned:

        You will carry our sentiments with you, but if you try to plant them…you will encounter obstacles more formidable than ours….

        [In France you have] twenty millions of people…. [T]here are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the whole United States.

        Not for a moment did it occur to Jefferson that people so “loaded with misery” — the two-fold misery of poverty and corruption — would be able to achieve what had been achieved in America.

        And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who, finding himself in Paris, thought:

        often of the happiness of New England, where every man is a Freeholder, has a vote in publick Affairs, lives in a tidy warm House, has plenty of good Food and Fewel….

        According to the Founding Fathers, the “reason for success and failure [of the American Revolution] was that the predicament of poverty was absent from the American scene but present everywhere else in the world,” writes Hannah Arendt in On Revolution.

      • Danny Thomas,

        And I’ll ask you the same question I asked jim2.

        Do you agree with this statement by Henry Steele Commager?

        If we subvert world order and destroy world peace we must inevitably subvert and destroy our own political institutions first.

        — HENRY STEELE COMMAGER, “Can We Limit Presidential Power?” in The New Republic, April 6, 1968

      • Danny,

        I believe you are focusing too much on a narrow interpretation of Gringrich’s comments. Widen your perspective and don’t get hung up trying to dissect what are media talking points, not actual policy.

        Advocating for adherence to Sharia law can be framed as advocating for sedition. There are numerous claimed religious practices which are not considered legal in the US

      • Dear Denizens,

        Throwing “ism” words around like that is all well and good. However, that’s not how we address Wag’s argument:

        France is said to have strict gun control laws but the terrorist in Nice, France used a truck full of grenades and other arms as a weapon of mass destruction.

        More expedient seems to be a simple transposition:

        America is said to have immigration laws but those of Mexican heritage use all kinds of tools to invade our country.

        Since Wag seems to infer opposite conclusions in both cases, it seems to me that this kind of argument should be dropped.

        While you think about it, some Devise Donald:

        Go team!

      • David Springer

        “some sacred cows must be gorgedgored”

        Fixed that for ya!

    • Danny, “If only he’d said those things.”

      It would be nice if we could return to yesteryear when when people spoke in complete sentences. He did say that Shira (law) is incompatible with western civilization. Pretty much every western civilization has destroyed itself trying to become more “civilized”, so I would be more concerned with what is really compatible with the changing concept of western civilization.

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.,

        I’m sorry, but I don’t think we can blame ‘misunderstanding’ on the media this time.

        “Here’s a transcript:

        So let me start with where I’m coming from, and let me be as blunt and as direct as I can be: Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. ”

        Seems pretty clear, blunt, and direct (as advertised). Yes, he went on to complete his thought but I’m just quoting his words from the transcript. Maybe it’s not a problem with incomplete sentences but instead it’s a problem with incomplete thought or poor expression.

        I don’t disagree with the ‘we’re at war’. And ‘that side’ doesn’t play fair so ‘this side’ must be ‘tough’. But at the expense of our rights? Don’t think that’s the correct path way and don’t support it. If this kind of thinking is accepted then the terrorists have already won and the ‘war’ is over (and we’ve lost).

        What he expressed, even if mispoken, is what he expressed. And it’s certainly not a problem with ‘the reporting’.

        There is something to be said about a student (or professor) of history: “MARCH 28, 2003: “A hateful regime will be gone, and except for Saddam, French President Jacques Chirac and the media analysts, almost no one will have had the sky fall on the them.”

        “Almost no one will have had the sky fall on (the?) them”. http://www.aei.org/publication/cheer-up-chicken-little/

        Sometimes chickens come home to roost.

        Evidence, in part, for why I feel words and policies are important. Can only hope you’re with me on that Capt.

      • The teachings of the scientific method that we as a civilization successively and successfully managed to carry with us and nurture within us from its formative days since the time of the Greeks, has been a casualty of the Academia/UN alliance, a wedding of ideals that are grounded in their mutual opposition to the despised, foundational principles of Americanism (which is based on a respect for individual liberty and the need for personal responsibility, guided by a Judeo-Christian heritage and the liberal philosophy of the founders that are now branded by the Left as, conservative ideals).

  9. For those who think that they’re faced with a choice between two political grubs, the rational thing would be to choose the lesser of two weevils.

    (Sorry, but the Devil made me do it.)

    Cheers.

  10. Interesting page (with which I’m sure you’re all familiar) is Wikipedia’s “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”. This is where I learned about Dr. Curry and this blog.

    As regards the list, Dr. Curry is preceded (alphabetically) in the first tab on said webpage by Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy). The narrative on his page is astonishing. He has a bachelor’s in physics and master’s in astrophysics, but because he lacks a PHD his opinions on climate change somehow don’t matter?!

    I was reminded of this while reading the comments here. In any case, I’m looking forward to following this blog and learning from you all.

    Thank you,

    Paul

  11. Watching MSNBC report on the Nice horror and hearing their “experts” say the worst thing we could do in response is criticize Islam or tighten down on immigration of Muslim migrants. Also hearing these nitwits say that the chief reason for these attacks are US foreign policy.

    Meanwhile the list keeps growing all over the world, including places where Jihad is waged against all unbelievers and US foreign policy has no effect whatever……so far this year:

    1268 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 11664 people were killed and 14087 injured.

    https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2016

    • harkin1,

      Not disputing your figures at all, but there were some 16,000 homicides in the US in 2013.

      I assume that some were for religious reasons, but the result for the victims was the same. The US has around 5% of the world’s population, so the total of 12,000 deaths you report throughout the world is fairly minor by comparison with the US.

      It’s a tricky area. People often call for the death of those with whom they disagree, and react with delight when informed someone has their life terminated. Smiles and handshakes all round!

      On the other hand, those same people sometimes wring their hands in despair, and furiously oppose those who wish to end their own lives for perfectly rational reasons.

      It’s a funny old world. A quiet life seems to suit me.

      Cheers.

      • A lot of people disagreed with H1tl3r apparently. Sometimes, their death is a boon to civilization, eh?

      • David Springer

        Flynn the Imbecile speaks again.

      • Actually you miss the point completely (but points for the false equivalence). The deaths reported were strictly to do with Islamic terrorism. That means that all other homicides committed by Muslims are NOT counted.

        Happy to help.

    • harkin1 said:

      Also hearing these nitwits say that the chief reason for these attacks are US foreign policy.

      So you believe there is no blowback to the neoliberalism the US and its NATO allies imposed on North Africa and the Middle East, nor to the imperial adventures the neocons tricked us into?

      • I really don’t care what the cause is at this point, just get rid of the militant ones in an expeditious manner.

      • jim2,

        “Just get rid of the militant ones in an expeditious manner”?

        But at what cost to our civil and political institutions, and to our civil and political liberties?

        If we subvert world order and destroy world peace we must inevitably subvert and destroy our own political institutions first.

        — HENRY STEELE COMMAGER, “Can We Limit Presidential Power?” in The New Republic, April 6, 1968

      • Earth to Glenn – our rights, way of life, the Constitution, liberties, etc are being trampled on because of the terrorists!!! WE are already paying the political costs for these people. We are spied on 24/7 in the name of terrorism. Our gun rights are challenged in large part due to terrorism.

        We have to do what’s best for us and let the Devil take the hindmost.

      • jim2,

        Are you unaware that the United States has a long history, either directly or indirectly through its allies in the region, of supporting militant Islamic extremists?

        A defining shift in Carter’s Islamic policy — one whose consequences for 9/11 would be significant — was when Brzezinski and his aide Robert Gates from CIA, on July 3, 1979, persuaded Carter to send secret aid to Islamist militants in Afghanistan….

        By using Islamic fundamentalism against the Soviets, Brzezinski clearly regarded himself as a master chess player (to adapt the metaphor of his book The Grand Chessboard)….

        The decision to work with Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimatley be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.

      • We’ve supported a lot of unsavory people all over the world. In some cases it’s when we stopped supporting them that the sh*t hit our fan.

      • jim2,

        And ever since that fateful day in 1979, the US and its NATO allies have continued to fund and support Islamic terrorists.

        Here is but one of many examples that I could cite:

        A Syrian archbishop has pleaded for the British Government to stop backing Islamist rebel groups who he said were in fact “fundamentalist jihadis who want to kill everyone who is not similar to them”.

        Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Archbishop of Aleppo, said the UK was inadvertently helping to bring about the destruction of Syria by funding such anti-President Assad groups.

        He also said Britain is “investing in jihadis and mercenaries who are killing anyone who is saying anything about freedom, citizenship, religious liberty and democracy”.

        It was a “big lie” that moderate rebel forces in support of freedom and democracy were at war with the Assad regime, the Archbishop told MPs at a House of Lords meeting this week organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.

        He said the four-year civil war was a contest between a modern secular state and jihadis who were destroying its culture and massacring religious minorities.

        Archbishop Jeanbart accused the Western media of presenting an inaccurate depiction of the conflict. “Please, I ask you, I beseech you to have another look at our situation to see what is underneath what is happening,” he told a meeting organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-archbishop-pleads-for-uk-to-stop-backing-anti-assad-islamist-groups-a6697226.html

        So what’s more imporant? Putting a stop to terrorism? Or regime change in Syria so that Europe, assuming everything else works like clockwork, can break Russia’s stranglehold on Europe’s natural gas suppy?

      • jim2,

        And if the UK can rein in the Greens and anti-nukes, it has domestic options for developing energy supplies, like nuclear and the North Sea.

        New PM May Scraps Department of Energy and Climate Change
        http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=145660&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-07-14&utm_content=&utm_campaign=feature_1

        Trade association Oil & Gas UK responded to the news Thursday afternoon by issuing a statement in which its chief executive, Deidre Michie, said:

        “Offshore oil and gas is one of this country’s greatest industrial success stories and must remain a linchpin of a UK industrial strategy. Yet we are at a critical juncture and we need to work with government to address low levels of exploration and development in the North Sea and send a strong message that the UK Continental Shelf is a great place to invest in.”….

        [T]he elimination of DECC could be a signal that May’s government will pursue an energy strategy for the UK that is more concerned about economic growth and less concerned about the country’s impact on carbon emissions and climate change. May has a parliamentary record of voting favourably on such issues as shale gas fracking in the UK.

        If the Greens and anti-nukes can take devolpment of domestic energy supplies off the table, that makes resource wars in the Middle East and North Africa seem much more plausible.

      • Blowback is an overused concept, particularly by people who like to blame the great Satan

  12. John Robertson

    According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.
    We (Canadians) have 10% of the population of the US, yet we don’t have 10% of the murder rate by firearms. Just under 2% of the US rate.
    I wonder why?

    • John Robertson,

      Those who defend the right of the public to be armed don’t care about such facts. Their usual tactic is to rant about something irrelevant.

      • Peter Lang, I live in a country with strict gun control laws, far far stricter than the USA, that has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world. For the record I don’t own a gun and don’t want to.

      • oldfossil,

        Thank you. Of course, when making such comparisons of murder rates or rates of gun related deaths (which is what we need to compare, not muder rates) between different countries, cultures, religions, etc. there are many other factors that have to be accounted for. That’s why, in my earlier comment, I compared countries that have roughly similar HDI. US is 10 times worse than Canada and 50 times worse than UK.

    • Most of the gun related homicides in the US occur in cr1m1nal gangs in poor neighborhoods. They will get their guns no matter what.

      • The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

      • What is their suggestion on the missing people?

      • Remember that each one, is still one in a million, to their family.

      • You did not mention the FBI margin of error either, I am sure for you it was just another number too. No worries.

      • To make this easier, ring a bell when you have point.

      • A closing thought on what is happening around us, is that we are all responsible for letting the economic powers ‘that be’ attempt to destroy nations and their sovereignty. The governments that assisted their efforts are now in the cross-hair of anyone with a truck. We need to clean this mess up with truth and justice but really transparent this time. No need for another government study it is a fact of life today.

      • It’s called performance art. The losers of the world have figured out a great way to make everybody look at them for 15 minutes.

        The performance artist of the moment:

        Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

        Fading fast:

        Micah XavierJohnson

        Forgotten:

        Omar Mateen

        Creativity… prepare for worse.

      • Destroy my country and I will come…

      • I don’t like to say this but JCH, you state that the performance artists are the losers, what do you make of the victims & families?

      • It can’t destroy a country. It has no power. It’s a fad. It will eventually fade.

      • That liberals are horrible people and they caused it to happen.

    • I suspect the cr1m1nal gangs in Canada have guns, but I get the impression gang membership is relatively minor in Canada. But, instead of guns, cr1m1nals will find other weapons that are even worse than guns.

      This is why the idea of outlawing guns in the US is so stupid. People cherry-pick their arguments while ignoring reality. Guns aren’t a problem for law abiding citizens in the US. And if you exclude homicides carried out by criminal gangs, guns become an insignificant cause of death compared to automobiles or a huge number of other causes.

      From the article:

      The Quebec Biker War (French: Guerre des motards; “Bikers’ War”) refers to the violent turf war that began in 1994 and continued until late 2002 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
      The war began as the Hells Angels in Quebec began to make a push to establish a monopoly on street-level drug sales in the province. A number of drug dealers and crime families resisted and established groups such as the “Alliance to fight the Angels”.
      The war resulted in the bombings of many establishments and murders on both sides. It has claimed more than 150 lives,[1] including some innocent bystanders such as Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year-old boy who was fatally injured by shrapnel as he was playing near a jeep that was blown up.[2]

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

      • The Hells Angels (should be Hell’s, but the group is not known for upholding literacy) is a California export. Maybe Canada should slap on an import tariff on it.

    • David Springer

      “I wonder why?”

      One reason is because Canada is a country populated by milksops which continues to exist as a sovereign nation largely due to the umbrella of safety provided by your gun and freedom loving neighbor to the south. It would be taking its marching orders from Vladimir Putin if that protection were removed.

      Another reason is Canada has a very small black population at just 2%. Over 50% of the homicides in the US are committed by just 12% of the population (black). Political correctness generally prohibits the mention of this sobering fact.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

      Thanks for asking.

      • Remove that subset from US numbers and our rate of gun deaths falls to the middle of the pack of EU countries. But you are right, that’s politically incorrect to point out.

    • David Wojick

      We also have a much higher rate of auto deaths than countries with few cars. We like and have lots of guns and cars. Nothing wrong with that. Guns are great. I love them and so do most of the people I know. We also have a large rural population that does lots of hunting. I am a pistol shooter.

    • From the article:

      The Quebec Biker War (French: Guerre des motards; “Bikers’ War”) refers to the violent turf war that began in 1994 and continued until late 2002 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
      The war began as the Hells Angels in Quebec began to make a push to establish a monopoly on street-level drug sales in the province. A number of drug dealers and crime families resisted and established groups such as the “Alliance to fight the Angels”.
      The war resulted in the bombings of many establishments and murders on both sides. It has claimed more than 150 lives,[1] including some innocent bystanders such as Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year-old boy who was fatally injured by shrapnel as he was playing near a jeep that was blown up.[2]

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

      • I suspect these people have guns, but obviously they also found an alternative that was much worse. I get the impression Canada doesn’t have as large a gang problem as the US.

    • John Robertson, Wonder why? Hockey. The Canadian murder rate is very close to that of the US but lazy Americans would rather shoot someone than bludgeon them to death or chase them down to stab them. I noticed that the homicide rate among aboriginals was about 5 time higher than the general public. Must be a glitch in the statistics unless they have obesity issues.

    • “I wonder why.” Do you? Or are you happy to assume that correlation equals causation?
      How about Switzerland? According to your calculations, its murder rate should exceed the US. It, uh, doesn’t.
      But as others pointed out, the murder rate in the US is largely caused not by guns but by a much larger and meaner collection of criminals. I.e., the Drug War. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, Swiss and Canadians who became American citizens don’t commit many murders either.

    • Could be it’s too fricking cold half the time.

      Or it could be the percentage of racial minorities. Take a look at DoJ statistics and tell me certain numbers don’t stand out.

  13. I posted this in tribute to the French nation at the time of the last atrocity. It grieves me to feel the need to post it again. A Quintessential French song celebrating their unique culture combined with wonderful scenery and Silly British Humour. Play loud and think of the French this morning and what they have had to endure over the last year

    tonyb

    • Tonyb, I never put Mr Bean together with Charles Trenet…but it works.

      As a redneck Francophile (admittedly, we’re not numerous), I have faith in France. Those who think the French don’t fight must have missed Verdun. Plus most of the rest of history.

      And the collectivists/globalists haven’t always had their own way there. They got to write the history for a couple of centuries, but history is catching up with them.
      http://www.inthevendee.com/vendee-wars/vendee-wars.html

      • Those who think the French don’t fight must have missed Verdun. Plus most of the rest of history.
        http://qi.com/infocloud/france

        French Military Victories

        The ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ tag immortalised by Homer Simpson, has contributed to a general sense of the French as cowardly losers. But the French have arguably the best military record in Europe. According to historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have fought in 50, more than both Austria (47) and England (43). And they achieved an impressive overall batting average: out of a total of 168 battles fought since 387 bc, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

        The British rightly pride themselves on their naval superiority, but this was largely born out of the certain knowledge that we would never win a land war on the continent. Over its long history, the French army was usually the largest, best-equipped and most strategically innovative army in Europe. Most of the words used in modern warfare derive from French words, such as: army, artillery, captain, cavalry, charge, espionage, general, lieutenant, lance, marines, manoeuvre, military, mine, naval, parachute, pilot, platoon, regiment, soldier and trench.

        At its maximum strength, under Napoleon, the French army achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: they entered Moscow. Contemporary accounts of French military prowess were glowing with military historian and soldier General Sir William Napier (1785-1860) commenting: ‘It is well known with what gallantry the [French] officers lead and with what vehemence the troops follow’. British Coldstream guardsman, John Mills said that ‘their movements compared with ours are as mail coaches to dung carts. In all weathers and at all times they are accustomed to march, when our men would fall sick by hundreds.’

      • David Springer

        France surrendered to Germany at the outset of WWII. Nothing you can say will change that simple fact.

    • I was there during last winters carnival and more recently while Euro2016 was going on. On both occasions security was very strong and all passed without incidents, and I assume that it would have been so the last night too.
      The local authority led by C. Estrosi is extremely well aware of possible terrorist attacks in the city, ensuring that there is adequate presence of police and soldiers on the streets. I don’t think that the last night attack could have been stopped without heavy military vehicles patrolling the Promenade, which is normally closed to the traffic for the number of popular events.

    • Hi Tony,
      Voyez! Quel English humeur et shades of Jacques Tati.
      Je t’aime. )

    • I like the French as well, especially the women. What you see is what you get and they don’t put up with crap from foreigners on their patch, especially when a war is on.

      • This French lady feels that lighting candles and playing “Imagine” on the piano might not be the answer…

        Of course, she must be racist, extremist, Lennonist and every other “ist”.

      • You may not agree with her politics, at only 26 years of age, she is one of the most intelligent politicians in France. In the last regional elections she came close to winning second round of regional elections (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur) and only thanks to the unholy alliance of conservatives, socialists and communists she was defeated.

      • Viva la belle France, viva la liberte.

      • Marion can really handle those bombastic French media luvvies with their patronising face-pulls and infantile gotchas.

        Though much less touchy than her aunt, the young lady comes back fast and sharp in interviews, is ready with facts and doesn’t take a backward step or unnecessary breath…except to smile sweetly.

        Doesn’t mean she or any of the family will be desirable or even effective national leaders. But now is definitely the time for some creative destruction, and Marion’s a wrecking ball.

      • David Springer

        She would need to shave her head and wear a burlap bag before I could possibly concentrate on what she’s saying.

      • David Springer

        “they don’t put up with crap from foreigners on their patch”

        You must be joking.

        Speaking of jokes… I have a French Army Rifle for sale. Never fired and only dropped one time.

      • DS:”She would need to shave her head and wear a burlap bag”

        Kinky!

      • David Springer,

        “Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independence. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French national debt incurred during the war contributed to the fiscal crisis France experienced in the late 1780s, and that was one factor that brought on the French Revolution. In the end the French people paid a high price for helping America gain its independence.”

        The US military doesn’t seem to be achieving much in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, and didn’t do too well in Somalia or Vietnam either.

        Speaking of jokes – the F35? The US national debt? Want more?

        Cheers.

      • The French and Australian people have a lot of empathy whereas certain high IQ types who tend to Aspergers syndrome and demonstrate very little empathy with humans or any other life form. This has been amply demonstrated on this blog.

      • David Springer

        A milksop for life club member, Peter Davies, complains. Shocking.

      • Mike Flynn,

        Watch out there.

        You start knocking around the US’s national mythology, regardless of how far it departs from reality, and you might get knocked around too.

        I don’t think it would be understating the situation to say that most Americans are as patriotically correct as what left-wingers are politically and CAGW correct.

      • Willard, it’s Marion. Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, actually.

        Marine is her aunt, and doesn’t look at all like Marion.

      • My mistake. Should have watched the video first.

        I did not know Marion was a thing in the anglosphere. She’s certainly not in the francophony.

        Please note that the transcript omits a few words:

        [A]re accomplices de l’islamism that kills French.

        I’d thread lightly in my adoration of young French woman who declares war to islamism and dogwhistles actions that her constituency must accept out of necessity.

      • It would seem we are both francophones, Willard. So I wonder how you conclude Marion is not “a thing” in the “francophony”. And I wonder why you made a fuss about “killing French” being omitted from the transcript…especially when the English words “which kills French people” do in fact appear in the transcript of the video.

        But if Marion starts taking millions into a family “foundation” from arms manufacturers and Gulf States I’ll certainly tread lightly in my “adoration”. Especially if she is, shall we say, frequently unwell.

        Auntie Marine is already depending on Russian banks. Of course, she’s just borrowing, while Bill Clinton cops straight donations from Uranium One, now Russian controlled. Then there’s that Moscow speech for which he got $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin and Uranium One.

        Gotta watch these scamps!

      • > “which kills French people” do in fact appear in the transcript of the video.

        Quite furtively. The video is 49 seconds long, and the subtitle only appears when Marion fades out and “Le Journal” appears. The previous frame, with the “are accomplices of that islamism” subtitle, lasts from 0:45 to the end of 0:48.

        The “that islamism” is incorrect, BTW – she says “l’islamisme,” which targets the whole indefinite group.

        I conclude that Marion is not “a thing” in the francophony because it just isn’t – it’s a local phenomenon, contrary to aunt Frexit, who recently came for a visit.

  14. @jim2 | July 15, 2016 at 8:03 am | in moderation

  15. France should make it a law that citizens there can’t have grenades and explosives … oh, wait!!

  16. Seems the Clinton Email saga isn’t over after all?
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/
    Note, though, that most respondents said that Clinton should have been indicted, and most respondents said that their opinion on this wouldn’t affect their vote even if it was for Clinton. Not all the same people, but wow.

    • David Springer

      They accept corruption as normal. It’s truly sad. Obviously we need to reboot Washington. Vote Trump.

    • David Springer

      My faith in the common man is undergoing rapid replenishment as we speak. Actually I think the problem with the common man has never been stupidity but has rather been apathy. Common sense is highly undervalued. That belief is what separates me from the majority of my intellectual peers more than anything else. My intellectual peers have little common sense and little ability to recognize or appreciate it in others. Obama is a prime example. And I use intellectual “peers” loosely. Obama’s a smart guy I’m sure with an IQ possibly in the 99th percentile. I’m in the 99.97th percentile so he’s still a slow thinker compared to me.

      • David, you must be joking. Your 99.97 percentile based on a single test result has error bands much greater than all IPCC predictions put together!

      • David Springer

        Many tests. What made you think it was just one?

      • Most people only find it necessary to have one IQ test, to join Mensa for example, as I did, many years ago. Remember that the bulk of the population have never sat such a test but there would be heaps of very bright people among them I feel sure.

      • David Springer

        They were not voluntary tests. You should stop making assumptions. At your age you’ve had plenty of opportunity to learn better.

        Specifically PSAT in junior high school (won a NYS Regents scholarship for highest score), military GCT required for placement (got the highest score the regional recruiters had ever seen) then the SAT right before leaving the military 4 years later required for university enrollment.

        Every one of them were identical in the percentile placement. Interestingly being away from school for 4 years in the military made no difference.

        Both the SAT and military GCT are acceptable for admitance to high IQ societies but I’ve never join any club which would have me for a member. Several other tests over the years but those were all voluntary. I’m off the measured scale in math having gotten a perfect score on the SAT with plenty of time left over. This was the old SAT before the re-centering in the 1990’s.

        High IQ is an interesting trait. The high IQ individual doesn’t necessarily know more or arrive at better conclusions. The most notable feature is the high IQ individual thinks faster. Sorts through patterns and possibilities at a high rate of speed to arrive at the correct answer sooner than others. That builds upon itself and translates to speed of learning which does eventually lead to a high store of knowledge. I was scoring at college level in vocabulary tests before I was ten years old. I corrected teachers when they made a mistake in class. The good ones loved having me and the poor ones were threatened. For most I was the brightest student they’d ever had or ever would have. It’s an interesting and novel experience being the smartest guy in a room full of adults when you’re just a child. I’m not sure I’d recommend it.

      • Point taken about making assumptions, David, many people do it, though, especially on blogs. Thanks for sharing your experiences as a child. I had mild aspergers as a child but soon grew out of it.

        I never think much about my intelligence level but was able to compensate for not hearing anything to speak of by lip reading and quickly picking up as I went along as a child. As an adult I am more comfortable in the written word but still consider myself to be pretty easy to get along with in most social settings.

        My score was not quite as high as yours but still high enough to be a nuisance if I wanted to be, but unlike you I never showed it to the outside world. I lived a lot in my mind and didn’t worry what people thought, because for the most part their POV was laughable and not worth arguing over.

      • David Springer

        I don’t have Aspergers. Not a hint of it. I grew up in a blue collar environment in New York. This is how we talk. Then I joined the Marine Corps where salty language is traditional. I felt right at home. If you don’t like it that’s too phucking bad. Not my problem.

  17. VIDEO: Schieffer — CBS News Poll Showing Tie With Trump ‘Devastating’ For Clinton
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/14/schieffer-clinton-trump-poll/

    • David Springer

      He might lose a bit of that with his vice presidential pick. Hard to tell. Will definitely get the Republican party to consolidate behind him though. It was a tough call. Newt is brilliant in almost any measure political or otherwise, a great orator, but is a bit of a loose cannon and prone to thinking way outside the box. Given Trump’s own loose cannon nature I guess the decision was based on the premise “there can be too much of a good thing”. One loose canon is enough. I ceased second-guessing Trump some months ago. And that’s based on the premise “don’t argue with success”.

    • David Springer

      Incredible as it seems Trump is going to win in a landslide. He’s got common sense, street smarts, top shelf business education, old school upbringing starting before he could walk by a father in the construction business, not afraid to say what he thinks in language the average Joe Blow can understand, genuine love for America and American culture, repulsed by progressive stupidity and multi-culturalism, not a right-wing evangelical Christian nutcase, not a war-monger, has so much wealth already he can’t be bought, raised several children who are smart and successful… the list of things that are just what our country needs goes on and on. If it weren’t for the tiny hands he’d have no flaws!

    • David Springer

      Running a successful presidential campaign on a comparatively tiny budget is exactly what we need in a president. Knows how to get the most bang for the buck. Will cut wasteful spending in Washington like a scythe through wheat if he has a mandate and popular support to do it.

  18. I’m curious about those who support Hillary. Why? I can’t think of a single redeeming feature. That can’t be right. She has to have some good qualities, qualifications, etc.

    • David Springer

      If you believe that US federal government is corrupt and purchased by whatever special interests pony up the most money, and you have no real problem with that, then Hillary has by far the most experience at it. Trump didn’t nickname her “Cr00ked Hillary” for no good reason. She’s as bent as bent gets.

    • Her looks?

  19. The gang stats are notoriously unreliable, I mean how many gang members fill out questionnaires asking how many murders by fire arm did you commit this year? Blacks comprise 12% of the population in the US. On guns in the US, here is the main point:

    Most troubling, though, was the rate difference between ethnicities: firearm-related fatality rates for African-Americans were twice as high as the reported rates for Caucasians.

    http://www.newsweek.com/gun-deaths-us-twice-high-among-african-americans-caucasians-273071

    • David Springer

      Yeah along with the fact that blacks commit homicide at 8 times the rate of whites… ironically their victims are 8 times as likely to be black. We need to be candid about the problem before we can solve. Inner city black culture needs to be systematically disassembled by any means necessary for the good of everyone and none more so than inner city blacks who are their own worst enemy.

      • Danny Thomas

        “any means necessary”. Please. Do tell us more.

      • What are you Danny, 12, or is it just that you are a twit.

      • Danny Thomas

        My chronological age includes 12. Twit at times, sure. But here, in this context, I’m much more than the two choices you offered.

        Why do you have such an issue with my challenges to those who offer unsubstantiated assertions? (This is a much better question than yours by the way). Arm waving elsewhere is frowned upon. Yet gains so much acceptance in these political threads as much from you as any.

      • It’s not a contest Danny, and what you call challenges often appear to be little more than you trying to show us how bright you are.

        You seem bent on becoming the new Josh.

      • Danny Thomas

        Tim,

        This is a political forum, not a science forum. I’m not all about echo chambers. Many have expressed faith based decision making. This is not in my comfort zone. Many have made cases for Trump yet those cases are based on little in the policy realm. The amazing part to me is watching the science oriented discussions which rail on the ‘faith based’ orientation of those more climate concerned yet here, when I do exactly that, you wish to castigate me for doing so. So Tim, next time someone goes against someone who professes their ‘faith’ in the CAGW I’ll be looking for you to call them on it.

        That in and of itself is interesting. Dontcha think?

        A double standard is not a good look.

      • David Springer

        Hey Danny, I’ll bite. Channeling my British ancestors I’m thinking penal colonies might work. Surely we can purchase some sh*t-hole country in Africa and turn it into a giant prison. Hire locals to run it. It will save us the astounding cost of prisons here in the states and make recidivism someone else’s problem since few of the inmates will have the means to get back to the hood upon release.

        Or we could try things like education and jobs programs that require relocation out of the inner city and contract forbidding a return. Combine that with draconian law enforcement and instead of banning soft drinks served in large cups and added salt by restaurants ban fried chicken and watermelon.

  20. The truth about Billary supporters is that a significant number of them consider the law to be an inconvenient nuisance. They just don’t care if Billary is a cr1m1nal, in fact a significant number are cr1m1nals themselves.

    From the article:

    A Washington Post/ABC News poll, released Monday, found that 56% of American adults disapprove of the FBI’s decision, while 35% said they approved. But a majority — 58% — also said the issue would not affect their vote in the 2016 presidential election.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/

    • David Springer

      Substituting one letter for another here and there does wonders for keeping posts out of moderation, huh? A famil1ar convention for me. ;-)

  21. From the article:

    Neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor President Barack Obama mentioned “Islam” or “radical Islam” in their responses to the Nice terror attack on Thursday.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/nice-neither-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-mention-islam/

    • David Springer

      Yes despite the driver shouting “allahu akbar” (translated to english from raghead: allah is great) they weren’t sure if it was related to Islam or not.

      /sarc

  22. @jim2 | July 15, 2016 at 11:42 am | in moderation

  23. How Billary compares to other cr1m1nals:

    http://bit.ly/29AAIWT

    • From the article:

      A few years ago I was running a company and we caught a couple of people embezzling. A top tech guy with complete access to our computer system got in cahoots with the financial controller. An affair was involved. Federal prosecutors will tell you this kind of nasty collusion is rampant these days. They were systematically looting our cash flow, and, given their respective positions, able to cover their tracks. When they found out I was bringing in more financial oversight (the tech guy had tapped into my email) they knew the jig was up.

      If You’re Going to Commit a Crime, Destroy the Evidence
      Unknown to anyone, they began destroying evidence as fast as they could. They ordered a shredder (yes, at company expense) and had it shipped to the controller’s apartment, where they furiously disintegrated satchels full of documents they had spirited from the office: financial records, expense reports, receipts—everything incriminating. The tech guy, a long-term, highly trusted employee, wiped everything, including backups.

  24. I am curious– who really believes the Left give 2 schitts about what happens in France? If Left really believes CO2 is the big problem and the future of Earth hangs in the balance, shouldn’t Left want America to be more like France– e.g., use nuclear power plants to generate 86% of our power instead of 20%? The Left, of course, only hates it that America has nuclear power and the only reason the Left pretends to care what happens in France is because France despises the US. All of the Eurocommies hate America.

    • The Greenies across the Pond want France to use less nuclear and more whirlygigs and solar panels. They truly are id10ts.

    • Waggy

      After the leftwards turn of the US in recent years I am not sure that much of Europe is too much different to America any longer. Euro commies? No. euro socialists, yes, sometimes

      Tonyb

      • Tony

        What evidence do you use to quantify a leftward turn in the U.S.?

      • Bernie Sanders?

        tonyb

      • One, losing candidate tells you that the whole country has shifted leftward?

        What shift the bevy of R candidates that were all to the right of Romney?

      • David Springer

        Joshua | July 15, 2016 at 5:21 pm |

        One, losing candidate tells you that the whole country has shifted leftward?

        What shift the bevy of R candidates that were all to the right of Romney?

      • David Springer

        J0shua | July 15, 2016 at 5:21 pm |

        One, losing candidate tells you that the whole country has shifted leftward?

        What shift the bevy of R candidates that were all to the right of Romney?

      • David Springer

        climatereason | July 15, 2016 at 3:09 pm | Reply
        Waggy

        “After the leftwards lefttards turn of the US”

        Fixed that for ya!

  25. From the article:

    The chief police witness in Parliament said that an investigating officer, tears streaming down his face, rushed out of the Bataclan and vomited in front of him just after seeing the disfigured bodies.

    According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

    http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/

  26. How is a presidential discussion possible in the absence of presidential-caliber candidates?

    • …what is an example of a presidential-caliber candidate and does your example survive the reality test of getting votes?

    • David Springer

      Yes I’m curious too. What do you imagine is presidential-caliber?

      Both candidates are qualified being they are over 35 years of age, native born Americans, and having been residents longer than 14 years.

      I could’ve picked a better president than Obama by throwing a dart while blindfolded at a list of Houston dock workers. Maybe not San Francisco dock workers though, if you get my drift.

  27. Best thing about the linked article:

    (a trait that isn’t what it sounds like — we’ll get to that)

    Fyi– “Psychoticism is a personality pattern typified by aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility. High levels of this trait were believed by Eysenck to be linked to increased vulnerability to psychosis such as schizophrenia.” ~wiki

    Now we know what it is that drives the Left to eschew the scientific method, preferring instead to create a make-believe world where CO2 is a poison that causes runaway global warming and then indulge in the fiction of man-caused climate catastrophism.

  28. stevenreincarnated

    The Turkish military +10.

  29. Climate change department closed by Theresa May in ‘plain stupid’ and ‘deeply worrying’ move
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html

    Greenpeace said it was concerned that the new Government did not view climate change as a serious threat..

    John Sauven, the campaign group’s executive director, said: “The voting record and affiliation with climate sceptics of key cabinet appointees are deeply worrying.

    “They show a lack of understanding posed by climate change to the UK and the world.”

    Green Party MP Caroline Lucas described the decision as “deeply worrying”.

    “Climate change is the biggest challenge we face, and it must not be an afterthought for the Government,” she said.

    Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth: “This is shocking news. Less than a day into the job and it appears that the new Prime Minister has already downgraded action to tackle climate change, one of the biggest threats we face.”

    Stephen Devlin, an environmental economist at the New Economics Foundation: “This reshuffle risks dropping climate change from the policy agenda altogether – a staggering act of negligence for which we will all pay the price.”

  30. Has the Democratic Party evolved into a national version of Tammany Hall? I can see several similarities: the tolerance of corruption, the loosening of immigration laws to develop loyalty from specific ethnic/religious groups, the dolling out of patronage benefits (aka welfare) to their loyal supporters, and the fomenting of racial/political violence. It took forever to get rid of Tammany Hall’s grip on the boroughs of New York–it seems that eventually their leaders just became too corrupt to be tolerated. Reformers from within the Democratic Party eventually finished them off, but, sadly, I see no desire for reform from within the current Democratic Party.,

    In the meantime, let’s just hope that the violence in Cleveland next week does not surpass the 1863 draft riots.

    • David Springer

      +1

    • Has the Democratic Party evolved into a national version of Tammany Hall?

      Nope.

      It was always that way.

      If you doubt, take a look at the details around the nomination of John Kennedy. Consider who his father was.

  31. David Springer

    The two Americans, father and son killed in the Nice terrorist attack, live just a few miles from me on the same small lake. I can’t imagine the wife and other two children flying home with the bodies.

    Obama then comes on TV today and talks about everyone just needing to hold hands and be nice to each other. He’s a starry-eyed imbecile. A typical libtard in other words. This is the result of eight years of failed leadership by the so-called leader of the free world and policies that do not work. Obama chickens are coming home to roost.

    Vote Trump now more than ever.

    • Danny Thomas

      David,

      Too much kool-aid is bad for ya.

      What did Trump say just a few days ago?: “This is a time, perhaps more than ever, for strong leadership, love and compassion. We will pull through these tragedies.”

      Guess he shoulda left out the love and compassion part, huh?

      • Quit being a putz Danny.

      • Danny Thomas

        How in the world, after David chose to castigate Obama for saying much the same as Trump did just a few days ago so I reminded him of same, does that make me a putz?

        Call out David for the way he portrayed things or consider stopping ‘putzing’ yourself. Double standards are not a good look.

      • David Springer

        Danny Thomas | July 15, 2016 at 7:28 pm | Reply

        “Too much kool-aid is bad for ya.”

        Sounds reasonable. Voice of experience talking?

      • David Springer

        Trump didn’t actually say that. It was a press release. I sincerely doubt he wrote it either. It doesn’t sound like something he’d say.

        https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement

        Regardless, the context for love and compassion wasn’t reaching out with love and compassion towards terrorists. Duh.

      • Danny Thomas

        Trump didn’t actually say that? Hmm. Someone oughta tell his campaign and web site admin. It kinda says ‘Donald J. Trump Statement’. Maybe it’s a problem with the reporting.

        Surely you don’t think Obama was reaching out with a hug to terrorists. Maybe you did and your ‘Duh’ was mislocated.

      • Springer is Springer. Learn to read between the lines instead of playing hall monitor.

      • Danny Thomas

        TimG56,
        Yes indeed he is. But reading between the lines I’ve been taught here, is fraught with potential issues.

        From my perspective, I’ve asked for specifics and received little. It’s entertaining that you’ll defend his approach and deny me mine. Why might that be? Could there be a ‘confirmational bias’ in play? You find me ‘foolish’ (Twit, was your word choice) for wanting to nail down the ‘real’ Trump before I decide for whom to vote.

        Clinton has too many warts to support outright. Trump is more of an unknown. Asking to know more about the unknown is opposite of foolishness (unless you are all about the big C in CAGW….are you?). And you know that.

      • “Surely you don’t think Obama was reaching out with hugs to terrorists?”

        You mean the guy who keeps releasing terrorists from Gitmo?

      • Danny Thomas

        Speaking of changing subjects:
        “A report from the Director of National Intelligence says, as of July 15, 2015, that 17.9 percent, or 117 of all 653 detainees released from Guantanamo since it opened in 2002, have been confirmed of reengaging in terrorist activities. Another 79 detainees, or 12.1 percent, are suspected of having returned to terrorist activities based on “plausible but unverified or single-source reporting.”
        That’s 30 percent, as Christie said. But it spans two presidents, not just the current one as the ad implies. Christie is heard in the ad saying “30 percent of the people the president has released from Guantanamo.”
        How many of the detainees released under Obama have returned to terrorist activities?
        The September 2015 national intelligence report said that 4.9 percent, or six of the 121 detainees released since Jan. 22, 2009, two days after Obama was sworn into office, have been “confirmed of reengaging” in terrorist activities, and another 4.9 percent are “suspected of reengaging.” That’s a total of nearly 10 percent.
        On the other hand, almost 35 percent or 184 of the 532 detainees released under President George W. Bush have been confirmed or are suspected of returning to terrorist activities.”

        Try again Tim. Obama, while maybe not the finest president ever is not the sole blame for all the evils in the world. Try some facts and stop with the unsupported assertions which are in fact in error.
        http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/christie-pac-wrong-about-gitmo/

        and the actual source: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GTMO%20Sept_2015.pdf

        How many have been ‘hugged’ by a drone under Obama? Some say as many as 30,000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/president-obama-likes-to-brag-about-the-terrorists-he-has-taken-out-how-many-is-that-exactly/

        And bringing this back to the conversation at hand, how does Obama’s use of ‘love and compassion’ (not directed towards terrorists) not compare with Trump’s use of same (also, not directed towards terrorists).

        I remind you again that a double standard is not a good look.

        Sheesh.

      • David Springer

        You’ve already decided you won’t vote for Trump, Danny. Stop pretending otherwise by asking for more policy specifics. It’s like if I was saying I might donate money to #BlackLivesMatter if they would be more specific about their goals. Duh.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        Well then you know more than I do as I’ve not decided for whom I’ll vote.

        Look, I’ve stated too many times I’m an Independent. Socially liberal, fiscally pretty darn conservative.

        Making the case for Hillary’s qualifications (and they are IMO unquestionable both good and bad) is just a sheet of paper and a pro/con column.

        I don’t have the same kind of information about Trump, for who your bromance is abundantly clear. What I have isn’t any more/less attractive than Hillary (but he’s more entertaining). I think I could live with Kasich. I’d like a Jon Huntsman type guy if I could choose.

        Stop with the crystal ball nonsense. You have no idea.

        And maybe a well off person such as yourself could prove an fine example of ‘reaching across the aisle’, as it were. Please do donate. It might come across as an olive branch no matter which ‘side’ one is on.

      • David Springer

        Get a clue, Danny.

        http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-hussein-obama-islam-christianity/

        You’re in denial. Barry Soetoro has consistently defended Islam since his childhood in Indonesia where he was indoctrinated.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Barry Soetoro has consistently defended Islam since his childhood in Indonesia where he was indoctrinated.”

        You do realize there is some percentage, 1% I see, who are Islamic in the U.S. Not a high percentage but some 3.3 million real live people.

        Which ‘group’ should he not defend?

        Oh, and from the first ‘outrageous quote’: (context anyone?)

        “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. ”

        See ‘the future’ and wonder why the Islam segment was selected. Cherries?

        “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. (Applause.)

        The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

        The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

      • David Springer

        Shocking news. This morning’s Baton Rouge cop killer was a former Nation of Islam member. Maybe he didn’t pay his dues or something and got kicked out of the club. His marksmanship however is courtesy of the United States Marine Corps. You really have to be careful with pissed off jarheads…

      • David Springer

        Danny Thomas | July 17, 2016 at 11:10 pm |

        “You do realize there is some percentage, 1% I see, who are Islamic in the U.S. Not a high percentage but some 3.3 million real live people.”

        “Which ‘group’ should he not defend?”

        Muslims. Every last goddamn one of them. They’re free to practice it so long as they break no laws and the rest of us are free to hate it for the misogynistic intolerant phucked up cancer on the face of creation that it really is.

        Got it?

      • David Springer

        I am SO sick and tired of being told I have to be tolerant of all religious beliefs like they’re all equal and good. Some are just plain f*cked up. Islam is one of those. Positive atheism is at least as harmful and is more widely practiced. The problem with it is there’s no absolute moral authority. No guiding force and ultimately no judgment or accountability other than peers. Muslims at least have an absolute moral authority that transcends peers. The problem is that the morals are messed up and incompatible with a western Christian democracy. Like or lump it the US is a Christian nation and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m not a practicing Christian myself but I can sort out the good from the bad in belief systems and Christianity demonstrably produces a culture that works well all things considered. Countries where the Protestant reformation took hold have produced the highest living standards in the world today. Never argue with success.

      • Danny

        This is not a lecture, just some self examination and reflections on your comment.

        “Look, I’ve stated too many times I’m an Independent. Socially liberal, fiscally pretty darn conservative.”

        I, too, am socially liberal and fiscally pretty darn conservative. But I am certainly not Independent. I cannot conceive of being independent any more I don’t even know what socially liberal means any longer. What court rulings, Federal, state or local laws or institutional reforms need to be enacted that have’t been to reflect liberal values? That was not the case 60 years ago. But now what public policy changes should a Liberal be pushing for today? I don’t know. We have spent over $50 Trillion since the LBJ Great Society began and have we progressed as a civilized society? Recent events make me wonder. The early years of my college years were spent studying the social sciences in the early 1960s, with hopes of being a social worker or psychologist. How could anyone at that point in our history and attuned to the awakening of the Civil Rights era not be a bona fide Liberal. And so I was.

        I was stationed in the South while in the Army in 1967 and spent a good deal of time in a small town in South Carolina. Being from the North, I was aghast at a “Negro” walking off the sidewalk into the street as he approached me. I was revulsed seeing the “colored” drinking fountains and the sign on the local theater with a sign “colored up stairs” I delighted at their squealing delight when the blacks in the balcony reacted to Sydney Poitier slapping the white plantation owner in “In the Heat of the Night”. I said to myself “Right On”. How could there still be this stuff going on, I asked myself. After all LBJ got all that wonderful legislation through. You mean the South hasn’t changed in those 2 years? Gee, apparently legislation and the best of intentions don’t always change things overnight.

        Now what do Liberals stand for? Censoring free speech with ad hominem attacks resembling tactics in North Korea. Being the thought police with attacks of racism, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist against anyone having a different public policy proscription than the most virulent Liberal view. Use of those words have driven them into being meaningless. Liberal today means being for spending Billions more each year without even pausing to wonder about the efficacy of all the social program spending. If you are against increased spending for social programs, apparently you are a racist. Thus is the simpleton kind of thinking.

        Not all solutions originate in DC. Cultural evolution comes at glacial speed.
        I no longer buy into this utopian belief in the perfectibility of the human species. In our core we are little different than we were thousands of years ago. Enacting more so called “progressive legislation” is not going to change that.

      • Danny Thomas

        Cerescokid,
        Thank you.

        Hopefully, from this social liberal, you’ve not witnessed “Being the thought police with attacks of racism, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist against anyone having a different public policy proscription than the most virulent Liberal view.” If so, a lecture is due to me.

        On one of these threads I’d posted something similar to: http://qpolitical.com/north-carolinas-new-welfare-rules-are-causing-a-stir-across-america/
        which I support to some extent. If my money goes to ‘assist’ another it seems reasonable to ask for them to participate in the process. I’m a believer in a leg up and not a hand out (with caveats, of course).

        “Enacting more so called “progressive legislation” is not going to change that.” What we need is removal of the label ‘progressive’ as it carries connotations. ‘Common sense’ would be an improvement.

        The mix of welfare with work (not welfare to work) is a classic representation of how I perceive myself. I don’t give a buck to the guy with the cardboard sign on the roadside who brings home $60-$70k tax free in an all cash business, but I do support alternates.
        http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-do-panhandlers-make-new-york-city-homeless-man-earns-200-hour-sitting-2181312

        Much of my issue with the Trump candidacy (from where this all leads) is I have no idea of his preferences. Yet I do see (of course unverified as we don’t have returns) that he’s not adverse to utilizing ‘the system’ himself. It’s an opinion piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-the-welfare-king/2016/05/23/154310f4-2121-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

        And to be clear, it’s fine for him to do so. We use the tools we’re provided and make them work for us as best we can. Self interest and good business.

        I learn from you guys all the time. Don’t always agree (obviously) but I read. And that leads me to look further.

      • Danny

        Being the thought police. No, I’ve never seen anything from you indicating you are part of the thought police. I was taking myself on my journey from Liberal then pausing shortly at independent to being a conservative not able to vote Democratic no matter who the Republican candidate is.

        I’m an arithmetic conservative. If the numbers don’t work, they don’t work. The growth of Debt is far worse than we had post WWII and the outlook for GDP being able to handle the Debt is dire. The call by Liberals to increase taxes on the rich as a way to reduce the annual deficit is a pipe dream. Having millionaires pay the same effective tax rate as they did when the top marginal tax raate was 91% would reduce the deficit by only 25%.

        I also find Trump’s plan to grow the economy enough to address the Debt wishful thinking. I agree with him that growing the economy is the best way to reduce the Debt. IF we could grow the economy. I just think we have approached a new phase in global economic growth when nothing can produce the level of real GDP growth that we experienced in the 20th century.

      • The growth of Debt is far worse than we had post WWII and the outlook for GDP being able to handle the Debt is dire.

        How do you distinguish between “Debt” and “money”?

      • AK
        The debt service costs are virtually the same as 20 years ago even though Debt Held by the Public has gone from $3 trillion to $14 trillion. Zero interest rate policies are masking the potential impact on the budget. When, not if interest rates normalize, there will be a race to have growth in the economy and tax revenue outpace growth of interest payments. If we return to 20th century real growth levels then no problem. I’m not convinced the productivity record back then was not a one off experience. Japan uses 40% of their tax revenue to pay interest costs of their debt. Money that could be used more efficiently by the private sector or by government for other purposes.

  32. Poll: Nearly half of Sanders’s millennial supporters would vote third-party
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287708-poll-nearly-half-of-sanders-millennial-supporters-would

    The poll — which asked Sanders supporters whether the Vermont senator’s endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton changed their opinion — found that 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for a third-party option.

    Another 39 percent said they would support Clinton and 13 percent said they may support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.

    • Danny Thomas

      And they should be. Interestingly, many who say they’ll vote for Clinton is because she’s ‘not Trump’.

      • And a lot of people in the gutted mid-section of the country will vote for Trump because he’s “not Dimowit.”

  33. From the article:

    The 28th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs shows that “76 percent” of respondents believe armed citizens reduce violent crime.
    An even higher percentage–nearly 88–stated their conviction that “any vetted citizen” should be able to purchase a gun “for sport or self-defense.”

    According to the survey, nearly “87 percent” of police chiefs support national reciprocity of concealed carry permits. National reciprocity would treat concealed carry permits like a driver’s license, making the concealed carry permit of any state valid in every state. This would do away the headaches law-abiding citizens get by trying to remember which states recognize their permit and which do not. It would also make life easier for patrol officers during a traffic stop by giving them a more unified set of permit rules to remember.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/07/15/survey-police-chiefs-76-percent-say-armed-citizens-help-cops-fight-crime/

  34. I think their new logo is supposed to represent what they want to do to America.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-logo-criticized_us_57891d63e4b0867123e115a0?section=

  35. Devoted to one of the world’s most beautiful cities and its kind and gentle people, I have been visiting for nearly half a century.

    • Vuk

      We intend to visit Nice this Autumn in order to show solidarity with the French. Its many years since we were last there-transiting through the place on our honeymoon in Corsica some 35 years ago.

      Tonyb

  36. Nice combines the best of the French and Italian culture and cuisine (except for the local ‘socca’, best avoided). Nice is the Garibaldi’s birth place and it was ruled by the dukes of Savoy before they became kings of Italy. Referendum to move from Italy to France is surrounded by a bit of controversy since Garibaldi claimed that the vote was rigged by the French.
    The current mayor Christian Estrosi (of Italian origin, recently elected as the president of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region) has done lot for the city during his time in the office. As a republican, he was overruled on a number of controversial matters by the socialists from Paris.
    Young Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (26 year old, highly intelligent granddaughter of the old and a now senile Jean-Marie Le Pen) was a formidable NF challenger for the post of the regional president.

  37. French minister: Nice killer radicalized ‘very quickly’
    https://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/4483284-french-minister-nice-killer-radicalized-very-quick.html#.1258-stage-hero1-1

    NICE, France (AP) — French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve says that the truck driver who killed 84 people when he careened into a crowd at a fireworks show was “radicalized very quickly.” Speaking to journalists at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Cazeneuve said Saturday that the case demonstrated the “extreme difficulty of the fight against terrorism.”

  38. Trump’s Expected VP: Governor Who Defied Obama’s Climate Agenda
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp

    hpf=1&a_id=145673&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-07-15&utm_content=&utm_campaign=feature_2

    Republican Donald Trump’s selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate cheered the U.S. energy industry and dismayed green advocates, with both sides citing Pence’s support for coal mining and defiance of President Barack Obama’s climate-change agenda.

    Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called climate change a hoax and promised to gut U.S. environmental regulations in order to help the ailing oil and coal sectors. A Trump-Pence ticket will quash any expectation that the New York businessman might soften that stance heading into the Nov. 8 election….

    In June 2015, Pence wrote to Obama saying that Indiana, America’s eighth largest coal-producing state, would not comply with the Clean Power Plan regulating power plant emissions, calling it “ill-advised.”

    In 2014, Pence alarmed local environmental groups by overturning an energy efficiency program enacted by his Republican predecessor, Mitch Daniels, saying it was too expensive for the state’s manufacturers. The Indiana Public Utility Commission had estimated the program would create more than 18,600 jobs.

    “The choice of Pence shows Trump has little interest in appealing to anyone outside of his extremist base and Big Polluters,” said Clay Schroers, a director at the League of Conservation Voters environmental group.

    Trump has long signaled his support of traditional energy production – part of his broader appeal to blue-collar American voters.

    He outlined plans in May to sweep away environmental regulations ushered in by Obama, scrap the Paris Climate Accord, and revive the Keystone XL pipeline proposal – moves that would reverse years of gains by the green movement.

    Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has promised more stringent regulation of the energy sector, efforts to boost renewable fuels use, and a commitment to join other nations to combat global climate change.

  39. Clinton’s own idea to fight terrorists would leave her out:

    “Clinton proposed an “intelligence surge” as one way to fight the radical jihadists.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/14/clinton_on_nice_we_need_to_launch_an_intelligence_surge_this_is_a_war_against_radical_jihadist_groups.html

  40. Muhammad 101:

    U.S. anti-jihad agencies have jailed or arrested 101 men since 2001 who are named for Muhammad

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/hold-anti-terror-agencies-have-jailed-arrested-101-muhammads-since-911/

  41. Delegate Donald:

    • I hate to break the bad news to you, Willard, but the Bush-Romney-Bill Kristol wing of the Republican Party lost:

      VIDEO: The ‘Never Trump’ Movement is “Nevermore”
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/15/_manafort_the_never_trump_movement_is_nevermore.html

      Heck, it didn’t even score enough votes to put a minority report on the agenda.

      • > I hate […]

        Your hate is duly noted, Glenn.

        Some more news on Delegate Donald has yet to overturn the decision of federal judges, this time five days later:

        A federal judge struck down an obscure element of Virginia’s presidential primary laws Monday, handing a symbolic victory to a Republican National Convention delegate who has refused to support [Delegate Donald]. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne permanently barred Virginia from enforcing a law that requires a winner-take-all system in which the first-place finisher of the GOP primary would technically be entitled to all 49 of the state’s delegates. The statute conflicts with the Republican Party’s primary rules, which allocate Virginia’s delegates proportionally based on the primary results.

        http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_d98ac087-7c75-5d60-9eb0-3b2b17dcbc16.html

        While we turn it to lawyers, some more on the Donald Squad:

    • David Springer

      I hate to break it to you Willard but the goal is to get the current establishment on both sides out of Washington. Or at least make examples of enough of them that the rest get with the program.

      Say wasn’t it hilarious how Pence leaked [the news of VP choice] where he shouldn’t have like a puppy that hasn’t been house trained yet? Then Trump put out a campaign logo that looks like Trump letting Pence have it where the sun doesn’t shine? Boys will be boys. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would have approved that logo without seeing the symbology. Hilarious. It lasted less than 24 hours. Possibly less time than the Star of David.

      • David Springer

        The Star of David by the way was a secret message for Hillary that Trump’s real top advisors are his Jewish daughter and Jewish son-in-law. There goes the banking industry, Hollywood, and Florida among other things. And don’t forget Jews are the original Muslim haters. They invented it.

      • Danny Thomas

        Don’t take the bait David (warning, commentary follows):

        “Or at least make examples of enough of them that the rest get with the program.”
        Now, if we only knew that ‘the program’ is.

      • David Springer

        I know what the program is. I tried to spoon feed it to you but you kept making faces and spitting it out. Not my problem.

  42. The Trump party (formally GOP) has an interesting political platform:
    Source, Time Magazine story, 7/11/16.
    Among the provisions is an assessment that internet pornography is a “public health crisis.”
    “Pornography, with his harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing,” the amendment stated.

    An amendment offered by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in the subcommittee on healthcare, education, and crime offered support for the controversial practice of “conversion therapy” for children who identify as LGBT.
    “We support the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children,” the amendment said. Perkins originally drafted a more explicit embrace of the practice, but amended the text after consultations with top RNC officials. Perkins’ amendment, which passed the subcommittee and subsequently the full committee.

    Observations:
    If we can figure out how to remove porn from the internet why not other types of content like Islam or Mormonism? Beginning with the assumption that anyone producing or consuming Porn is a social deviant (like drug addicts and LGBT people) there will be at least 1/2 the citizens that must be be identified from the general population. Will it be another War on Drugs boondoggle? Will they try to implement a mass conversion therapy program?
    It seems the two should be related. Somebody should do some scientific research to perfect this conversion therapy technology, it could come in handy for other social diseases like having the wrong ideology.

    • It’s not Trump, one must recall, who signed DOMA.

      That was Bill Clinton.

      And while there are certainly a large number of LGBTs who walk in lockstep with the Democratic Party, that trait is not universal. There are still a handful — maybe 25% — who will vote Republican, and who are skeptical of the “historical truths” proclaimed by the Clinton Ministry of Truth:

      More Activists Dispute Hillary Clinton’s DOMA History
      http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/10/26/more-activists-dispute-hillary-clintons-doma-history

      Disappointment with Hillary Clinton’s version of how the Defense of Marriage Act became law is bubbling into public conversation among activists.

      During an interview with Rachel Maddow on Friday, Clinton described her husband signing DOMA in 1996 as a “defensive action,” meant to stave off passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

      But that’s not how activists on the ground remember the fateful law’s passage.

      “It’s just not true,” wrote Michelangelo Signorile in a column today for The Huffington Post. “There was no talk, among activists, antigay forces or politicians, of a constitution amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA.”

      • I’m Pro conversion therapy technology and I hope you are too Glenn. Please, for your own safety and the future of our children support this important government initiative.

      • David Springer

        Conversion therapy could help a lot of people if it works. Why not let individuals decide if they want to try it or not? What if there were assh0le conversion therapy. You’d probably want people like me to have it available, right, in the unlikely event I find myself not wanting to be an assh0le anymore? It’s not easy being a dick in our society. I’m looked down upon, people don’t want me around, and so forth and so on. I’m persecuted. You probably think I’m an assh0le by choice. If it were a choice who would make it and why? So imagine it isn’t a choice but something I can’t change. Assh0les are born that way. If an LGBT person can be born that way and others should accept them why can’t assh0les find the same public support? It’s cruel, unfair world.

    • There are at least a couple of places where Trump and Pence part ways.

      One is on trade:

      Pence pick poses challenge on trade
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-trade/

      Another is LGBT issues:

      Trump And Pence Face Divide On Women’s Health And LGBT Issues
      http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/485862409/donald-trump-and-vp-pick-pence-face-divide-on-womens-health-lgbt-issues

      Trump has said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but according to the New York Times, he has “nurtured long friendships with gay people, employed gay workers in prominent positions, and moved with ease in industries where gays have long exerted influence, like entertainment.”

      Trump also said in an NBC interview that he opposed North Carolina’s ban on individuals using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex.

      Pence has been more hard-nosed on LGBT rights. In 2015, he signed a “religious freedom” bill in Indiana that critics argued would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBT people on the basis of religious freedom. After facing backlash, Pence signed an amended version into law.

  43. From the article:

    “But who are millennials?” she said. “Now we are finding out that they are living with their parents.”

    “They don’t have the initiative to go out and find a little apartment and grow a tomato plant on the terrace,” said Stewart, who is 74 and still working full-time.

    “I understand the plight of younger people,” she said. “The economic circumstances out there are very grim.”

    “But you have to work for it,” said Stewart. “You have to strive for it. You have to go after it.”

    Stewart further said, “I got married at 19 and I immediately got an apartment and I fixed it up. I was very proud of everything I did. I got the furniture at auctions for pennies. Beautiful furniture. My apartments were lovely and homey and comfortable.”

    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/200-million-martha-stewart-millennials-you-have-work-it-you-have-go-after-it

    • Danny Thomas

      What? No trophies (all equal) just for participation? Ya gotta work for it?

      Before we get all warm and fuzzy, the next statement is who’s initially responsible the students or the teachers? I blame the teachers.

    • David Springer

      Y’all heard sayings like 60 is the new 40 giving which gives a nod to modern 60 year-olds being as healthy as yesteryear’s 40 year-olds.

      Well so far the way I have it figured is that 30 is the new 20 when it comes to becoming a self-supporting adult. Nothing to be worried about these kids will likely live to an average age over 90. They have an easy extra ten years of life on the front end to spend at home with their loving baby boomer parents.

    • In Mexico they call them generaton NiNi:

      For those from the younger generation, they are NiNis by choice. But for older folks, given the dire state of the Mexican economy, they are NiNis because they were forced out of the labor force. It’s the worst of all worlds.

  44. David Springer

    Just out. LA Times Poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 43:40

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-lat-tracking-poll-20160705-snap-story.html

    Interesting. Along with the CBS/NYT poll that’s both the two biggest libtard rags in the nation with Trump ahead or tied respectively. That’s gotta hurt.

    And Hillary has outspent Trump in campaign advertising by a factor of 40 so far. What then happens when The Donald’s machine starts rolling? It’s gonna be a slaughter.

    The Democrats are the ones that need to pull a fast-one at the convention and somehow replace Hillary. The Establishment that let her be the nominee by seniority rather than quality phucked up big-time. That bitch’s baggage has baggage.

    • David Springer: LA Times Poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 43:40

      In 1973 Republican Howard Baker of the Senate Watergate Committee asked this question: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”.

      Now an equally serious question is “What did the Secretary of State know and when did she know it?” The true answer is potentially as serious to H. Clinton’s public support as the true answer to Baker’s question proved serious to Nixon’s public support. As with Clinton (at least so far) party politics practiced by Republicans in power protected Nixon from indictment and trial. As with Clinton (at least so far) Nixon admitted (somewhat belatedly) to a “mistake”, when the details supported an indictment. Clinton looks as guilty of a crime to me now as Nixon looked guilty of a crime to me back then. Also like the case of Nixon, Clinton has been spared the ordeal of testifying under oath and for the record. I am a little surprised by liberal friends of mine from that era, who agreed that Nixon had committed a crime and not just a “mistake”, who are giving Clinton a pass on this.

      I am hoping that the poll results come from the details of the email debacle sinking into more and more of the public consciousness. AG Lynch may believe that there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” (FBI director Comer) and “gross negligence” (text of the law). I doubt that a majority of voters are so inclined.

      • let me rephrase something. Republican party politics protected Nixon from indictment; so far, Democratic party politics has protected Clinton from indictment.

  45. From the article:

    [Dreamlike Donald]’s introduction of Mike Pence was shocking. Forget the political mainstream. What happened today sat outside the mainstream for normal human behavior.

    It began in irony. Before Pence, before [Dreamlike Donald], there was an empty podium, and the Rolling Stones blasting through the speakers. It had been widely reported that few top Republicans were willing to serve as [Dreamlike Donald]’s running mate. It had been widely reported that [Dreamlike Donald] was unsure about Pence, that he had regretted the decision almost as soon as he made it, that he had sought ways to reverse himself. Hours before the announcement, [Dreamlike Donald] tweeted that Pence was “my first choice from the start!”, which is a thing presidential candidates typically do not need to say.

    […]

    What started as farce continued as farce. [Dreamlike Donald] emerged without Pence. He spoke, alone, at a podium adorned with [Dreamlike Donald]’s name, but not Pence’s. And then [Dreamlike Donald] proceeded to talk about himself for 28 minutes. There is no other way to say this than to say it: it was the single most bizarre, impulsive, narcissistic performance I have ever seen from a major politician.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/16/12205878/donald-trump-mike-pence-vp-speech

    From the tweet:

    • The Rolling Stones song played before this was reported to be “You Can’t Always Get What you Want”. Is someone sending a message?

    • Danny Thomas

      Really? You bringing this kinda stuff here? ” and insofar as the presidential campaign is a test to see who has the character, the discipline, and the seriousness to be President of the United States,”

      /sarc

  46. From the article:

    On July 12, DeSoto, Texas, police said they issued a report on a robber who entered a Waffle House with an AK-47, only to be shot and critically wounded by an armed customer with a handgun.

    The incident occurred about 2:30 a.m., and according to The Dallas Morning News, police reports witness accounts that a 26-year-old man entered the Waffle House with an AK-47 and “robbed numerous people as well as the business.” One of the patrons was an armed concealed carry permit holder, and out of concern for his wife, he followed the armed robber into the parking lot — the concealed permit holder’s wife was on her way to the restaurant.

    The concealed permit holder said he “called out” to get the robber’s attention and the robber turned, pointing the AK-47 at him. The permit holder “then shot the robber several times.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/waffle-house-ak-47-life-support/

  47. About Pence, I don’t think it matters so much what the Democrats are saying about him. He will appeal to what Trump needs most. The base. The Democrats can preach to their choir all they want, Trump needs the base.

  48. Obumbles takes the same approach as Hollande, even worse by saying “love” will defeat the terrorists. Imb1c1le. From the article:

    For French President François Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: “terrorism” or “fanatics”.

    Instead, the French president reaffirms his determination to military actions abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.

    So confronted with this failure of our elite who were elected to guide the country across nationals and internationals dangers, how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?

    In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the “bad” voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not. The elite took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. They also made a choice not to fight Islamism because Muslims vote collectively for this global elite.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8489/france-the-coming-civil-war

    • From the same zionist think tank:

      Upon Wilders’s arrival in New York, a little-known think tank called the Gatestone Institute rolled out the red carpet for him. On April 30, before a select crowd that according to Gatestone’s website had paid $10,000 a head, he held forth on the persecution he had endured during his recent trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination. “This charade that happened in the Netherlands for the last few years could not have happened in your great country,” Wilders said in his speech. Then he cut to the heart of his appeal: “Islam is primarily a dangerous ideology rather than a religion. This is the truth. This violent ideology wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on the whole world, including us—the Kafirs, the non-Muslims…. Islam is the largest threat to freedom which the world is currently facing.”

      https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/

    • No, instead, the French president reaffirms his determination for military actions abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.

      Where have we seen this movie before?

      Spain at her height could do anything. She could exhaust her treasury and forget the poor, her bankrupts, her devalued currency, her incompetent economy, her overvalued currency, her defict spending, her negative trade balance, as long as she could keep herself at the head of the mission agaist the infidel, the Islamic threat and the Protestant threat. But eventually reality caught up and imposed the limits that imperial folly had so easily hurdled over….

      Spain…joined military and economic force to an obsessive belief in their own moral justification… [I]n the case of Spain…the nation overextended its power, postponed solving internal problems, and sacrificed generations. And even when the enemy ceased to be menacing, the desire to use power persisted, inebriatin, addictive.

      — CARLOS FUENTES, The Buried Mirror

      France was a long time in building up to this:

      Riots in France, winter 2005 and spring 2006
      http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/

      On October 27, 2005, two French youths of Malian and Tunisian descent were electrocuted as they fled the police in the Parisian suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. Their deaths sparked nearly three weeks of rioting in 274 towns throughout the Paris region, France, and beyond (see maps, pictures, and graphs here.)

      The rioters, mostly unemployed teenagers from destitute suburban housing projects (the cités HLM) caused over €200 million in damage as they torched nearly 9000 cars and dozens of buildings, daycare centers, and schools. The French police arrested close to 2900 rioters; 126 police and firefighters were injured, and there was one fatality – a bystander who died after being struck by a hooded youth.

      The French government’s response, if not swift, was predictable. Then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy declared a “zero tolerance” policy towards urban violence. A year later, when civil unrest again flared up in the same suburbs – on October 1, 2006 in Les Mureaux, Yvelines, again the result of an incident with the police – Sarkozy returned to the his “law and order” discourse.

      The government’s response in November 2005 and since was amplified by a wide range of commentary that attempted to link the rioting to illegal immigration, Muslim separatism, and polygamous practices.

      In fact, while most of the rioters were second generation immigrant youths, the underlying issues were far more complex, involving social and economic exclusion, racial discrimination, and most importantly the capacity of the French Republic to respond to these challenges while maintaining its distinctive model of and formal commitment to the social integration of individuals, no matter what their color or creed.

      Shortly after the rioting had died down, after the state of emergency was lifted in January 2006, another set of protests broke out, this time in central Paris and other French cities, and now made up largely of white youths. The unrest was in response to a law – the First Employment Contract – that was perceived to compromise job security, lower wages, and the rights of French workers.

      Millions of people demonstrated in the streets, including two mass mobilizations of March 7th and 19th. But there was also extensive and violent rioting by youths, strikes and occupations of French universities, and levels of violence that at moments recalled the suburban unrest several months earlier. As a result of this public pressure, the government revoked its youth employment law.

      Unlike its response to the youth and labor protests in spring 2006, the government has failed to take significant action to address the ever growing crisis of social exclusion and racism affecting the French suburbs. No parliamentary commission has been convoked to understand the riots, and no major governmental policies have been proposed in response to the social problems revealed by the riots. These web essays help us to understand not only the social issues underlying the civil unrest in the suburbs in November 2005, but also the inaction of the government since.

  49. From the article:

    Globalist Obama: Terrorists, Racist Cops Are ‘Chronic Impulses’ to Be Defeated by Global Elites

    Globalist elite cooperation can defeat the “chronic violence” that is caused by real jihadism in France and supposed racism in police forces, President Barack Obama told a roomful of foreign ambassadors July 15.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/obama-globalist-chronic-problem/

  50. From the article:

    Activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios

  51. Documenting Donald’s dissembling:

  52. Demean, Degrade, and Divide Donald:

  53. Danny Thomas

    “If you watch them all, which is a fun thing to do, you’ll see a few actual policy positions; he’s against the Common Core educational standards, and he would use his first day in office to reverse Obama’s executive orders on guns and immigration. But mostly you’ll see macho promises and saccharine platitudes announced with telegenic certitude.”

    “Trump is more of a work in progress, a policy Rorschach test. His vagueness and inconsistency allow voters to fill in his policy blanks, while he stands for unobjectionable things like greatness and strength and winning.”

    Probably a problem with the reporting, or we’re dealing with ‘just a sales guy’. Daddy’s home kids, things will be all….right:
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-policy-2016-hillary-clinton-214058

  54. So do the police treat blacks worse, or better, than they do other racial and ethnic groups?

    The debate goes on:

    On Arrest Filters and Empirical Inferences
    http://rajivsethi.blogspot.mx/2016/07/on-arrest-filters-and-empirical.html

    I’ve been thinking a bit more about Roland Fryer’s working paper on police use of force….

    The analysis in the paper is based on a comparison between the two pools. The arrest pool is 58% black while the shooting pool is 52% black, which is the basis for Fryer’s claim that blacks are less likely to be shot by whites in the raw data. He understands, of course, that there may be differences in behavioral and contextual factors that make the black subset of the arrest pool different from the white, and attempts to correct for this using regression analysis. He reports that doing so “does not significantly alter the raw racial differences.”….

    What Fryer’s paper suggests (if one takes the incident categorization by police at face value) is that at least in Houston, those who would assault or attempt to kill a public safety officer are treated in much the same way, regardless of race.

    But think of the cases that animate the protest movement, for instance the list of eleven compiled here… [I]t doesn’t appear to me that these interactions would have made it past Fryer’s arrest filter had they been handled more professionally.

    The point is this: if there is little or no racial bias in the way police handle genuinely dangerous suspects, but there is bias that leads some mundane interactions to turn potentially deadly, then the kind of analysis conducted by Fryer would not be helpful in detecting it. Which in turn means that the breathless manner in which the paper was initially reported was really quite irresponsible.

    Here are a couple of other studies on whether police treat blacks worse. Folks who frequent this forum will probably find the use of the word “Science” in the title of the first study interesting:

    THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE: RACE, ARRESTS, AND POLICE USE OF FORCE
    http://policingequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CPE_SoJ_Race-Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf

    Police Use of Nonfatal Force, 2002–11
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/punf0211.pdf

    “Police Use of Nonfatal Force” attempts to address the concerns that Sethi raises, but still fails to zero in on the cause as to why more blacks report an experience of police force than whites do. “The researchers cautioned against overgeneralizing their results ‘because we do not know very much about what residents [or the police] did during the interactions that turned forceful’.”

    A Bureau of Justice Statistics Police-Public Contact Survey similarly found less than 2% of respondents said they experienced, during their most recent police encounter, either threat or use of nonfatal force by police. Importantly, the BOJ study was based on interviews with citizens instead of police department reports.

    “That’s the big takeaway that we wanted from our report — it’s is a rare occurrence,” said Shelley S. Hyland, a statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. “It’s hard for people to understand that when there’s a lot of attention on severe incidents of force that happen.”

    Overall, Hyland and her team found 44 million Americans reported having one or more face-to-face contacts with police between the years 2002 and 2011.

    During street stops, 14% of blacks and 6.9% of whites recalled an experience of force, the BOJ statisticians discovered….

    People who had multiple contacts with the police were more likely to report an experience of force, the researchers found….

    Nearly three-fourths of those who said police used force described it as “excessive.” As described by respondents, use of force included shouting, cursing, pushing or grabbing, hitting or kicking, pepper spray, Taser or pointing a gun.

    “Overall, the statistics aren’t terribly different,” said Hyland. She added that since the BOJS survey is based on in-person interviews, it captures the victim’s perspective and includes lesser forms of force, such as verbal threats.

  55. From the article:

    BATON ROUGE – Police have closed streets between Baton Rouge Police Headquarters and I-12 where law enforcement officers have been shot.

    Sources say two Baton Rouge Police officers and one East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office deputy are dead following the shooting. Another officer was critically injured. EBRSO confirmed multiple officers from both BRPD and EBRSO sustained injuries in the shooting and were taken to area hospitals. There is no word yet on the extent of all of the injuries.

    http://www.wbrz.com/news/3-officers-dead-after-shooting-near-brpd-hq

  56. Hollande’s promise to respond militarily to the Nice attack just continues the West’s vicious circle of terror and war
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nice-terrorist-attack-france-isis-francois-hollande-response-syria-iraq-military-bombs-vicious-a7139101.html

    At some point, we in the West are going to have to learn that if we intervene militarily in Mali or Iraq or Libya or Syria or interfere in Turkey, or Egypt, or the Gulf, or the Maghreb – then we will not be safe ‘at home’….

    Everyone who dares to point this out…is immediately cast out of society as a “friend of terrorists”. There is, in fact, a whole vocabulary of abuse for anyone who says that there are reasons for these acts of mass murder which we need to know, however crazed they are. At present, the Isis/Western hate mail to each other is almost identical with King Lear: “I will do such things…what they are, yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth…”

    In the past, we could go on foreign adventures in Korea or Vietnam without worrying that North Koreans would blow up the London Underground or that the Vietcong would attack New York with airliners. Not anymore. Foreign adventures come at a terrifying cost. Claiming they do not – or pompously declaring that “their” bombs in London or Paris have nothing to do with “our” bombs in Iraq – is dishonest.

    At some point in history – though how far into the future, when we will have cut away the foundations of our own freedoms with our own new laws – we will probably have to re-think our relationship with the Middle East and with history. Yes, and with religion….

    But the last phone-video I saw which had any parallel of scale with Nice was a horrifying piece of footage during the Egyptian revolution of 2011 when an Egyptian army trucks was driven at speed – and swerving wildly – into a crowd of peaceful protestors. Why didn’t we remember that after Nice? Because the killers were never caught? Because no-one remembers yesterday’s news? Or because the victims were Arabs involved in a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know – by and large — nothing.

  57. From the Mail:

    The three-year-old son of a police officer died after accidentally shooting and killing himself, police say.

    […]

    The boy apparently found a gun and shot himself on Thursday, according to The Denver Channel. It’s unclear if the gun used was a department issued weapon.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693588/Police-officer-s-three-year-old-son-accidentally-shoots-kills-himself.html

    • David Springer

      How come the “couldn’t care less” crowd is left out when they’re the largest group?

      All Adults – 35% don’t give a damn about BLM
      Whites – 32% don’t give a damn about BLM
      Blacks – 23% don’t give a damn about BLM
      Hispanics – 56% don’t give a damn about BLM

      Interesting that Hispanics have the largest amount of apathy for black lives matter movement, innit? Hispanics had nothing to do with slavery in the US and thus don’t succumb to white guilt. Sole reason. So they’re the unbiased observers in this.

      • David Springer

        I’m born and raised a Yankee, by the way. I don’t feel any guilt either. The rest of y’all should try it on for size. Guilt is like a bag of bricks. Just set it down.

  58. Danny Thomas

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/16/hillary-clinton-promises-propose-constitutional-am/

    Trump, being the face of ‘the little guy’ should find agreement with this as a policy.

    • Danny,

      Why do you think proposing a constitutional amendment to “overturn” Citizens United is a “policy” for the “little guy:?

      • Danny Thomas

        Jean Paul Zodeaux,

        Their voice speaks louder than mine.

        http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/report-after-citizens-united-outside-spending-doubles/

        This U.S. Presidential election may take on the order of (some have said) $5 billion. This has doubled since 2012. Those in a position to offer a higher level of funding obviously attract a greater level of attention. Campaign reform should be inclusive of lobbying reform IMO. We restrict levels of ‘gifts’ to all sorts of governmental employees. Why not the highest levels?

        Corporations are made up of individuals. The individuals voices should be heard independently and not under the umbrella of any entity with which one may not fully agree.

      • Danny,

        I didn’t ask you why other people thought an amendment “overturning” Citizens United was an act for the little guy, I asked you. Ironic though that the first link you deferred your voice to had this to say:

        “We have folks that are essentially using million-dollar megaphones to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” says Adam Lioz, a senior adviser at the liberal policy group Demos.”

        Of course, when I gave you the opportunity to speak to me in your own voice, you decided it was better to let presumably better funded corporations than yourself speak for you.

        What I would like to know is why you think a constitutional amendment can “overturn” a Supreme Court decision, and do you think that Court has the power of judicial review over such an amendment? How would this amendment be worded and how would you have this amendment still honor the First Amendment and wouldn’t it have to?

        In this thread you’ve made the point that others are fickle when it comes to which rights enumerated in the Constitution that they choose to acknowledge, surely you recognize the the First Amendments prohibition of Congress to “make law” an act that would deny or disparage speech is widely applicable in terms of whom or what can challenge unconstitutional statutes. How do you imagine this amendment will be worded in order to pass constitutional muster?

      • Danny Thomas

        Limiting dollars. It’s done all the time.

        From the wiki: “The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

        Corporations/Unions have taken over with dollars. And I fear we’ve become lazy as we let ‘them’ do the heavy lifting and staying largely uninvolved. Those entities don’t have the same responsibilities as individuals and shouldn’t receive the same kinds of protections, IMO. A person of influence in an organization can pressure individuals to form a ‘consensus’ for that which otherwise might not have been agreed.

        As with most legislation, this can be improved.

      • David Springer

        A constitutional amendment doesn’t have to pass “constitutional muster” with regard to content. It modifies the underlying document. Duh. You’re an imbecile too Jean Clod.

    • “A constitutional amendment doesn’t have to pass “constitutional muster” with regard to content. It modifies the underlying document. Duh. You’re an imbecile too Jean Clod.”

      Little Doofus Spittle brags about his complete and utter ignorance once again. One only need to look at Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining to know that in both those cases, where the 16th Amendment was challenged as unconstitutional, that the SCOTUS certainly thought both parties had legal standing to sue. Don’t you even bother to double check your nonsense before you go spouting it off, Little Doofus?

      Forget about the procedural requirements imposed by Article V of the Constitution, according to Little Doofus the First Amendment can be wholly repealed and replaced with a new amendment, and the republic itself can be amended to finally become the democracy so many pine over without any legal challenges what-so-ever, because…well, because the Constitution is public and if people want to challenge unconstitutional amendments they need permission from the public to do so, don’t ya know?

      The law, however, is far more nuanced than Little Doofus could ever conceive. On the one hand, the overarching rule is that the where the text of the constitution is clear then the text controls the Supreme Court, but what if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?

      The law is simple and should be, but leave it to the simpleton’s like Little Doofus to do what they can to complicate law and make damn sure its all so confusing. The law is not confusing, Little Doofus, its only you who is confused. If constitutional amendments cannot be challenged as unconstitutional then why does the SCOTUS keep hearing challenges? Why did they grant Leser v Garnett ceratori? Why did they hear both Brushaber and Stanton’s challenges? If the challenges couldn’t have the effect of striking down the amendment, what was the point in deciding on those cases? I know, really tough questions, but sooner or later you’re going to have to man up and finally demonstrate some of this so called “intelligence” you keep claiming, Little Doofus

      • “I was correct and you are an imbecile.”

        Little Doofus Spittle,

        What kind of mental midget are you? Did you even bother to read the articles you linked? George Wright is in agreement with me, clown boy, not you!

        “The Article will conclude that implied substantive limitations on constitutional amendments exist even absent any particular “essence” or overriding spirit that informs the whole constitution. Neither does this theory of implied substantive limits depend upon excessive devotion to the views of the framers or upon any claim that constitutional interpreters must answer to a ‘higher’ or natural law. Rather, implied limits on the substance of constitutional amendments flow from the inescapable logic of any reasonable view of the basic purposes underlying the Constitution, and from the requirement that a constitution exist as a minimally unified, coherent, functioning document”

        I expected you to provide law review articles to make your case, but I sure didn’t expect you to supply law review articles that make my case. As little regard I have for you and your dumbed down generation I did not think you would be so spectacularly foolish. Apparently, Little Doofus, despite your obvious lack of intelligence, I had held you in higher regard than you actually deserve. Poseur.

        The same goes for the Quora link you provided, which is not really the best source of authority, but it is you providing it after all, so I’ll allow it. You quite clearly did not bother to read past Cliff Gilley’s response because your a poseur. I also find it hysterical that of all the declared “constitutional” students or experts in Quora, not one of them have any idea about Brushaber v Pacific Union, Stanton v Baltic Mining or Lesser v. Garnett. You and your dumbed down generation, expecting to be treated like geniuses because you passed dumbed down tests. Poseur.

      • I haven’t looked at the other two, but my best understanding of Brushaber v Pacific Union is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment. It did challenge whether the “Revenue Act of 1913” was Constitutional.

        A money quote (from Wiki linked above):

        In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to “taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

        It would appear to have been a somewhat nit-picking semantic argument (,albeit one with great financial implications), but not a challenge to the Constitutionality of an Amendment.

      • “I haven’t looked at the other two, but my best understanding of Brushaber v Pacific Union is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment. It did challenge whether the “Revenue Act of 1913” was Constitutional.”

        AK;

        The best of your understanding would have been even better still had you taken the time to read the actual case law:

        “As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.

        The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”

        ~Brushaber v Pacific Union~

        Here’s a little more:

        “Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”

        ~Brushaber v Pacific Union~

        “The bill contained many averments on the following subjects, which may be divided into two generic classes: (A) Those concerning the operation of the law in question upon individuals generally and upon other than mining corporations…And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.”

        ~Stanton v Baltic Mining~

        “The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men. Ratification of the proposed amendment to the federal [258 U.S. 130, 136] Constitution, now known as the Nineteenth, 41 Stat. 362, had been proclaimed on August 26, 1920, 41 Stat. 1823, pursuant to Revised Statutes , 205 (Comp. St. 303). The Legislature of Maryland had refused to ratify it. The petitioners contended, on several grounds, that the amendment had not become part of the federal Constitution.”

        ~Leser v Garnett~

        Wikipedia is fine as a beginning step, but not nearly thorough enough to base claims such as “is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment.” Going straight to the horses mouth is best, in terms of best understanding.

      • @Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux)…

        I see no reason to go to the case law, beyond the excerpts you’ve provided, which seem to me to provide no proof, or even evidence, whatsoever of any challenge to the Constitutionality of an amendment due to “conflicts” with the remainder of the Constitution.

        The first two appear to be challenges to how the change to the Constitution is to be understood, the third as to whether the ratification had proceeded correctly, and thus whether the amendment had actually become part of the Constitution.

        To me, it would appear you have provided no “case law” in support of your original claim:

        [… W]hat if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?

        Your final question builds in a non-fact: if Congress “passes an Amendmentthat doesn’t make it part of the Constitution. Congress does nothave the authority to” make any change to the Constitution.

        And nobody talking about such an amendment is suggesting that it does. Except, perhaps, you.

      • “AK;

        “I see no reason to go to the case law…”

        Of course you don’t. You didn’t when you relied upon Wikipedia to tell you what was ruled in Brushaber and sadly you keep insisting there is no need to actually read the case law. Frankly, you’ve failed to demonstrate that you have even bothered to read the Wikipedia article in its entirety. It appears this way because of how you quoted Wikipedia’s page on Brushaber – a quote you amusingly call the “money quote”:

        “A money quote (from Wiki linked above):

        “In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to “taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

        However, if you continue reading that same Wikipedia page you will find this:

        “The Court in Brushaber noted that income taxes inherently belonged in the “category” of indirect tax (or excise). The court stated that incomes taxes are indirect excise taxes by reinforcing the Pollock decision”

        There is a clear contradiction between the two phrases. Further, Wiki goes on to state:

        “Nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment or in Brushaber (and the other cases interpreting the tax provisions of the U.S. Constitution) changes the general rule that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states by population.”

        Once again another claim contradicts the first. Brushaber never held that the 16th Amendment “eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to ‘taxes on income, from whatever source derived’. And it doesn’t take a legal scholar to understand that if income taxes “inherently” belong in the category of indirect taxes then there is no rule of apportionment to eliminate. That’s just basic logic….well, and a rudimentary understanding of constitutional taxation and procedures.

        What The Supreme Court held in Brushaber is that the Sixteenth Amendment did, in light of Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., was to clarify that Congress has the power to tax income indirectly, including taxes on rent from property. This is the meaning of “whatever source derived”. The Sixteenth Amendment further clarifies that when Congress levies a tax on income without apportionment or any regard for a census of enumeration that this is because they are taxing income indirectly.

        I will address your more recent arguments, despite your refusal to actually read the case law in question in another post, but it is important to point out that Boris Bittiker’s interpretation of Brushaber is erroneous. It is obvious that the Wikipedia page is relying heavily upon Bittiker’s interpretation, but they have also pointed out that the SCOTUS made the point that the 16th Amendment placed income tax in the category of indirect taxation where it inherently belongs.

        ” Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.”

        Chief Justice White had made the point earlier that:

        “Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent.”

        Justice White recognizes that by taking the view that a tax on rents was a direct tax on property (as the majority did in Pollock) meant also recognizing that under this view it was the income being taxed directly and the property only taxed indirectly. Without chastising or criticizing the principle held in Pollock – something the 16th Amendment also declines to do – Justice White is pointing out the paradoxical nature of viewing an income tax as a direct tax on property, even if it involved rent derived from property.

        The Supreme Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment clarified that Congress has the authority to keep income taxation within the category of indirect taxation and as such has no obligation to the rule of apportionment, only the rule of uniformity. Your willingness to let Wikipedia tell you what to think has hurt your ability to understand this, even if Wikipedia did offer you clues they were feeding you data porn…which is what made your “money quote” so amusing.

        I will address your more recent arguments in another post.

      • AK;

        “…beyond the excerpts you’ve provided, which seem to me to provide no proof, or even evidence, whatsoever of any challenge to the Constitutionality of an amendment due to “conflicts” with the remainder of the Constitution.”

        Let’s break it down very simply.

        ““As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.”

        Perhaps, if you failed to read past this sentence, it might explain why you claim:

        “The first two appear to be challenges to how the change to the Constitution is to be understood.”

        However, Justice White’s next sentence is:

        “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.”

        You do know what “intermingled” means, don’t you? Why is it difficult to classify them? Justice White explains with his next sentence:

        “We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”

        For your clarification, Justice White has just explained that it is difficult to classify the intermingled contentions because of the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment, not because of anything inherent in the 16th Amendment or the subsequent revenue bill in question, but because of the plaintiff’s view, of the 16th Amendment, of which White chooses to frame the appellant’s view with language such as “a hitherto unknown power of taxation” and “although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”

        By framing the contention as such, Justice White has laid out why it is the SCOTUS actually refers to the 16th Amendment 36 or 37 times and why it is they demonstrate the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. So, when Justice White holds:

        “But it clearly results that the proposition (the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment) and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it (challenges to the revenue bill), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

        Bruhsaber v Union Pacific – (parenthetical statements added).

        I realize what I just quoted is something I had not earlier quoted but until now I had no reason to believe you would simply refuse to read the case law in question and attempt to analyze what was held based upon excerpts.

        “…the third as to whether the ratification had proceeded correctly, and thus whether the amendment had actually become part of the Constitution.”

        Leser v Garnett actually addresses both procedural challenges made to the 19th Amendment and substantive challenges.

        “The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men.”

        ~Leser v Garnnett~

        This contention (as erroneous as it may have been) is a states rights issue, which is a substantive issue not a procedural issue imposed by Article V. As to Stanton v Baltic Mining, which was the second of the “first two” you speak of here is more excerpts for you:

        “And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.”

        Just as the appellant’s in Brushaber had done, so to do the appellant’s in Stanton make erroneous assumptions about the meaning of the 16th Amendment, which Justice White has earlier explained were dealt with in Brushaber so there was no need to rehash them in Stanton, except to acknowledge that the contentions made about the the repugnancy of the revenue bill were based upon the appellant’s view that the 16th Amendment was, with its “peculiar direct tax” also repugnant to the constitution.

        In Stanton v Baltic Mining the Chief Justice White, having a second chance to render an opinion regarding erroneous interpretations of the 16th Amendment was able to state more cogently why the appellant’s view of that amendment was mistaken:

        “The contention is that as the tax here imposed is not on the net product, but in a sense somewhat equivalent to a tax on the gross product of the working of the mine by the corporation, therefore the tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the 16th Amendment, that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently sequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.”

        Returning to Brushaber:

        “So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon (a contention made by appellant), it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause.”

        ~Brushaber v. Union Pacific (parenthetical statement added)~

        The appellant in Brushaber was necessarily challenging the validity of the 16th Amendment with this contention, that the 16th conflicts with the 5th, and again, this is an argument of substantive limitations on constitutional amendments and that the Supreme Court deigned to hear these arguments it is easily inferred from that the Supreme Court does recognize a power to place constitutional amendments under judicial review. That becomes much clearer in light of Leser v Garnnett.

        Your intellectual laziness is problematic, AK. If you don’t want to read the case law you don’t have to, but you are making assumptions not based on evidence, unless you want to count the data porn site Wikipedia as “evidence”, but I reject that, and am only willing to recommend that site as a place to begin one’s research, not become the source of knowledge.

      • We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

        For your clarification, Justice White has just explained that it is difficult to classify the intermingled contentions because of the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment, […]

        […]

        But it clearly results that the proposition (the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment) and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it (challenges to the revenue bill), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is,

        Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.

        Your intellectual laziness is problematic, AK.

        I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on your arguments, considering how blithely you leave out critical steps in the amendment process (see my comment below), thus giving an incorrect impression in your statement.

        I suspect I would just be wasting my time digging through your semantic games.

        Let me address the case law WRT Leser v Garnnett:

        The petitioners contended, on several grounds, that the amendment had not become part of the federal Constitution. The trial court overruled the contentions and dismissed the petition. Its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the state (Md.) 114 Atl. 840; and the case comes here on writ of error. That writ must be dismissed; but the petition for a writ of certiorari, also duly filed, is granted. The laws of Maryland authorize such a suit by a qualified voter against the board of registry. Whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution is the question presented for decision. [my bold]

        […]

        The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the federal Constitution and sought to be exercise does not extend to this amendment because of its character. The argument is that so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the state’s consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body. This amendment is in character and phraseology precisely similar to the Fifteenth. For each the same method of adoption was pursued. One cannot be valid and the other invalid. That the Fifteenth is valid, although rejected by six states, including Maryland, has been recognized and acted on for half a century. See […]. The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.

        OK, there has been a challenge, in the original case, on the basis of substance, but it would seem to me that it was addressed and dismissed simply because it was there, not because it was covered under the writ of certiorari, which regarded “[w]hether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution”.

        I don’t see this as recognizing any right of judicial review of the substance of any Constitutional Amendment (beyond the “equal suffrage in the Senate” clause of Article V). The challenge “cannot be entertained.

        The remaining contentions involve the actual process of ratification, not the substance.

        I find your arguments tiresome and time-wasting, without making what I consider a worthwhile case that the SCOTUS has recognized a right to challenge Constitutional Amendments on their substance, beyond the single “equal suffrage in the Senate” exclusion.

        If you’re going to make a point, why not make it, rather than quoting large sections of irrelevant material, then criticizing me for not going to the original case law for what matters.

      • AK;

        “Your final question builds in a non-fact: if Congress “passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution. Congress does not “have the authority to” make any change to the Constitution.

        I have read this last argument of yours over several times, as well as what came before it but I still cannot makes heads or tails with what you’re saying here. Are you arguing that I am arguing that “if Congress ‘passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution, and are you arguing that I have argued that “Congress does not ‘have the authority to’ make any change to the Constitution”? If this is what you are arguing it is a strawman.

        My confusion over what you meant by all that stems from what you quoted of what I actually did say:

        “[… W]hat if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?”

        When I ask if Congress has the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied this power, I am not implying that Congress doesn’t have the power to change the constitution, I am implying that Congress’ power is subject to the a.) the people, and b.) the Constitution itself through substantive limitations.

        There is no express language, nor even any language where one might be able to infer that Congress’ ability to make amendments to the constitution necessarily placed a burden on the people, relieving them of their right to turn to the courts for judicial review in regards to those amendments, and neither you, nor your colleague Whoseya McCallhim have even attempted to explain why it is the people have no legal standing to challenge a constitutional amendment based upon substantive limitations. Indeed, your colleague linked to a law review article by George Wright, making my case about substantive limits, but, of course, you don’t need to read that either, do you?

      • @Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux)…

        I have read this last argument of yours over several times, as well as what came before it but I still cannot makes heads or tails with what you’re saying here.

        Well, I was saying one thing, and suggesting another, based on what seemed like (perhaps) vagueness in your language.

        Congress has no authority to make any changes to the Constitution.

        Period, end of sentence.

        The authority to make changes to the Constitution lies in the states, who ratify, or not, such amendments.

        Congress can pass any “amendment” they want, and it’s just a piece of paper until the requisite number of states have ratified it and that ratification been properly certified (by the Attorney General, IIRC).

        I learned this stuff in 7th grade, private school, so I can’t say for sure whether it was properly taught in the “social studies” class I had in High School or not. I know our educational system has deteriorated substantially since I was in high school (late ’60’s), I’m not surprised many people don’t understand it.

        I was suggesting that perhaps you didn’t understand this, the alternative being that you were just leaving out that critical step for purposes of brevity.

        Indeed, your colleague linked to a law review article by George Wright, making my case about substantive limits, but, of course, you don’t need to read that either, do you?

        He’s not my colleague, I disagree with him on many subjects. I do happen to agree with him that your thoughts are, at best, poorly thought out and/or expressed.

        He certainly could be right that you’re a blithering idi0t.

        And yes, I did read that article, well part of it. It makes the point that there is just one substantive limitation on amendments: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

        As for the theories about amendments that impact the Constitution’s standing qua constitution, they’re interesting, but the issue of judicial review is probably moot. My guess is that they’d be settled by war, same as last time.

      • On the one hand, the overarching rule is that the where the text of the constitution is clear then the text controls the Supreme Court, but what if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?

        Let’s assume that “Congress” in this case refers to the entire system of Congress proposing, and the States ratifying (by 3/4 vote).

        The clear language of Article V says that they do. They have the authority to make any changes except “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” The 17th Amendment is an example of a change that directly supercedes the prior Constitutional article. The only case law I could find involved squabbles over the meaning of the wording of the amendment, no challenge to its right of supersession.

        It might be worded, for instance, as saying that the “freedom of the press” shall not be held to extend to the provision of large amounts of money, or equivalent, for the purpose of distributing material intended to influence the decisions of voters, where they do not take some initiative to acquire it. Along with some definition of “large” that would allow small expenditures, within the typical means of a good fraction of the populace.

        Thus, paying for a blog, or other website, where you can express your views would be covered under “freedom of the press”, as well as “freedom of speech”, while large expenditures for advertising or leafleting, for the purpose of influencing voting decisions would be subject to legislative control.

      • “Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.”

        AK;

        Yes, that is my reading too. This further clarifies what Chief Justice White meant by:

        “As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.

        The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.”

        It was the Supreme Court that recognized that the contentions the appellant made necessarily included an attack on the 16th Amendment itself. But your explanation of the SCOTUS declaring the appellant wrong about the Amendment also implicitly means that had the appellant been right then this “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another” and bring into question the validity of the 16th Amendment.

        “I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on your arguments…”

        When I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on an argument, what I don’t do is take that argument up until I am willing to make the needed time, because…well, intellectual laziness is problematic to say the least.

        “I suspect I would just be wasting my time digging through your semantic games.”

        Maybe. You’re most assuredly wasting your time relying on deflections like “semantic games”, particularly on a debate about law, constitutional text and case law where each and every word should be given significance.

        “Let me address the case law WRT Leser v Garnnett…OK, there has been a challenge, in the original case, on the basis of substance…”

        See what happens when you actually read the case law in question, instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think?

        “but it would seem to me that it was addressed and dismissed simply because it was there, not because it was covered under the writ of certiorari, which regarded “[w]hether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution”.

        I’m not clear what you mean by this, but when the Supreme Court addresses an argument because “it is there”, and particularly what “is there” is a substantive issue over the 19th Amendment, this brings into question whether the 19th Amendment “has become a part of the Constitution.”

        Further, it appears as if you don’t know what certiorari means, nor do you seem to understand the difference between a writ of error and a a writ of certiorari, nor do you even appear to understand that appellants had also filed a writ of error which was dismissed by the SCOTUS but the writ of certiorari granted. The writ of certiorari simply means at least four of the Justices sitting on the bench thought the petitioners case merited review, and in granting certiorari the SCOTUS directs the lower court in question to send the record of proceedings for review, and that is why the substantive issue “was there”.

        “I don’t see this as recognizing any right of judicial review of the substance of any Constitutional Amendment (beyond the “equal suffrage in the Senate” clause of Article V). The challenge “cannot be entertained.”

        Your use of quotation marks around the phrase “cannot be entertained” is an outright deception intended to make it appear as if the SCOTUS has argued that substantive challenges to constitutional amendments cannot be entertained, but while the SCOTUS, in Leser v. Garnnett, did use that phrase, and you just quoted it yourself, here is the context to that phrase one more time:

        “The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.”

        The Supreme Court has not held that substantive challenges to constitutional amendments “cannot be entertained”, and your awkward attempt at deception gives evidence that you know this.

        “I find your arguments tiresome and time-wasting…”

        Again, when I find arguments tiresome and time-wasting I just don’t take them up, but that’s just me.

        “If you’re going to make a point, why not make it, rather than quoting large sections of irrelevant material, then criticizing me for not going to the original case law for what matters.”

        I, of course, quoted from large sections of relevant case law because of your foolish attempt to speak authoritatively about case law you clearly had not read, whether you can grasp the point or not is on you, not me.

      • “Well, I was saying one thing, and suggesting another, based on what seemed like (perhaps) vagueness in your language.”

        AK,

        It is pretty funny that you excuse your own vagueness because you perceive a vagueness in my language. You were saying one thing, and suggesting another, were you?

        “Congress has no authority to make any changes to the Constitution.

        Period, end of sentence.

        The authority to make changes to the Constitution lies in the states, who ratify, or not, such amendments.”

        Thank you for the clarification. This is not an argument I care to take up as I find it to be a silly quibble of process, nothing more.

        It kind of follows that people who spell out the punctuation mark “period” would then explain what that means with “end of sentence”. Thanks for that clarification from the department of redundancy department as well.

        “I learned this stuff in 7th grade, private school, so I can’t say for sure whether it was properly taught in the “social studies” class I had in High School or not. I know our educational system has deteriorated substantially since I was in high school (late ’60’s), I’m not surprised many people don’t understand it.”

        Don’t kid yourself, education had already deteriorated substantially by the late ’60’s, which probably explains much of your confusion.

        “I was suggesting that perhaps you didn’t understand this, the alternative being that you were just leaving out that critical step for purposes of brevity.”

        I actually thought that when I argued:

        “Forget about the procedural requirements imposed by Article V of the Constitution…”

        I had made fairly clear that a.) there are procedural challenges that can be made to a constitutional amendment, and b.) that procedural challenges were not my concern and what followed that sentence was an argument that made clear I was concerned about substantive issues. To be clear, I was not “saying one thing and suggesting another”, but instead was saying I was not interested in making procedural arguments about an amendment that doesn’t even exist.

        “He’s not my colleague, I disagree with him on many subjects. I do happen to agree with him that your thoughts are, at best, poorly thought out and/or expressed.”

        Who do you mean? Oh! Do you mean Whoseya McCallhim? In terms of this argument – can an amendment be challenged as unconstitutional – there is my argument that yes, such challenges can be made and then there is the opposing argument being made by you and your colleague Whoseya McCallhim.

        “He certainly could be right that you’re a blithering idi0t.”

        We can play that game if you want, before we do, I’ll ask you point blank, do you want to play that game?

        “And yes, I did read that article, well part of it. It makes the point that there is just one substantive limitation on amendments: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

        It does not appear as if you read much at all of George Wright’s Article based upon your assessment of it. Perhaps you’ve confused that with some other article. Here is the same link your colleague provided:

        http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=luclj

        Wright’s article is a great read, not because he makes my argument, but because he bends over backwards to offer a critical analysis of that argument…meaning he lends far more credence to the arguments you and your colleague are making than I am willing to do.

        The reason I am unwilling to do that is because I am the advocate for the right of the people to seek a redress of grievances and whatever antithesis need be offered to my thesis should be done by the opposing advocate(s). This is how the legal system works, where litigants present a thesis and antithesis heard by a judge who offers up a resolution. Granted, here in this thread we are in the kangaroo court of public opinion where each person reading yours and my arguments must reach their own conclusions.

        “As for the theories about amendments that impact the Constitution’s standing qua constitution, they’re interesting, but the issue of judicial review is probably moot. My guess is that they’d be settled by war, same as last time.”

        The issue of judicial review is probably not moot, and your resignation that only war can settle this issue should be reason enough to reconsider your stance…unless you pine for war, I guess. Your declaration that judicial review of constitutional amendments is “probably moot” is an unearned declaration, and you have miserably failed to demonstrate why it would be “probably moot”. You certainly haven’t pointed to anything the SCOTUS has said on the matter – outside your sloppy deceptions – only to what the SCOTUS has not said.

      • Thank you for the clarification. This is not an argument I care to take up as I find it to be a silly quibble of process, nothing more.

        Which clearly demonstrates that your blather isn’t worth wasting any more time on.

      • “Which clearly demonstrates that your blather isn’t worth wasting any more time on.”

        Okay then, let’s play that game.

        All you insufferable snobs who’ve attended the esteemed University of Pot looking down your noses at all those poor, poor pitiful slobs who’ve attended the State College of Kettle are so secure in your belief that your education is superior to those around you, just like any blithering id1ot you’ve convinced yourself you don’t actually have to learn anything more. This is why you thought you could take up this argument without any knowledge what-so-ever in regards to the case law you decided to take up.

        I know, I know; “But, but, but…Wikipedia!” Yes, yes, you and your “money quote”, but I’ve actually witnessed you yourself make this claim:

        “Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.”

        Which demonstrates that you know that Wikipedia is wrong with their so called “money quote”, but still, you cannot be bothered to actually read Brushaber v. Pacific Union. You made it clear you didn’t bother to read it when you took this argument up, and you made it clear you still hadn’t read it when you doubled down and built a slap dash wall of defense to protect and defend your ignorance by claiming you didn’t need to read it all you had to do was read excerpts from it.

        You’ve claimed to read the article your cohort linked (well “part of it” anyways) and then you demonstrated you hadn’t read that article…not even part of it. You’ve whined and pissed and moaned about not wanting to put the time in needed to actually make a valid argument. You’ve deflected and amusingly thought it intelligent to dismiss semantics as merely a “game” in an argument about law and the legal system.

        Of course you would dismiss your opponent, who has read the case law in question, who did read the article your colleague linked, who has taken the time to study the issue, as a “blithering id1ot”. What else, after all, can you do? Well, of course, you could just do the work required to make a cogent and valid argument, but you’ve made it clear that ain’t gonna happen, so get right down to the name calling.

        When you lack the mental capacity to effectively rebut sound arguments, I get it, it can be frustrating. You don’t, however, lack this capacity because of nature, AK. You lack this mental capacity because you’re lazy. So, why are you so angry? You’re so angry because deep down in that addled brain of yours a notion is coming to mind, and it has occurred to you that you’re the guy wearing the black hat. You’re the guy who is arguing against the right of the people to seek a redress of grievance by turning to the courts to challenge an amendment repugnant to the constitution.

        Of course, this is often the governments position, but you don’t have to put on the black hat in order to take up the governments position. If you want to wear the white hat while arguing the governments position you better damn know well know what you’re talking about. You have openly paraded your ignorance and clung to it as if it was a velvet lapel on your navy blue blazer with the University of Pot insignia on it.

        If you can’t make a valid argument and your only solution to the problem of amendments repugnant to the constitution is civil war, this is hardly evidence of wisdom, hot shot. Nobody made you put on the black hat, AK, that was your own idea.

    • “From the wiki: “The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.”

      Danny,

      Right, Citizens United was in regards to “electioneering communications” where Citizens United was up against an FEC that claimed it had the authority to ban books even if it was just one sentence in that book that expressly advocated for the victory or defeat of a candidate during that specified election cycle. The FEC also argued they could ban digital books provided on Kindle by Amazon and could prevent a union from hiring a writer to write a political book. That’s a lot of power being claimed, Danny, and in terms of the “little guy”, in this instance the little guy wasn’t the FEC, it was Citizens United.

      The SCOTUS, divided as it was, correctly recognized that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” So the big hoopla now is that…what? Upwards of $5 billion has been spent on this current election cycle and this somehow drowns out the “little guys” voice?

      When the “little guy” wants the FEC to have the kind of power that Citizens United managed to successfully challenge I wonder why? Why does the little guy need the FEC to stop unions from hiring writers to write political books, and why does the little guy need the FEC to stop Amazon from providing its Kindle users with electioneering communications if this what the Kindle users want? Why does the little guy need the FEC from preventing non profit organizations from releasing a political film and advertising that release? Who is forcing the little guy to be persuaded by all of this? Is the little guy just so little he can’t even make up his own mind and is hopelessly trapped by the propaganda shown by the highest bidder? If so, how is it the FEC can really help them with that?

    • This should help.
      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.html
      Specifically, the question of what kind of donation gives the appearance of corruption which is why there are direct contribution limits in the first place.
      ***
      In Citizens United, Kennedy resolved what appeared to be an empirical question about independent spending and corruption: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
      The flat statement of fact is illogical. If the court believes that the government may limit a $3,000 contribution to a candidate because of its corruptive potential, how could it not believe that the government has a similar anticorruption interest in limiting $3 million spent in an independent effort to elect that candidate? Would a federal candidate not feel much more beholden to the big spender than the more modest contributor?
      ***

  59. From the NBC:

    Marquez-Greene’s 6-year-old daughter, Ana, was one of 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012, in Connecticut. She has since become an outspoken proponent of stronger gun control.

    “Ana, mom got pizza to these brave people. #Disarmhate #NoBillNoBreak @HouseDemocrats thank you @repjohnlewis,” Marquez-Greene tweeted around 7:45 p.m. Wednesday.

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Sandy-Hook-Mother-Sends-Pizza-to-House-Democrats-Nelba-Marquez-Greene-384145791.html

    Everyone should prefer pizza to hate, even Glenn & jim.

    • David Springer

      Pizza is bad for you. High in saturated fat, cholesterol, and refined glutenous wheat flour. Hate won’t clog arteries or cause type II diabetes or Crohn’s disease. I hate you enough to wish you all the pizza in the world and that feels good to say!

      • David Springer,

        If you hate more or harder, does it increase your lifespan?

        Maybe I’m just too lazy to hate. Can’t be bothered, I suppose.

        I’m happy enough being content. To each his own. If hating brings you contentment or happiness, go as hard as you can.

        Cheers.

      • David Springer

        Only if you hate the right things.

        Write that down.

    • One thing that did make sense was that he is also in favor of banning open carry for the duration of the convention in Cleveland. That steps on some perceived rights, but it makes it easier for the police to handle situations that may develop. He might get some pushback on that request from the NRA types.

      • I certainly would not go anywhere near one of the presidential conventions toting a gun.

        Why tempt the gods?

      • Especially as a black guy with police around, I would add. That officer made it very clear his police would not take kindly to that.

      • From the police perspective anyone doing open carry at any time should be considered suspicious, or at least up to no good, and they should follow them. If you don’t want police attention, don’t be carrying a gun.

  60. Disappearing Donald:

  61. “I was wrong: Trump WILL be the next president”
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/i-was-wrong-trump-will-be-the-next-president-commentary.html
    “And that brings me to my last mistake about Trump’s chances: I underestimated how bad Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be. To be fair, I never thought Clinton was a particularly strong candidate. But at every essential task of marketing and messaging, the Clinton campaign has been surprisingly bad.”
    “We all know Trump’s key slogan/promise is “Make America Great Again.” I’m still not sure what Hillary Clinton’s key slogan/promise is and I follow her campaign very closely. Is it “I’m with Her?” If so, it’s not very good in that it doesn’t seem to have anything in it for the person who isn’t “her.””
    I am not her. What’s in this for me?

    • Humiliate Hillary 2016—smile, she is now on candid camera for the next 113 days, that will be good for something.

      • JCH:
        “The establishment is a gift from people who were tired of the establishment. That tail you’re chasing… is yours.”
        We have met the enemy and he is us.

    • Danny Thomas needs to take a look at the Michael Wolff interview in the video at the top of the article.

      Trump’s lack of policy specifics may not be a flaw, but a feature.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        Video viewed as requested. Area of agreement. Trumps ‘shooting from the hip’ is indeed a feature of his campaign. But should it be? The fact that we’re basically lazy and don’t vet our candidates well but often vote for a party or a ‘single issue’ has led us to where we are.

        I guess the main surprise for me is that we’re dealing with a job candidate who’s interviewing with us and will not detail his qualifications and approaches.

        Is not the first and most basic part of any job interview to address the qualifications of the candidate? If not, then I’m putting in right now for Dr. Curry’s job as a world renowned scientist. And I’ll be great and will make climate science great again.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Another observation that I believe is germane about how Trump overthrew the Republican Party royalty:

        The Great Republican Crackup

        https://www.propublica.org/article/the-great-republican-crack-up-dayton-ohio-immigration-donald-trump

        Tony Hall, the former Democratic congressman, understood why Trump would appeal to these voters. Nobody had paid attention to them for a long time.

        “Trump isn’t saying anything other than you’ve got trouble and I’m going to take care of it, you got shafted and I’m going to take care of it,” he told me. “The Democrats are not addressing their issues and haven’t been for years … Their constituency is the working people and the poor and they forgot about them for years … They want someone to sit down and have a beer with them and listen to them and address some of their issues and do everything they can to bring jobs back.”

        They had a home in neither party as it now existed in greater Dayton. They were certainly not part of the Democratic Party of Welcome Dayton — the world that, the day before the Trump rally, had hosted a visit to town by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, stumping for Clinton. But they also weren’t part of the Republican Party that had left Montgomery County and moved to the exurbs, whether it took the form of Warren County’s ideological infighting or Boehner’s country-club complacency. They were stranded between these two poles, in the older, frayed inner suburbs of Montgomery County.

        Don Phillips saw these people a lot as the campaign headed into summer, and as Dayton prepared for its moment in the sun, hosting the first presidential debate last September. They came to party headquarters at the Mandalay to pick up Trump signs. But, he said, marveling: “These are not Republicans.” Or not Republicans as he’d known them. They were no one’s constituency, until now.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        (beginning)
        “Nobody had paid attention to them for a long time.” (Yep, I’m a ‘them’)

        (end)
        “These are not Republicans.” Or not Republicans as he’d known them. They were no one’s constituency, until now.”

        It’s the middle part that bothers me. Trump may indeed be just fine, but there’s almost nothing on which to base a decision expecting that.

      • “They were no one’s constituency, until now.”
        If you can’t beat them, join them.
        The Republicans have a victim group now. Let’s see if they can keep it.

      • Ragnaar,

        As Robert Huges said, “Since our new-found sensitivity decrees that only the victim shall be the hero, the white American male starts bawling for victim status too.”

      • Danny Thomas:
        That game used to be played by the establishment. Clinton and a number of Republicans were vetted by the establishment. But the peasants stormed the Republican castle and decided to make their own choice. From their point of view, they knew what was wrong. That was sufficient. Next go around, it will be different. Super Delegates will be part the Republican nomination.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ragnaar,
        “Super Delegates will be part the Republican nomination.” That would be expected wouldn’t it. Apt description of the times.

        The question, for me, is if the ‘insurrection’ should be supported to a highly variable end or go the more ‘conservative’ route and stay with the status quo. Or even toss out to an outlier.

      • Danny Thomas:
        As much as I disagree with Trump, I am supporting it. I am tired of the establishment.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ragnaar,

        And I fully respect that choice. I wish I had your faith.

        I’m working hard on how I will decide and can only hope Trump is putting in as much effort (he may wind up as my president if I like it or not). I will not allow myself to opt out as I’m not wired that way, so now I find myself faced with a decision between folks I wouldn’t hire for the job. But with only two (major) candidates it presents as a dilemma.

        There are many intelligent folks who kindly provide their insight. The feedback mechanism provided here is a tool I’ve not had available to me prior to this presidential election so I’m trying to take advantage of the resource. Please forgive any transgressions as I make no intent to offend. I do choose to respond in kind when it’s made personal. But in part that’s some of the entertainment value of this thread.

        Tell me to shut up when I should.

      • David Springer

        Danny Thomas | July 17, 2016 at 7:29 pm |

        “I’m putting in right now for Dr. Curry’s job as a world renowned scientist. And I’ll be great and will make climate science great again.”

        I don’t believe you. Track record is everything.

        What have you fought for and won in the past?

      • Danny Thomas

        “I don’t believe you. Track record is everything.”

        Like when I was a democrat, err, independent, republican, democrat, I mean republican all while supporting, I mean rejecting the Iraq war and planned to ban Muslim’s while not really banning them all while building a wall which isn’t really gonna get built?

        And the entire time I was Great!, it was Great!, and did I mention I was Great?

      • Danny Thomas,

        If you believe that any of us has a track record that could match that of Donald Trump, you’ve completely lost the plot. Just look at his children. Look at the business empire he’s built.

        Clinton Inc., of course hasn’t done too badly.

        We can question the means by which both dynasties achieved their great success.

        There is, however, one striking difference between the two. Trump admits that he is part of the establishment, and took full advantage of all the privileges and opportunites it offers, as unseemly and malordorous as they may be.

        Clinton, on the other hand, sanctifies the establishment and the role she has played in it.

      • Danny Thomas

        G’day Glenn,

        Just have a bit of fun with Springers suggestion that ‘the track record’ is all that matters. Because when one follows ‘the track’ one might find a bit of a meander with a few forks and potholes.

        When I hire a new president, I look to them for leadership. State a plan, delegate, and implement.

        David, being the grunt kinda guy he projects to be, seems to prefer to follow command who doesn’t know where it’s heading, has no idea how it’ll get there, and knows not what it’ll do when it arrives. Heck, he doesn’t even know what clothes to pack. But good on him for following faithfully.

        To each their own.

      • “I am tired of the establishment. …”

        The establishment is a gift from people who were tired of the establishment. That tail you’re chasing… is yours.

  62. Meanwhile, in Florida:

    • David Springer

      Meanwhile install Adblock Plus on your browser and then watch Weepy Willard’s messages disappear into spam oblivion. Join half a million others with this free add-on:

      https://adblockplus.org/

      And don’t forget to Vote Trump, the not extremely careless candidate.

  63. From the article:

    On July 14, Texas police detective Nick Selby penned an op-ed in which he described gun control pushes as misplaced, arguing instead for criminal control.

    He pointed out that every high-profile attack post-Sandy Hook Elementary School has been followed by a gun control push from Obama, yet the laws pushed are never realized, and in cities where such laws exist, no difference is made, such as in Chicago.

    Writing in The Washington Post, Selby conceded that he and his fellow officers would like the levels of gun violence diminished, but he stressed that the way to do it is not via gun control, but criminal control. He wrote:

    Mass shootings remain outliers. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The tyranny of everyday shootings—the 12,000 homicides a year that happen so regularly that some people don’t even call 911 anymore—follow patterns completely divorced from the weapons used. These shootings have much more to do with the realities of life for the poor, the drug-addicted, the mentally ill and the criminal.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/16/detective-forget-gun-control-focus-on-criminal-control/

  64. And now from our New York correspondent:

    • I’m not certain Alinksky would think your efforts here live up to his farting-at-the-symphony tactic, Willard. He’s such a creative … whatever.

      • Of course you’re not certain, jim2. It’s not from Breitbart’s, so how could you be certain?

        Here, have some Disaster Donald Duo:

        An excerpt:

      • Much as I would like Trump to have tweeted that, note the misspelling of the Twitter handle.

      • David Springer

        Wily Willard wouldn’t care about whether a quote was accurate or not. It’s the content not the veracity that counts for people like Wicked Willard.

      • > It’s the content not the veracity that counts […]

        Spoken like the Donald himself:

        Another tweet from the same article:

        No, it’s not a real photo. Yet its “content” has more veracity than the sum of all of Big Dave’s contributions.

        When will Big Dave produce his tests, BTW?

      • The photo:

      • Willard

        The last photo with the Kadar tweet is great. As one of those lefty, ohhh look at how enlightened I am, kind of guy , characterized by a dour, lecturing demeanor that you usually present in your comments, you have surprised me with some great humor.

        You’ve become a real comedian. You’re not yet a Lucille Ball, but then neither is Tina Fey.

      • Thank you for the kind words, Kid. In return, rest assured that I have not any ready-made opinion on your own contributions, for I seldom read them.

      • David Springer

        Wishful Willard I can’t see your responses. I have an ad blocker installed in my browser and rightly recognizes your responses as spam and disappears it. Try to use your own words, if you have any, if you wish me to respond.

        https://adblockplus.org/

        Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

  65. Danny Thomas

    ““If it’s reasonable for Trump to want to make sure his potential running mates are doing their taxes on the up and up, it’s equally reasonable for the American public to want to know the same about his taxes,” he said.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-demanded-vp-candidate-tax-docs-he-wont-make-public/2016/07/15/259db980-4ada-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html

    But there may be a problem with the reporting.

  66. Dr. Frankenstein, on his Donald:

    “I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting [Dr. Frankenstein’s Donald] in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if [Dr. Frankenstein’s Donald] wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

    If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

    • David Springer

      No hyperbole there. End of civilization. Check. Got it.

      /sarc

      Vote Trump. The candidate not extremely careless enough to end civilization.

      • Another quote from the same article:

        Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with [Dictating Donald] —camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the [Dictating Donald] family. Until Schwartz posted the tweet, though, he had not spoken publicly about Trump for decades. It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, [Dictating Donald] appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, “If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything.”

        Cut to Big Dave’s take on content and veracity.

    • David Springer

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

      Tony Schwartz admits he can be paid to lie as an explanation for how the supposed untruths went into “The Art of the Deal”. Was he paid for this “tell all” by people desperate to keep The Donald out of the White House? You can’t trust a liar, Unwary Willard, and the only thing we know for sure about Tony Schwartz is that he’s a liar.

      Write that down of course.

      Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • David Springer

        Wailing Willard knew the content and veracity was questionable, of course. It was obvious. So Waffling Willard thought he’d defuse me pointing it out by predicting it.

        Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

        Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • > Tony Schwartz admits he can be paid to lie […]

        A quote might be tough to find, for what Schwartz only admits that Deceiving Donald distorts indubitable facts, like who wrote The Art of the Deal.

        That Big Dave distorts facts like that may indicate why he finds affinities with Deceiving Donald.

        Does it take a very high IQ to be that deceiving?

      • > It was obvious.

        Check out the pinned tweet:

        https://twitter.com/realDenaldTrump

        Here’s what’s even more obvious:

        Big Dave trying to sell teh Donald’s truthworthiness – only at Judy’s.

      • David Springer

        Schwartz purports that he (Schwartz) filled the book with lies, lies of omission, misdirection, and exaggeration. He also writes that The Donald was unwilling to contribute much in the way of answering questions and changed very little of what Schwartz wrote but rather only crossed out some criticisms Trump had made of people in the past whom he no longer wished to criticize.

        Schwartz either lied then or he’s lying now or both. The only we know for sure is Schwartz is a liar. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

  67. These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

  68. VIDEO: US-NATO Border Confrontation with Russia Risks Nuclear War and Loss of European Partners

    Europe is absolutely terrified that Obama is going to destabilize Eurasia, and even more terrified of Hillary getting in, who’s indicated she’s going to appoint a superhawk, the Cheney protege Michele Flournoy, as Secretary of Defense, and appoint Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State.

    I’ve been in Germany twice in the last two months, and they’re really worried that somehow America is telling Europe, let’s you and Russia fight. And basically it’s a crisis.

    Other than the interests of the Military-Finance-Big Oil industrial complex, I don’t see how our permanent war in Eurasia, North Africa and the Middle East behooves the geopolitical interests of the United States.

    Because of the shale revolution, the United States has a surfeit of natural gas, and North America is nearing oil independence. If not for the crash in oil prices, which stunted oil development in Canada, Mexico and the United States, North America would already be very close to achieving oil independence.

    The net: We no longer need the oil and natural gas from that region of the world. So what are we fighting for?

    Why is it incumbent on the United States to pay the price, in treasure and blood, to insure Europe’s energy supply?

    Why can’t Europe work out its own energy supply problems?

    And with Turkey looking increasingly unstable, the dream of a Qatar-Turkey-Europe natural gas pipeline looks more remote than ever.

  69. This is why we elected him to be our Commander & Chief.
    Follow Me!

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-police-can-make-job-being-cop-lot-safer-admitting-their-failures

    Now is his opportunity to shine on the pages of history, yet to be written…

  70. I may have missed the discussion somewhere, but what do y’all think about Obama’s JAMA paper?

    http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/72680/is-obamas-jama-paper-ok

    • Capt’nDallas

      Thank you for the link and access for all of us to the article.

      “Importance The Affordable Care Act is the most important health care legislation enacted in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.”

      And herein lie the answers as to why the POTUS would have had written for him, such a piece. He views his legacy as sand in an hourglass and time is running out. And as one grips a handful of sand from the beach tighter and tighter, the sand runs out more quickly. Obama is imbued with his own self-importance.

      Obama rightly sees that ACA is under attack from whom he ascribes to special interests and hyper-partisanship. And, as costs of joining exchanges and co-pays escalate, and insurance options dwindle as insurance companies withdraw having lost money on the chronically ill who signed up and the Federal subsidies will mostly go away after 3 years, the ultimate failure of ACA has been its inability to control health care costs as they currently escalate at a rate greater than before. Manufactured data does not change the money side of health care operating in a parallel universe from the architects of its supposed reform.

      About 70% of health care costs are related to those who are chronically ill. Making it illegal to consider pre-existing condition in the pricing of health care premiums means that the cost shift onto those who are well is now even greater than before. In addition, there is the high cost of dying, mostly by the elderly, dying in hospital with all its associated risks. Medicaid is being scavenged by nursing home costs and Medicare is shouldering a greater burden of cancer treatment care.

      The ACA was yet another attempt to have a system to ration care just like the rest of the developed countries do, and, by the way, the reason their health care costs are less. Rationing care but not telling people the Federal government is rationing care is the trick.

      Finally, who is JAMA’s audience? medical practitioners. Obama does not need to lecture medical providers upon the vicissitudes of billing and eligibility checking, and a host of other record keeping requirements. Rather, I believe Obama wants to use this medical journal article as a cudgel against nay sayers, just as he uses/abuses his office advocating for drastic and unpopular measures regarding climate change. No different. Same old. Same old.

      JAMA is an old and respected medical journal laced with opinion pieces here and there so when the POTUS calls to say he wants to write an opinion piece on his legacy issue, no worries. Just another person with another opinion. Right or wrong, even the POTUS is entitled to his opinion.

      • RiHo08, The thing that gets me is attempt at appearing to be a “science” paper. Other than staffers, it wasn’t peer reviewed.

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/obama-first-president-publish-academic-paper

        It isn’t poorly written, but language like “Sharply decreasing from 19.1% in 2010 to 17.8% in 2015” isn’t what I would expect from academics without some agenda. :) Clinton and even Bush have been published in journals as opinion pieces,but this is shooting for something a tad higher.

      • Capt’nDallas
        The thing that gets me is attempt at appearing to be a “science” paper.

        “United States Health Care Reform: Progress to Date and Next Steps” dives into the recommendations Obama has for the next president to improve the U.S. health care system and assesses the Affordable Care Act”

        Obama is addressing future Presidents of the United States. In part, he is addressing a future much as Dwight Eisenhower spoke to the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and the distorting of science by government funding. Obama just doesn’t have the credentials of an IKE, nor the eloquence of a JFK. Obama is at the tail end of a career do nothing politician and as an example of what not to do as a President.

        Captain Smith on the Titanic realized what he had done wrong, the miss calculations and opportunities, and the inevitable decision to: go down with the ship. Failure as President speaks more loudly than failure at being a captain of a large ship. Obama’s tenure as President is about as illuminating as William Henry Harrison. Not much.

        Those who rallied around Obama will remain disappointed, for as a President, he remains a dud. As for Obamacare and the ACA, his failure in the very beginning to be materially involved, has lead to his signature legislative endeavor to become a bust.

        What a pity. So much has been riding on a charismatic leader who in reality was a legislative closet politician.

      • RiH,

        At least Harrison had the excuse of dying shortly after taking office.

        All Obama has is that smug look.

    • David Springer

      Thanks Dallas. I’m a stackexchange.com member. Also a member of a companion group stackoverflow.com. Both are computer terms. A stack is a common temporary storage structure on almost all microprocessors to the best of my knowledge. A stack exchange is usually the swapping of one stack for another in a context switch. A stack overflow is a common software bug where the stack’s capacity has been exceeded.

  71. Death Donald:

  72. NYPD Donald:

  73. Danny Thomas

    There seems to be some common ground in at least one area. If not in Congress the at least apparently to some extent the parties and candidates: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/288148-gop-platform-to-call-for-return-to-glass-steagall

    • G/S not going to work anymore. The financial system has ‘evolved’. Nobody is going to disconnect the economic models from the system. I once thought the very existence of negative interest rates was a software failure mode. – But here we are. The world hasn’t exploded so observations trump theory. Technology advances across all human endeavors and financial systems are perhaps the pinnacle of this phenomenon.

      • Getting rid of GS is one of the myriads of things the astoundingly brilliant and effective President Clinton did right, but good luck selling that.

    • Danny Thomas:
      Something you can do with your own money. Invest in low cost S & P 500 and/or total bond index funds. No banker is getting my money to fritte away with some pie in the sky investment. I trust companies like Google not to be taken by these charlatans.

  74. Paul Ryan Says Poor Are Victims, But Blames Them For Being Poor
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/paul-ryan-says-poor-are-v_b_11058474.html

    “Ryan is repeating the old “personal responsibility” language conservatives have developed to shift people’s thinking about government and democracy away from the idea that We the People are in this together, toward a selfish idea that we should all be on our own. Of course, this leaves individuals defenseless against the powerful forces of aggregated wealth and power.”

    Now Johnson is saying the poor are victims of aggregated wealth and power. What happened to plain old wealth? Wealthy people are now aggregaters. Farmers aggregate land, house builders aggregate wood. Carmakers, metal and plastic. What do governments aggregate? Things that used to be our rights. We’ll take care of that, don’t worry.

    Should we blame the poor for being poor? I’d say it’s half their fault and half the government’s fault. But in some cases it’s 110% their fault using Schmidt’s attribution methods. You can lead the unemployed to a job, but you can’t make them work.

    • “Should we blame the poor for being poor?”

      Sure, the Anti-Rent War is an example of where the poor got tired of being poor and the tenant farmer/share cropper is an example of where the poor became accustom to poverty. By the way, there isn’t anything wrong with poverty, chastity and obedience, at times they are even admirable qualities. Bitching about them and not doing anything though is a problem.

      • Capt’nDallas

        One might reach back to George Bernard Shaw and his description of the “deserving poor” and the “undeserving poor.” Deserving poor were the aged, disabled, and temporarily down on their luck. The underserving poor were those who could but didn’t work.

        I am of the mind whereby social engineering and welfare have “stunted” those undeserving poor into an economic model where the pain of economic mediocrity feels OK.

        I think that Arthur Schopenhauer’s statement: “Pain makes man think; thought makes man wise, and wisdom makes life more endurable” sums my belief regarding social welfare, and without some pain along the way, slough and feelings of bitterness towards others with wealth and a sense of entitlement tends to develop.

        The pain of economic uncertainty is a stimulant for most people. Blunting that economic pain with social welfare condemns some to a life of ‘quiet desperation” per Henry Thoreau.

        Personally, I wish there were a way to enhance people’s lives, particularly children without the drag of dependency and depression of social welfare.. No easy way forward as far as I am concerned.

      • RiHo08 said:

        No easy way forward as far as I am concerned.

        I certainly agree with this sentiment.

        It was undoubtedly easier to ferret out free-riders — not only those at the bottom of the pecking order, but those at the top as well — when man lived in smaller societies with more face-to-face contact. It’s far more difficult in the vast, large-scale societies of tens or hudreds of millions of individuals that most of us live in today.

        But even in those smaller-scale societies the definition of free-rider varied significanlty between cultures.

        In our own Western Civilization, we experiened a sea change in how we define free-riders, and what do do about them, in the 16th century:

        The latter Middle Ages had bequeathed, to all the cities of western Europe, a tangled mass of charitable foundations and endowments set up by individuals, guilds, and clergy, and administered by a wide range of bodies, albeit frequently staffed by members of religous orders. Numerous charitable houses and institutions, as well as friaries and monasteries, distributed alms and dispensed sick care, food, and fuel….

        During the first half of the sixteenth century, western Europe, both Protestand and Catholic, was swept by new attitudes, and a new approach, to the problem of poor relief. There were several factors behind this change. Partly, it was a response to humanist criticism of monks and friars and the principle of unrestricted giving of alms, and charity, to beggars. Partly, it was an inherent result of the Reformation which, by sweeping away the Catholic clergy, and confiscating Church property and revenues, left a gap in urban welfare which civic government had no choice but to fill. But partly also, the change resulted from population growth, the rapid expansion of the largest cities in most of Europe, and burgeoning of the problem of poverty.

        Fundamental reorganization was unavoidable and it was only the city governments which could undertake it. Both the administration and the aims of welfare changed. Late medieval religiosity accorded a sacred value to poverty, begging, and giving alms, which the new humanist philosophy of poor relief was unwilling to share. Priority was now assigned to checking the growth of poverty, vagrancey, and idleness, so the new approach tended to be much more quesitoning, if not outright hostile, to begging and alms-giving.

        — JONATHAN I. ISRAEL, The Dutch Republid: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806

      • RiHo08,

        The rise and fall of the Dutch Empire is key to understanding our current predicament. It was the second of the four great global, hegemonic empires — Spanish, Dutch, British, American — which ruled over the earth since the advent of the Reniassance. And more importanlty, Dutch capitalism was the precursor to our brand of Anglo-American capitalism that we practice today.

        Much to their credit, the early Dutch elite did practice what they preached. They lived an austere, unpretentious lifestyle, worked extremely hard, and were highly productive, as Calvinism and the new humanist doctrine would have it.

        “By 1648 the Dutch were indisputably the greatest trading nation in the world,” C.R. Boxer writes in The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600-1800.

        However, the “transition from a merchant oligarchy to a rentier oligarcy,” Boxer exlains, was not long in coming. It required only “three generations.” Those who presided over the Dutch empire went from a generation of “burgher-oligarchs and merchant-adventurers” to an idle and largely unproductive dynastic elite, living off its rents, and aspiring to “marry into the urban patriciate.” And it became incredibly corrupt, though the dynastic ambitions were probably more corrosive to the society:

        In the long run, nepotism probably did more harm to the body politic than did bribery and corruption. It certainly aroused more opposition, and it increasingly divorced the interests of the ruling oligarchy from those of the middle and lower classes.

        And as the Dutch elite grew wealthier, more ostentatious, more corrupt, and more dynastic, its treatment of workers grew much harsher:

        Although adequate unemployment statistics and other relevant materials are lacking, it is clear from numerous contemporary accounts of the Dutch Republic in its ‘Golden Century’ that ecomoic expansion and national prosperity were accompanied by great poverty among many groups of workers, as happened later in England during the Industrial Revolution….

        As early as 1566 a Leeuwarden chronicler noted that, in sharp contrast with the wealthy regents and merchants, stood the mass of the ‘humble, distressed, and hungry common people.’….

        Out of 41,561 households at Amsterdam in 1747, some 19,000 were living in squalid back premises, cellars, and basements….

        The lot of the ordinary manual woker was hard; and the infrequency of overt unrest was due rather to the absence or weakness of the workers’ organization (as Violet Barbour points out) than to the ‘paternal and enlightened regime of the upper-middle-class dictators’, as claimed by Professor G.J. Renier.

        It is true, however, that class differences in the Dutch Republic, as elsewhere, were usually accepted as an aspect of the eternal scheme of things. Moreover, the urban proleatriat were unarmed, and the burgher militia or civic-guards could be relied on to obey the orders of the regents in the event of any conflict with the grauw….

        Hard as were the living conditions of the industrial and agricultural workers, the life of the seafaring communities was even harder….

        During this time a Dutch skipper could usually count on mustering a crew despite the low wages and the spartan rations which were the general rule. Such, at least, was the case with ships trading in European waters; for it was often otherwise with East and West Indianmen bound for distant seas and notoriously unhealthy tropical lands, from which there was not much more than an even chance of returnign alive.

      • RiHo08, one of the things that aggravates the hell out of me is there is no real safety net for small property owners. During the mortgage bubble there were millions of foreclosures on lower end homes that owners could have stayed in until the recovery provided there was a reasonable homestead exception or bankruptcy protection for the paycheck to paycheck population. In order to be “impoverished” you have to lose everything and it is much more cost effective to not kick people out of humble homes.

      • Capt’nDallas

        “there is no real safety net for small property owners”

        I don’t know yet I speculate that the preceding “savings & loan” meltdown, where the Feds had to bail out a number of risk-takers that the mean-face of “let the chips fall where they may” permeated the culture of bankers regarding poor people with mortgages “under water.” When the same mean-face was turned to big banks and several did fail, it was then that the consequences of loans securitized by non-understandable debt instruments became clear and the rush to prop up “banks too big to fail” occurred.

        The small amount of money it would have taken to “tidy over” the poor householders would have been infinitesimal compared the trillions pumped into big banks.

        I agree with you that it would have made sense to keep most of the poor in their homes instead of insisting on foreclosure. There were a few gamers whom I would label undeserving middle-class who had second and third mortgages on speculative property that should have gone down anyway.

        I wonder what will happen to the poor mortgage holder at the next financial down turn. Many of those were/are black, and, certainly having a black POTUS didn’t help them at all. My fervent hope is that the credit unions that seem to have taken over the services of the local savings and loan banks, will not be the next symbolic lesson of what not to do.

      • Glenn Stehle

        Thank you for the history lesson on charitable giving during the Middle Ages. I hadn’t quite put the interplay and then evolution of charity and alms together as succinctly as your quotes. I was somewhat aware of the decline and fall of the Dutch trading empire, yet, the mean-spirited treatment of the poor from a Calvinistic point of view is not all that surprising.

        I am at a loss when thinking about GBS’s “undeserving poor.” Maybe the trend in recreational marijuana use and reopening the opium dens would be a good place to start. Make it cheap, readily available, say every street corner, death sentences to dealers selling to kids and maybe some other draconian measures just to be sure.

        Yeah. A fuzzy picture is starting to emerge, gain clarity, like out of a mind fog.

  75. Trump to NAACP:
    I am busy.

    The NAACP And Black Lives Matter Are Talking Past Each Other
    “The NAACP’s national convention in Philadelphia highlighted a fundamental split between the old-guard of the civil rights movement and Black Lives Matter on the most important issue to black Americans.”

    What upside was there for Trump with the NAACP?

  76. David Springer

    I heard Hillary yesterday, couldn’t get to the TV fast enough to change the channel, talk about wanting to get black men into jobs programs after being released from prison.

    Great. I have a good slogan for her: Use a gun, get a job!

    I mocked this concept decades ago where some bleeding heart proposed college programs in prison. This was during the era where “Use a gun, go to prison” was popularized by law & order elected officials. I changed it to “Use a gun, go to college” to express the imbecility behind it. The time to intervene is before the crime. After the crime it’s just a reward for committing it.

    • David Springer

      What I DO support is “Use a gun, go to war”. I saw plenty of hood rats of all colors transformed by service in my beloved United States Marine Corps. I am 110% behind judges who are willing to commute a prison sentence into a military enlistment. The key here is the when a person enters the military they give up their constitutional right to due process and must answer to a different set of laws called “The Uniform Code of Military Justice” or UCMJ for short. There’s no constitutional revolving door for military crimes and military prisons are harsh. College programs are available free in the military and it’s a job too with decent pay and top shelf retirement benefits.

      We should loosen up enlistment restrictions (which currently ban non-high school graduates and those with criminal histories) and encourage judges to, at their discretion, mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”. The transformation from juvenile criminal thug to military man is a beautiful thing to witness.

      • > What I DO support is “Use a gun, go to war”. I saw plenty of hood rats of all colors transformed by service in my beloved United States Marine Corps.

        Right on:

        Micah Johnson left Texas for Afghanistan at 22, outgoing and eager to be a part of something important.

        Eight months later, he returned home a different man, ostracized by many of his comrades and increasingly alone.

        http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160715-soldiers-criticize-army-s-handling-of-dallas-shooter-after-underwear-incident.ece

      • David Springer

        Johnson was Army reserve. I specifically said 4 years in the Marine Corps. Pay attention.

      • David Springer

        Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge cop killer, was a former sergeant in the Marine Corps. I didn’t say it worked every time. Be very wary of pissing off Marine sergeants.

        The point wasn’t about cop killers though it was about what to do with inner city hood rats to break the school-to-prison pipeline. Send them into the military. It’ll save many and perhaps enough to fix the problem.

        David Springer, Sergeant, USMC 1974-1978

      • > Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge cop killer, was a former sergeant in the Marine Corps.

        Very good, Big Dave. Now you’re paying attention.

        Here’s what you said, BTW:

        The key here is the when a person enters the military they give up their constitutional right to due process and must answer to a different set of laws called “The Uniform Code of Military Justice” or UCMJ for short.

        This doesn’t apply to Marine only. If this is key, then your “but Marine only” amounts to special pleading.

        Thanks for playing.

      • The USMC is looking for young people who have done well in school, have no drug or alcohol problems, and who are morally opposed to violating the law. A prospective recruit with a criminal record can apply for a waiver, but there are a lot of tough hoops through which to jump. Very different than the Corps of lore.

      • David Springer

        Yes JCH I said restrictions would need to be loosened at least when a judge sees fit to order it. The Corps did fine for over 200 years turning juvenile delinquents into men. What changed such that it wouldn’t work again?

      • From the article:

        The FBI Announces Gangs Have Infiltrated Every Branch Of The Military

        http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

    • Danny Thomas

      “The time to intervene is before the crime. After the crime it’s just a reward for committing it.”

      Thanks Dave. Glad you thought this out long ago and thanks for sharing the concept here.

      Oh. By the way, and idea if Trump has a policy/plan w/r/t this? I mean, after all, both you and Hillary do.

      • Bill Mare, Cops should pull in what comics on TV get paid in Hollywood.

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/karen-townsend/2016/07/19/bill-maher-cops-getting-shot-just-part-job

        Just to be, fair.

      • Danny Thomas

        Arch,

        Good thing we don’t look to ‘tv personalities’ for guidance huh?

        Oh, wait…..

      • David Springer

        Yes, he does have a plan. Go to his website.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        Show me. Don’t tell me. I see a link to a 44 second video on his site and there’s no plan in that. Unless you’re suggesting that “giving them more authority and respect” is a plan.

      • Dodgy Donald’s military deeds:

        [Dodgy Donald] graduated college in 1968 and managed to not serve in the Vietnam War as the conflict reached its deadly apex.

        http://www.salon.com/2016/06/02/donald_trump_draft_dodger_partner/

        Big Dave said something about “judges who are willing to commute a prison sentence into a military enlistment.”

      • David Springer

        Your history of making faces and spitting out anything I find for you precludes me doing it again. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice and … uh … never fool me again.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        It’s either there, or it’s not. Care to show me? I told you what I found, and crystal balls don’t seem to function well here (mine any more than yours). In order make sure I don’t ‘assume’ anything, maybe you could put yourself out this one time by making an exception. Unless……..

      • Big Dave,

        Had you not yourself volonteered that the Baton Rouge was a marine, I would gladly have done it for you. At least you did not fall into that one. Perhaps it means you’re learning something.

        You now have to reconcile your praise of the military and the fact that both the Dallas and the Baton Rouge shooters were “transformed by service.” The psychological impact of military training and of going to war is quite well documented. You might not wish to go there, but hey, you’re the IQ here.

        When will you issue your IQ certificates, BTW?

        So three cheers for your Use a gun, go to war.

      • David Springer

        So Trump was just like Bush and Clinton in managing to avoid going to Vietnam. Shocker. I already knew that. I think I can even recall how. Off the top of my head – got the usual college deferments for 4 – 6 years which is about as long as a privileged white kid could get away with. Then Trump got some medical deferment. Something wrong with his feet. Probably mutant small toes. Clinton fled the country when his deferments ran out and Bush’s daddy got him a cushy job as a fighter pilot in the National Guard that he didn’t have to show up for more often than it took to get enough training to keep his wings and I think the last 9 months he didn’t even do that. Let his medical elapse maybe.

        Trump did however attend a military academy and was the top dawg. Also quite the athlete. Check out all that he played. No wonder he developed a taste for fashion models. He goes for quality time instead of quantity time with women. Gives him more time to work. A rich famous teetotaler workaholic real estate developer with fashion model girlfriends and wives. Perfect. Just what the doctor ordered.

      • Danny Thomas

        Well done David. Now you’ve made a case that being a draft dodger is worthy. Or at least that since ‘others’ did it, your guy is okay for doing it too!

        Do you blush when you think about your bromance?

      • David Springer

        I suppose when I run for president I could produce SAT and GCT test scores. College transcripts and tax records too. I held a secret clearance at one time too so the FBI should have lots of stuff on file.

        When are you going to stop being an anonymous coward?

      • Willard, when you talked about Baton Rouge being a Marine, did you actually mean a Marion?

      • David Springer

        That’s Trump front center leading the squad by the way.

      • Danny Thomas

        Leading them? Which direction? He didn’t go anywhere near a conflict (unless you count hazing).

        Is this the guy you followed in your service?

      • Good one, mosomoso!

        You can call her Jean-Marine.

      • David Springer

        Danny he’s going to talk about all that stuff in a really long address on Thursday. Tune in. I’m done spoon feeding you. How many times will I need to repeat that do you think?

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        I’ll tune in.

        But “he’s going to talk about all that stuff in a really long address on Thursday.” One Mr. Flynn might suggest that’s a deflection, denial, or diversion.

        Did I misread your having said I should see his website for the content to which you referred?

      • Oh, and this is what was coming if you fell for the “prison sentence”:

        Think of it this way: you probably don’t have your own jet, but if you got pulled over in your car with expired registration, you’d get in trouble! Now, a plane is a far more regulated and intense means of transportation. However, since marginalizing entire races and genders somehow hasn’t ended [Delta Donald]’s campaign, flying with an unregistered plane certainly won’t. But he could still get in some trouble […]

        http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a44128/donald-trump-plane-not-registered/

        Delta Donald will never get the 3 years prison sentence lower citizens would get, and thus would never have to deal with Big Dave’s desideratum of turning prison time into military time.

      • Willard, don’t know if old Le Pen appreciates being kicked out of the party by Marine. And now the creepy old Hebrew-basher has to live with revelations that grand-daughter Marion is the daughter of a Mossad agent.

        Marine, by the way, is a party girl and republican, while Marion is an earnest Catholic with suspected royalist tendencies.

        Scratch a conservative family and you’ll find deep differences. It’s a freedom thing.

      • Marion, at age 26 and looking as she does, is a prime candidate for patronising. They only try it once. Just ask Alain Juppé. Ouch.

      • It might not be wise to portray Marion as a victim, mosomoso, as she’s not immune to play the age card.

        Whatever one’s look, 20 hours flights are hard on relationships.

      • Marion a “victim”, Willard? It’s like my “adoration” of Marion. Nobody says it, but you warn against it anyway.

        You’ll note that her reference to Juppe’s age was strictly in regard to those denying the validity of older people’s votes in Brexit. A good point. The rest is just interpretation by the finger-wagging luvvie journalist. (God save us from the French variety of that lot, eh?)

        Next gotcha.

      • David Springer

        Ad homs fall off me like water off a duck’s back, clowns.

        Read harder, Wee Willard. This is what I wrote:

        “mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”.”

        Either read harder or ask what “four in the corps” refers to if you are unsure. Thanks for being wrong and doubling down on it. Chump.

      • David Springer

        Danny you seem to have replaced “speech had parts similar to Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech” with “very same words”. Where did you get this new information?

        Here’s a plethora of articles discussing Trump’s plans for inner city yutes:

        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trump%20inner%20city

        You do know how to google, right? And read? Sure you do. I must therefore conclude you aren’t interested in knowing and are just trying to yank my chain. I’m not going for your concern trolling, dikwad.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        From the very first link from (and thank you for) your google search: “Trump used a term that generally refers to low-income urban neighborhoods. What he meant by rebuilding them is unclear.” Unclear?

        “Trump said that Clinton wants to spend hundreds of billions on refugees and for that money, “we could rebuild every inner city in America.” Trump’s campaign provided no supporting numbers.” No supporting numbers?

        “We rate this claim Pants on Fire.”

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-wrong-clintons-refugee-plan-would-cost-more-/

        But there’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • > Nobody says it, but you warn against it anyway.

        Come on, mosomoso. PeterD praises French women, you come up with a video of the younger Le Pen with an incomplete transcript and nothing more than usual “either your with us or against us” crap. Then you distance her from her aunt, Madame Frexit herself, not without mentioning “patronising” and the way she looks.

        It’s easier to fill these dots then your favorite Catholic’s call for indefinite “actions” in her war against “islamism.”

        There’s no valid point behind Marion’s “should we forbid Juppé’s right to vote” in a referendum, which is indeed victimizing. For more context, please refer to Courage Fillion’s point. I do hope you’ll appreciate “capilotractés” as much as I do.

      • The words you claim are missing are in the transcript. Fact you got wrong. Just like you corrected me over Marion being Marine. Fact you got wrong.

        The rest is opinion. Forgive me if I don’t chase another link till you check your claim about the words being missing from the transcript.

      • > This is what I wrote: “mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”.

        I know what you wrote, Big Dave. Repeating it doesn’t address what I did write in return. You also forget that what is less colloquially known as “waivers” is something that has been brought up out of necessity:

        The story of that unnamed Air National Guard recruit (whose name is blacked out in his statement) is based on documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act. It illustrates one of the tactics that the military is using in its uphill battle to meet recruiting targets during the Iraq war. The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979.

        http://www.salon.com/2006/02/02/waivers/

        Using prisoners as soldiers is far from being new. What’s a bit newer is drug corporations hiring American soldiers as assassins:

        America’s not exceptional anymore.

      • > Forgive me if I don’t chase another link till you check your claim about the words being missing from the transcript.

        Done.

        Your turn.

      • Danny, the low income housing and inner city revitalization situation is odd. In 2011, “low income” housing was running at over $430,000 per unit but could be built for ~$100,000per unit. Just changing the specifications so primarily small builders/contractors get a larger share of the projects, makes a bigger dent in unemployment and local economic impact. You can also increase the number of units that can be bought by residents, which can double or triple impact of the funding. For example the average Habitat for Humanity unit costs about $80,000 and they don’t have a major delinquency problem.

        I can see properly spent money going 4 to 6 times further than the current SNAFU system.

        http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/review/index.php?article=112

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.
        Thanks. Looks like a very in depth read. Will be on my near term list as improvement in the housing issue will likely reduce stress on other areas as a side benefit.

        I appreciate the reference.

      • That’s right. The words were in the transcript…but in a furtive way. I actually read the words and missed the furtiveness. Having had a fair bit to do with translation, I’m never surprised by rough edges in YouTubes and foreign films.

        Interesting to hear that Marion’s my favourite Catholic and that in pointing out family differences I must be unconsciously distancing her from Madame Frexit because I…well, I just do furtive stuff like that without knowing. I need someone to fill my dots, hear my dog whistles. Oh come on. You know what I mean.

        Okay, so Marion did indeed say that the argument against older voices for Brexit could be applied to Juppe. We’ve now read that at two of your links. I think it’s a point well made, you don’t. Fillon shocks nobody by not agreeing. You and others think it’s victimisation and mockery of Juppe. I would call that capilotracte. There may be an element of gotcha…but that’s something you couldn’t possibly object to.

      • > I actually read the words and missed the furtiveness.

        And I actually listened to what she said, which was said at the beginning of 0:47, so more than one second earlier than the text. Francophones don’t need to read the transcript. Populist crap is easy to get.

        It’s capilotracté, BTW.

        Dudeism can’t cover for Marion’s caricature of Courage Fillion’s point: young voters are the ones who will pay for their elders’ vote.

        And yes, Marion, at age 26 and looking as she does, is a prime candidate for patronising is loud and clear.

        She’s recently divorced, in case you’re interested to know.

      • I included the only link to the speech which had translation because many here don’t know French. Is that odd? I did not read the transcript till you called my attention to it. You read the transcript, Willard. You populist reader of transcripts, you!

        And I’m aware that capilotracte, a word you seem so proud to know, should have an accent on it, as should Juppe. I even write El Nino without the accent. I’m a lazy boy when blogging…but I’ve been able to read/ translate some dozen languages without descending to pedantry. You know what I mean. It’s loud and clear. Fill the dots. No amount of HuffPoism can conceal the truth.

      • > You read the transcript […]

        I actually read the subtitles when she was talking, mosomoso. And yes, I know that Marion’s not Marine. That was just my way of reminding you who was the boss.

        Talk about pedandry.

      • > Sheer boilerplate[.]

        Try with a software, AK:

        Perhaps you’d rather fact check Mrs Degree Donald’s herself:

      • that is the equivalent of a Willard concession speech.

      • You’re right, Cap’n.

        So many times it happens too fast. You trade your passion for glory. I’m losing grip on the dreams of ClimateB*ll’s past, while I must fight just to keep them alive.

        It’s the eye of the Big Cat. It’s the thrill of the fight. Rising up to the crap of Denizens. And the last one, Big Dave, stalks me in the night. He’s watching all despite AdBlockPlus.

        Make America Ditto Again. Vote for Ditto Donald.

      • David Springer

        No Wishful Willard, I quite happily let Adblock Plus do its job. I wish WordPress had a killfile. You’d be my first [plonk]. Seriously. You’re an annoyance. Nothing more.

      • David Springer

        Wallowing Willard, what part of “four in the corps” do you not understand?

      • David Springer

        Good luck with the spoon feeding, Dallas. Wear a raincoat and eye protection.

  77. Ditto Donald:

    • Danny Thomas

      LOL. From within the Time article: ” It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person.”

      Pot, meet kettle.

      • Kettle’s name’s Jill:

        Jarrett Hill, a Twitter user whose biography describes him as an interior designer and journalist, apparently first noticed the resemblance between Ms. [Ditto Donald]’s speech and Mrs. Obama’s in 2008.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html

      • David Springer

        Michelle Obama and Melania Trump’s speechwriters went to the same schools. Duh. The things I have to put up with from intellectual inferiors.

        Do either of you two clowns have a point to make about it?

      • Danny Thomas

        The point I made, David, is the use of the very same words which aptly describe Mr. Trump and has nothing to do with the speech or writers.
        ” It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person.”

        Signed,
        Intellectual inferior.

      • Jarrett Hill, […], apparently first noticed the resemblance […]

        But of course was too ign0rant of history to notice the resemblance to about a zillion boilerplate political speeches going back to 1920 1820.

        Pfui!

      • > But of course was too ign0rant of history to notice the resemblance to about a zillion boilerplate political speeches going back to 1920 1820.

        Go right ahead, AK. Teach Jill.

        While we wait with baited breath, some science:

      • Go right ahead, AK. Teach Jill.

        Oh no. If the MSM (along with trash-press like Huff-Po) want to put their foot in their mouth, why should I interfere?

      • > why should I interfere

        Because you already did, by claiming something you don’t seem to have the fortitude to back up, AK.

      • Because you already did, […]

        Nope.

        I just pointed out boilerplate. Nothing others won’t be doing.

        [… B]y claiming something you don’t seem to have the fortitude to back up, AK.

        Just don’t have the time to play with Google, wading through all the recent references to the “plagiarism”.

        Scientific prediction: it is boilerplate, and once the MSM has put their foot far enough into it, somebody in the Trump campaign (who has access to LexisNexis, which I don’t) will document how often various combinations of those symbols have been used, to make them look silly.

        We can wait and see how it turns out.

        Of course, it’s likely the MSM won’t report on their own embarrassment.

      • Willard

        you will be aware of political plagiarism through the ages, of which the Guardian give a few examples

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/short-history-political-plagiarism-melania-trump

        tonyb

      • Tony b,

        In case you had any second thoughts about Brexit, and what the Eurocrats and your own British traitors are up to, I wanted to point out this video.

        Yanis Varoufakis was Greece’s finance minister during the confrontation Greece had with the Eurocrats last year. He kind of embellishes his own roll a bit to downplay how naive he was going in, and how badly he fumbled the ball, but nevertheless his testimony is a real eye opener as to just how dictatorial, tyrannical and anti-democratic the Euro masters are.

      • It was to be expected, TonyB, as Discourse Donald already declared being an afficionado:

      • > I just pointed out boilerplate.

        You spoke of a “resemblance to about a zillion boilerplate political speeches going back to 1920 1820.”

        You also claimed that Jarrrett Hill (and perhaps otters) were “too ign0rant of history.”

        But now you turn all this into a prediction.

        An interesting trick.

        I predict you’ll use it again.

      • I predict you’ll use it again.

        How about right now? I predict that if I’m wrong, a certain “never ending auditor” will be back to remind me of it.

        Which might have some practical value, if same “never ending auditor” could be relied on to remind me when I’m right.

        But I put the chances of that far lower than 50%. That would require integrity™.

      • > I predict that if I’m wrong […]

        Your prediction can’t be wrong on any “because, boilerplate” prediction unless you specify the boilerplate first, AK.

        The trick is to turn the claim into an empty prediction to evade having to substantiate it.

        Nice try, though.

      • Keep grasping at those straws, Willard. Pretty soon, you’ll have enough to make a really nice hat.

      • Your prediction can’t be wrong on any “because, boilerplate” prediction unless you specify the boilerplate first, AK.

        How about all the bolded text here. Specific enough for you?

        The trick is to turn the claim into an empty prediction to evade having to substantiate it.

        Nothing empty about it.

        I grew up in the United States, so I heard boiler-plate guff like that in political speeches since I was in Jr. High.

        But maybe it’s not so common these days, with progressives and all.

        Nice try, though.

        Well, like I said, I’m just too lazy to wade through all the spam to document it. IMO I could. We’ll just have to see if somebody in the Trump campaign doesn’t go to the effort.

      • “Scientific prediction: it is boilerplate”

        She starts out
        “From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life: “
        My early experiences. It made me who I am. This is supposed to be personal, not boilerplate. And not something you got off the internet.

      • > I’m just too lazy […]

        Yet here you are, yet again indulging in a quote fest.

        Try maths:

      • My early experiences. It made me who I am.

        Boilerplate. Pushing the aucience’s buttons.

        This is supposed to be personal, not boilerplate. And not something you got off the internet.

        Now you’re just being silly. It was boilerplate in Julius Caesar’s day.

        Friends, Romans, and Countrymen: lend me your ears

        I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him.

        Sheer boilerplate, with appropriate names plugged in.

      • > Sheer boilerplate [.]

      • The more they pull this ly1ng cr@p, the more votes they get for Trump.

        I’m not surprised the MSM has become so arrogant they think they can pull this stuff. I wonder what’s going to happen after Trump gets elected?

      • > The more they pull this ly1ng cr@p […]

        Another checker:

        Showing that this tool is lying might be hard.

        How about a prediction, AK?

      • stevenreincarnated

        The thing to do would be to enter the phrases and see how many hits you get. Word is bond gives me 13,000,000. Work hard to get ahead gives me 91,000,000. Much ado about nothing gives me 3,500,000.

      • It isn’t plagiarism unless there was intent to plagiarize.

      • > The thing to do would be to enter the phrases and see how many hits you get.

        Checkers are better than that already, stevenreincarnated.

        Ask Moshpit.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It looks pretty weak to me as phrases you read and hear all the time, but whatever turns your crank have at it. My parents always stressed getting a good education. Get a good education 8,500,000 hits. Not even as common as the ones she used.

      • > It looks pretty weak to me […]

        I know the drill, stevenreincarnated. Next, you’ll ask for all the codes.

        Look. Plagiarism is something that has already been studied quite a lot. Stringology ain’t that complex.

        Try this instead:

      • stevenreincarnated

        LOL Willard, I don’t need the codes. Even if she did plagiarize it will be forgotten by next week as inconsequential.

      • The whole masquarade is inconsequential, stenvereincarnated:

        Two more sentences:

      • stevenreincarnated

        Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers? Who cares? Dead issue by next week is my model’s projection.

      • AK,
        “Boilerplate. Pushing the aucience’s buttons.”
        It was supposed to be presenting Melania Trump. Who she really is. And she starts by telling us what she was taught by her parents.

        I think it was WC Fields who said what he learnt:
        “The key to success is honesty and integrity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

      • “Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers?”
        Well, Biden’s case was rather similar. The text concerned was much briefer, but similarly was about his origins, part lifted from Kinnock. But it knocked him out of the race. And was here in 2008.

      • “Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers?”
        I see it’s still remembered in 2015. Trump, talking to Hugh Hewitt, August, about the prospect of facing Biden as candidate:

        “I think I’d match up great,” answered Trump. “I’m a job producer. I’ve had a great record. I haven’t been involved in plagiarism. I think I would match up very well against Biden.”

      • Willard, “Maths you can use! Astrophysicist @rerutled calculates probability @MELANIATRUMP didn’t plagiarise @MichelleObama http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/maths-on-melania-trump-speech/7643658 …”

        I loved this one. “your word is your bond” would typically proceed an explanation of what it means, “keep your promises” “The only limit” would typically proceed the limitation, “your willingness to work”. So without getting into too much detail, the “Astrophysicist” has his estimate off by a couple of orders of magnitude, which is about par for the course :)

      • stevenreincarnated

        Biden was accused of a lot more than one case of plagiarism. I suspect low poll numbers had more to do with him dropping out of the race than the plagiarism accusation but have been unable to find actual poll numbers at the time. I did run across one article that stated he had been running at around the 2% mark through most of 1987. I doubt the one case everyone heard the most about was actually more than a mistake by a mistake prone Biden. If he were actually plagiarizing then he would have had to believe nobody would do even the most basic of fact checking like if he were the first in the family to get a degree and the son of coal miners.

      • > So without getting into too much detail, the “Astrophysicist” has his estimate off by a couple of orders of magnitude […]

        I understand, Capt’n. I would love to show you my proof that God exists and my solution to all the remaining Millenium prize problems, but I can’t get into too much details either.

        ***

        > If he were actually plagiarizing then he would have had to believe nobody would do even the most basic of fact checking […]

        Tell that to those who wrote at #GOPinCLE that Mrs Ditto Donald has an architecture degree:

        A wide-ranging interview published in GQ in April 2016 reported that Trump did gain admission to the the University of Ljubljana by passing a “notoriously difficult” entrance exam, but left after just one year to pursue a burgeoning modeling career : […]

        http://www.snopes.com/melania-trump-architecture-degree/

        The overall campain of Deceit Donald shows the limitations of any counterfactual involving fact-checking.

      • Willard, “I understand, Capt’n. I would love to show you my proof that God exists and my solution to all the remaining Millenium prize problems, but I can’t get into too much details either.”

        Unlike your religious strawman, this is a simple exercise in probability. Language is not purely random and the Astrophysicist’s choice of how to break things down into phrase segments is arbitrary. A less arbitrary method is to use sentences or larger sentence fragments. Prior to making the comparison between Melania and Michelle, Michelle’s speech would be put in the plagiarism grinder to determine just how original her speech was. That provides a baseline. Then with 5 commonly used phrases, comparing sequencing of those phrases would give you a probability of 1 in 120. No arbitrary assumptions required.

        Of course this is opposed to your political agenda :)

      • Cap’n –

        ==> Then with 5 commonly used phrases,.. .==>

        Seriously? No mention of sequence and proximity?

        Must be a coincidence, eh?

        It’s an insignificant issue, IMO, but watching the hilarious arguments in defense is what becomes meaningful.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Willard, you get too excited about this stuff. It isn’t going to matter. Nobody was going to vote for Trump because his wife has a degree and nobody isn’t going to vote for Trump because she said she did and doesn’t should that be the case. What is going to happen is a backlash on the left for picking on the pretty lady with the cute accent.

      • David Springer

        A new, all time high, record smashing display of inanity. Congratulations are in order for the libtards. You’ve outdone yourselves, and that wasn’t easy.

        Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • Thank you for telling me how I feel and how I should feel instead, stevenreincarnated.

        Here’s something else that may not matter about Diabolical Donald:

        Let’s hope there won’t be too much backlash about that one too.

        An excerpt for Big Dave:

        University of Pennsylvania Professor Diana Mutz, who teaches at [Diabolical Donald]’s alma mater, argued that readers might see parallels between [Diabolical Donald]’s political style and the book’s villain, Lord Voldemort.

        “I think a lot of the identification of [Diabolical Donald]’s dominating kind of politics is something people associate with Voldemort,” she told TIME. “So it makes some sense that if you have been exposed to these long series of books where he is the ultimate kind of incarnation of evil, that the characteristics that are more aggressive tactics and so forth that [Diabolical Donald] represents are less attractive, even leaving aside how it affects your policy attitudes.”

        http://time.com/4413658/donald-trump-harry-potter-study

        Make America Diabolical Again. Vote Diabolical Donald.

      • > Language is not purely random and the Astrophysicist’s choice of how to break things down into phrase segments is arbitrary.

        That’s not what Bob did, Cap’n. He simply calculated the ikelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order, Cap’n. If you can’t come up with your own solution to this Very Difficult Problem, ask Sir Rud about his special formula. He might need to break some Harvard Graduate Econometric Oath, but if he esteems you like I do, he’ll consider breaking it.

      • Nameless one, “==> Then with 5 commonly used phrases,.. .==>

        Seriously? No mention of sequence and proximity?

        Must be a coincidence, eh?”

        The Astrophysicist picked “distinct” phrases like “your achievements”, “your dreams” and “in this nation” from a political campaign speech. What are the odds?

      • Willard, “He simply calculated the ikelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order, Cap’n”

        your achievements, your dreams, in this nation, our children etc.14 factorial. your dreams, your dreams, your dreams, your dreams ;;; is one of his probabilities. To boot, he arbitrarily determined what he thought were “distinct” phrases based on comparing just the test in question. I am pretty sure he could find that there is a 1 in a couple million chance that Rosalynn Carter plagiarism Michell with those “distinct” phrases for a political address.

      • Bob could for sure, Cap’n. And so do you, right after you’ve shown Denizens how Bob is off by “a couple of orders of magnitude.”

        Meanwhile, something for your consideration:

        [I]f you graph the word positions in English text against the number of words that would be grammatically possible as the next word given the last few words of the text, although the numbers vacillate wildly, the average across them all tends to settle in at something approaching 100. If that’s right, then at any arbitrary starting point in an arbitrary text, if text was being composed at random, the probability that you will find the next 14 words match some previously designated sequence of 14 words is very roughly in the region of 1 in 10^28, , i.e., 0.0000000000000000000000000001.

        http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003066.html

        If Bob’s wrong about orders of magnitude, I duly submit that it may not be in the direction you’re implying.

      • Willard, “… if text was being composed at random, …” That is the caveat.

        “Become that rare person where people know that your word is your bond and you’re going to do exactly what you say you’re going to do.”
        Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_w_rogers_jr.html

        your word is your bond followed by an explanation of what it means. Melania used “do what you say and keep your promises” Michelle used “do what you say you will do.” “your word in your bond” is not a Michelle original and people that use that cliche typically follow it with an explanation. So Bob used a known cliche, “your word is your bond” as his “distinct” evidence of plagiarism followed by some something else assuming Michelle was original. Now perhaps, John W. Rogers Jr. cribbed Michelle, but I doubt it.

      • btw, this article mentions false positives and negatives issues with plag checkers if you are interested. turnitin came up with 1 in a trillion some others were as high as 1 in 10 trillion. You are assuming Bob’s estimate is low for some reason I cannot decipher.

      • > your word is your bond followed by an explanation of what it means

        I’m so excited when you get philosophical, Cap’n.

        I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it.

        I’m about to lose control and I think I like it.

        I know, I know, I know, I know , I know I want you to get all philosophical, Cap’n.

        Next time, please stick to thermodynamics. That’s what you do best.

    • If there remains any doubt about whether plagiarism occurred. This should settle it:

      “Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama’s speeches,” McIver said in the statement. “This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.”

      Josh Marshall at TPM:

      “The deeper story here is that Melania and Don Jr have seriously upped the ante for Trump on who he’ll plagiarize Thursday evening.”

      • Trump tweeted that her speech got more publicity that any speech in history. Attacking potential first ladies hasn’t been all that productive in the past :)

      • David Springer

        Thanks. So no plagiarism occurred. The short phrases everyone jumped on are far too common. Such as “my parents taught me that I had to work for what I wanted”. Give me a break. Look up trite and you’ll find that as an example.

  78. David Springer

    Vote Trump. Uses his real name on the inter-tubes sometimes but not extremely carelessly.

    • Where are your IQ certificates, BIg Dave?

      Here, have some Diffident Donald:

      • David Springer

        Collecting dust somewhere. I’ll do more to find them for a price. Where are you not too yellow to use your real name?

      • Please produce your IQ certificates, Big Dave.

        Until then, no sale.

      • Where are you not too yellow to use your real name?

        Wassa matter Big Dave? Your tricks for tracking down people’s identity don’t work when they really make an effort to hide?

        Why not ask Steven Mosher for help. He seems to brag of some skill at identifying people by their word patterns.

    • David Springer

      I haven’t tried ID’ing Willard. I know how to identify idiosyncracies in written speech and google them. I do it routinely checking for plagiarism. Is that a challenge?

      • Is that a challenge?

        Not WRT me. Anybody who wants to know who I am can follow the link back to my blog, and go back a few posts to where I link to old stuff with my real name. (Before I found that old stuff, it was a little harder, but not that much.)

        I just prefer not to splatter my name all over the internet these days.

      • David Springer

        I understand your trepidation. Cowardice is the new courage.

    • Danny Thomas,

      So now you’ve decided to join team Europe?

      One thing about those pragmatic Europeans, they sure to heck know where their bread’s buttered. Imagine if they had to start anteing up their fair share for NATO:

      But even worse than that, imagine if the Europeans had to figure out for themselves how they’re going to break the stranglehold Putin has on their natural gas supply. They might even have to develop their own domestic energy sources.

      And heck, doing that might put a dent into Team Green’s agenda, stuff like this:

      German government agrees to ban fracking after years of dispute
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/24/germany-bans-fracking-after-years-of-dispute

  79. Darn. Plagiarism by a politician’s wife? What next, accusations that some politicians are lying thieves, rogues, and vagabonds?

    Surely not.

    Scientists are far more ethical. Apparently, some definitely do not doctor data, fake experiment results, plagiarise the work of others. or commit fraud in order to obtain grant funds.

    Totally more capable of running a country than elected politicians – in their own minds, of course! Politicians, just as with scientists, exhibit human traits. No better, no worse.

    All is well. The universe is unfolding as it should.

    Cheers.

    • > What next […]

      Damning Donald:

      From the article (h/t jim):

      Take Monday’s speech by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Like previous speakers, he complained that President Obama has failed to identify “our enemy.” Giuliani described this enemy as “Islamic extremist terrorism.” Then he paused to lecture reporters: “For the purpose of the media, I did not say all of Islam. I did not say most of Islam. I said Islamic extremist terrorism.”

      Well, that’s nice. But it’s not what Trump has said. Trump has said, “Islam hates us.” He has proposed a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” If you don’t like that position, don’t lecture the press. Lecture your nominee.

  80. “An astrophysicist has used the power of mathematics to prove Melania Trump’s speech was plagiarised from First Lady Michelle Obama.”

    The power of mathematics! James Hansen was an astrophysicist – his use of the power of mathematics maybe left a bit to be desired. Gavin Schmidt is an actual mathematician, but he seemed to have difficulty using the power of mathematics to do appropriate statistical analyses, so I believe.

    The power of mathematics? Why not just ask the woman? Or should she be tossed in jail because an astrophysicist used the power of mathematics? I’d say it seems to be much ado about nothing, but I’d probably be arrested for plagiarism, or illegal use of intellectual property or something!

    What a pack of fatheads!

    Cheers.

    • Lots of exclamations!

      Why all these questions?

      Because the world needs another theory:

      • Two questions seeking answers. One rhetorical question. Three exclamation marks.

        Yes, I realise this is all a bit much for a foolish Warmist to take in, all at once.

        In typical foolish Warmist fashion, you ignore the questions, preferring to deny, divert, and confuse.

        You seem to be denying that an astrophysicist using the power of mathematics to prove something unprovable, is completely pointless and irrelevant. You divert the discussion by claiming the world needs another theory about something or other.
        You confuse the issue by providing an irrelevant Twitter thingy which proposes an assertion as some sort of fact. Maybe true, even, but still irrelevant.

        Foolish Warmist.

        I hope you won’t be offended if I continue to use any literary devices I wish. If it’s too much for you to cope with, don’t bother reading my posts. You’ll probably save your no doubt valuable time. I haven’t changed my thinking, opinions, or behaviour because of anything you’ve written so far.

        I have no preference for any US party or candidate. I don’t think it would matter if I did. I find plenty to smile about, watching it all go on.

        Cheers.

      • > You seem to be denying that an astrophysicist using the power of mathematics to prove something unprovable, is completely pointless and irrelevant.

        I’d rather claim that “using the power of mathematics to prove something unprovable” is a bit silly, MikeF. I’m not sure I should care. You can’t even mention one single intrinsic property CO2.

        Donald’s Razor seems to be winning so far, but there’s even weirder:

        I’m biased toward that one because it mentions “Manafort,” which makes me think of Don Don.

        God I miss Don Don.

        I know you mean well, MikeF, but you’re no sport.

      • Willard,

        I could have been clearer. I should have written ” . . .to prove something which is unprovable . . . “. Sorry about that.

        As to CO2, I consider things such as molecular weight and specific gravity to be intrinsic. They are measurable and definable.

        The planet warming property of CO2 is a foolish Warmist fantasy. No definition, no measurement, no existence.

        Even you don’t really believe in the warming property of CO2. Just more faith, in lieu of fact.

        Foolish Warmist!

        Cheers.

      • > I should have written ” . . .to prove something which is unprovable . . . “.

        To claim that something is unprovable you need a proof of its opposite, MikeF. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are of this category. Here‘s an introduction to unprovability theory.

        To claim that AGW is unprovable, you’d need a proof of its indeterminacy. All this takes is to proof that it contains arithmetic. While this may be trivial for mathematicians to establish, you may also wish to prove something stronger: that non-AGW is true. Appealing to the intrinsic properties of CO2 may not convince many since causation may implicate extrinsic properties, so good luck with that.

        I’m glad you invoke the “but measurement” argument, since it shows that the late JimC’s verificationnism is alive and well. I miss JimC. Your “but definition” won’t convince many Popperians.

        ***

        Here’s the form of your argument:

        (MF1) The argument regarding Mrs Dixit Donald’s speech has been made by an astrophysicist.

        (MF2) Jim Hansen was an astrophysicist and he proved the unprovable, i.e. AGW.

        (MF3) Astrophysicists can prove the unprovable.

        (MF4) The conclusion is left as an exercise to readers after a series of exclamations and rhetorical questions.

        You’ll note that your argument is (a) incomplete in the sense of not offering a firmer conclusion, (b) incomplete in the sense that the implicit conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises, because (c) all your premises are ad hominem.

        Furthermore, Bob Rutledge only provides an estimate of the likelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order. The astronomocical number is derived from the fact that there are many ways to permute 14 objects. If you want to know more about that, you’d need to ask Sir Rud. I’ve been told that it involves secret formulas only accessible to Harvard graduates.

        In any event, Bob’s argument rests only on the order of the sentences that we can find in both Michelle’s and Mrs Dixit Donald’s speeches. This does not involve any refined form of plagiarism. This means it’s probably a low-ball guestimate.

        Even with a low-ball guestimate, the odds that Mrs Dixit Donald hasn’t plagiarised Michelle is one in 87 billion. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to prove that Mrs Dixit Donald hasn’t plagiarized Michelle. It just means it’s very, very, very unlikely.

        Proving the unprovable has been done before. That’s not what Bob did. What Bob did wasn’t even a proof.

      • Willard, “Even with a low-ball guestimate, the odds that Mrs Dixit Donald hasn’t plagiarised Michelle is one in 87 billion.”

        I challenge you to extract your head out of your butt for a moment, now that “your word is your bond” is being used to death after Ted Cruz’s speech.

        “values,” “work hard for what you want in life,” “word is your bond,” “do what you say,” “treat people with … respect,” “pass [them] on to many generations,” “because we want our children,” “in this nation,” “to know,” “the only limit,” “your achievements,” “your dreams,” “willingness to work for them.” randomly used would give you 1 in 87 billion, but the “distinct” phrases are arbitrarily selected.

        “values”and “to know” are too common to be considered “distinct”, especially in a political speech that is likely to discuss values, in fact just about every first lady speech ever has used values. “in this nation” in a political speech is in no way distinct first lady or no. Now you can slice and dice the rest as you like, but there are about 7 sentence fragments that could be considered a though, that gives you 1 in 5040. If you consider more complete thoughts, your word is your bond, followed by an example, you can get down to 5 distinct phrases or 1 in 120 odds. If you don’t agree with the use of phrases that can be considered a thought, then you could get 1 in 40 million using the 11 arguably distinct phrases. There is now way 1 in 87 billion is a low ball estimate.

      • Dear Cap’n,

        The 1 in 87 billions is indeed a lowball estimate, for the simple reason that it only took into account the 14 exact sentences that were in the same order. It doesn’t estimate the odds of getting the same strings of words within each sentence, even by using word entropy. Moreover, it doesn’t evaluate the odds to get all the other sentences that contain so many paraphrases.

        The concept you’re looking when you hammer “your word is your bond” is called a speech act. Your hypothesis that some kind of speech act entropy would minimize the odds of accidentally getting two strings of words would deserve due diligence. It would be interesting because it could help patchwriting recognition, which is an even worse problem in academia.

        Work on it and report.

        Meanwhile, your argument from incredulity is duly noted.

      • Dillard, “The 1 in 87 billions is indeed a lowball estimate, for the simple reason that it only took into account the 14 exact sentences that were in the same order.”

        There were 3 sentences in Michelle’s and 5 in Melania’s. In comparsion you could call it 3 or 5, but not 14. The “14” “distinct phrases” I listed above. The quality of your criticism has suffer Dillard, Dramacrats getting you down?

      • Dillard, btw, while I know astrophysicists are extremely knowledgeable, I went to an expert on this particular field, an English Teacher :) Suspicious but not blatant, she would have a chat with these two students.

      • > There were 3 sentences in Michelle’s and 5 in Melania’s.

        Now I see the problem, Cap’n. We’re not talking about the odds of having produced the exact same syntactical constructs. Bob’s talking about the order of phrases. Here’s Melania’s text:

        From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.

        Here are the phrases Bob identified:

        “values”, “work hard” “for what you want in life”, “word is your bond”, “do what you say”, “treat people with…respect”, “pass [them] on to many generations”, “Because we want our children”, “in this nation”, “to know”, “the only limit”, “your achievements”, “your dreams”, “willingness to work for them”.

        Here are the underlying ideas, in sentential form:

        – From a young age, my parents impressed on me on values:
        – You work hard.
        – You work for what you want in life.
        – Your word is your bond.
        – You do what you say.
        – You keep your promise.
        – You treat people with respect.
        – My parents taught me values and morals.
        – My parents showed me these values in their daily lives.
        – That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son.
        – We need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow.
        – We want our children in this nation to know:
        – The only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams
        – The only limit to your achievements is your willingness to work for them.

        Bob’s odds are related to the exact order of the phrases, not to the odds or producing colloquial expressions such as “your word is your bond,” as you seem to be suggesting. If that’s indeed your argument, it doesn’t counter Bob’s point.

        You’d have a better chance arguing, as I thought you did, that the order of the ideas is far from being random. A panegyric has basic forms, and one of the most common might very well be to build from personal to end up celebrating experennial stuff. Praising someone is usually done with a limited number of speech acts. I don’t know of any statistical analysis of that kind of thing, and I was serious when I said that of you can find something to that effect, it would be important to spot patchwriting, if only to help technical writers.

        ***

        Even then, you’d have a hard time beating Bob’s odds. Bob’s odds are quite small, actually. Think about all the ideas Melania omitted or transformed:

        My husband and I were raised with so many of the same values.
        – You treat people with dignity even if you don’t know them.
        – You treat people with dignity even if you don’t agree with them.

        What are the odds that the First Lady of a Republican convention where one of the theme is Make America Safe Again omits to mention that she and her husband don’t share the same cultural background or that you treat people with dignity even if you don’t know them or even if you don’t agree with them?

        “Dillard.” I like that.

        Add to this the odds that Ditto Donald’s team come up with so many (contradictory) statements about:

        – the authorship of the speech;
        – the person to be held accountable for having approved the speech;
        – the lack of creativity of writers such as John Legend:

        The odds are getting more than astronomical.

        My Little Pony – come on, Cap’n!

        ***

        Please rest assured that I don’t need to ask any language teacher, Cap’n. They usually ask me.

    • David Springer

      Yeah right. 12 seconds of phrases scattered in a half dozen places in a 15 minute speech were “strikingly similar. Both speeches delivered at the same event (presidential primary) by the same person (candidate’s wife) for the same purpose (extol the candidate).

      I found those exact same phrases appearing in dozens of other places by googling them. I guess that makes Michelle Obama a plagiarizer too. Or maybe, just maybe, the speechwriters they both hired went to the same schools and turn out the same boilerplate speeches when it’s for the same event by the same person for the same purpose.

      The fact that *this* is the worst thing the opposition could find to talk about from a large array of opening day speeches spanning 10 hours speaks volumes about the dearth of substantial objections the opposition has in their vacuous pointy little heads.

      Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • David Springer said:

        The fact that *this* is the worst thing the opposition could find to talk about from a large array of opening day speeches spanning 10 hours speaks volumes about the dearth of substantial objections the opposition has in their vacuous pointy little heads.

        I agree. This “plagarism” charge is all Clinton and her obsequious MSM Hillarymongers have.

        Hillary and the Hillarymongers certainly can’t make the election about Clinton’s track record on the economy. Or her track record on foreign relations. Or her track record on national security.

        So what’s left?

        The only things left are an endless array of irrelevant trivia, and identity politics.

        If the election is decided on anything substantive, Clinton loses.

      • > The fact that *this* is the worst thing the opposition could find […]

        That fact is of course false. Giuliani’s speech has been dubbed the most damning. Let’s untwitter what we already cited and add this other excerpt for Big Dave’s eyes only:

        Giuliani accused Obama of dividing the country over police shootings. He asked: “What happened to ‘There’s no black America, no white America, there is just America’?” Speaking for the GOP, Giuliani pledged: “We reach out our arms with understanding and compassion to those who have lost loved ones because of police shootings.”

        That’s sweet. But maybe, before issuing that pledge, Giuliani should have checked [Divided Donald]’s Twitter account. He could start with [Divided Donald]’s tweet that “the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics.” Then perhaps he could move on to [Divided Donald]’s retweet of a fabricated claim that 81 percent of white homicide victims were killed by blacks—followed by [Divided Donald]’s insistence that the number came “from sources that are very credible.” Then maybe he could peruse [Divided Donald]’s tweets about the anger over policing in Ferguson, Missouri (“President Obama has absolutely no control [or respect] over the African American community”) and over the death of Freddie Gray (“Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!”). And for dessert, he could read [Divided Donald]’s remark, just three weeks ago, that sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder never should have apologized for racist comments about black athletes. There’s no black America, except in everything [Divided Donald] says to white America.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/rudy_giuliani_s_convention_speech_was_a_disaster_too.html

        Make America Divided Again. Vote Divided Donald.

      • David Springer

        I haven’t seen or heard Guilliani’s speech mentioned on CNN, Fox, Headline News, or MSNBC. I surf all four of them regularly. They’re all just going on and on about Meliana’s alleged plagiarism.

        Maybe you should start watching the news, Wishful Willard, instead of trying to make it. Just a thought.

      • Here, Big Dave, let me spoonfeed you:

        Make America Spoonfed Again. Vote Spoonfed Donald.

      • David Springer

        Wacky Willard – I can’t see your spam. Adblock Plus disappears it. If you wish me to respond you’ll have to find some means other than copying twits to convey it. How many times need I tell you this?

        Want Wearying Willard’s crap consigned to the ether? Get Adblock Plus. Join half a million others. It’s free and easy:

        https://adblockplus.org/

        Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • Raging Rudy got everything wrong:

        Highlight, featuring Django Donald:

        Ironically, according to [Raging Rudy]’s vision, it is local police who are responsible for keeping us safe, so any feelings to the contrary should represent a failure on their part. Something that Giuliani carefully overlooked. In reality, crime is at record lows, and local police have very little to do with it. Decades of research has yet to show any clear correlation, much less causal connection between different police tactics and substantial or sustained changes in crime rates. These kinds of facts have been of no concern, however, to [Raging Rudy] or [Django Donald] in this season of “know-nothing” jingoism, xenophobia, and racism.

        https://www.thenation.com/article/giulianis-convention-speech-got-everything-wrong-about-policing/

      • David Springer

        I’m sorry Swillard but your mission was to back up your assertion that Giulliani’s speech got more attention than Melania’s.

        Try again.

      • > your mission was to back up your assertion that Giulliani’s speech got more attention than Melania’s.

        Wrong mission, Big Dave. I was responding to “The fact that *this* is the worst thing the opposition could find.” That’s why I quoted it.

        That you turn this into a G fight is your own problem.

        If you want to know which of Rudy’s or Melania’s speeches are more problematic, compare them to teh Donald’s.

        Report.

  81. Well it looks like two can play hardball politics:

    When Subpoenas Threaten Climate Science
    http://www.texasenvironmentalnews.com/when-subpoenas-threaten-climate-science/

    Who could have ever told the Warmist/Alarmist geniuses that for every action, there is a reaction.

    • David Springer

      A conspiracy by Union of Concerned Scientists and certain state attorney generals to deprive Exxon of its constitutional right to investigate climate science findings and advertise the results.

      Sounds legit to me. Sue the phuckers. Proud to call Lamar Smith a fellow Texan.

      Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

  82. 11 Ways the Republican Platform Attacks the Environment
    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38090-11-ways-the-republican-platform-attacks-the-environment

    The Republican Party’s 2016 platform, released on Monday at its national convention in Cleveland….

    If you want a guide to what Republicans would do with full control of the federal government, you couldn’t get a better one than this 2,400-word part of the platform. Like the EPA/Department of Interior spending bill House Republicans passed last week, it makes the GOP’s incredibly radical agenda crystal clear: deregulate pollution, halt any action to prevent climate change, and expand fossil fuel use.

    “Incredibly radical agenda”?

    Oh well, I suppose the best defense is a good offense.

  83. The objective here is to show that Clinton Inc. is just a branch bank of Goldman Sachs.

    GOP platform to call for return to Glass-Steagall
    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/288148-gop-platform-to-call-for-return-to-glass-steagall

    Paul Manafort, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign manager, told reporters gathered in Cleveland Monday that the GOP platform would include language advocating for a return of Glass-Steagall, which was repealed under President Bill Clinton.

  84. For Warmists/Alarmists, “science” is a blunt political instrument which they use to bash heretics to their fundamentalist religion and their illegal methods with:

    Federal Agents Went Undercover To Spy on Anti-Fracking Movement, Emails Reveal
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/19/blm-fracking-protests/

    “Why are climate activists, who are only calling on the BLM to follow President Obama’s lead and heed universally accepted science, facing this kind of uphill response?” Nichols asked rhetorically. “It’s a shame that the BLM has turned climate concerns into a law enforcement issue instead of a genuine policy discussion.”

    Of course the climate activists have done a wee bit more than merely “calling on the BLM to follow President Obama’s lead and heed universally accepted science”:

    The focus on preventing the leasing of public lands for fracking gained national headlines in 2008 when activist Tim DeChristopher successfully bid on 22,000 acres of oil and gas land in Utah. DeChristopher, who served two years in prison, did not intend to pay but won the bid in order to disrupt the auction and call attention to the leasing program.

    I suppose that when one is doing God’s work, any means is justified, including breaking the law.

  85. On the alleged “plagiarism,” what’s happened here is the Trump team has once again suckered the liberal media and the subordinate liberal sheep to talk about Trump 24/7.

    Suckers.

  86. The Myth of Upward Mobility in America
    http://www.alternet.org/economy/myth-upward-mobility-america

    Soaring inequality in America has been accompanied by a plummet in upward mobility since the early 1980s, with those who earn modest incomes in their first jobs likely to remain trapped in low-wage work for decades, a troubling paper concludes….

    “One striking feature is the decline in upward mobility among middle-class workers, even those with a college degree,” the scholars write.

    • Glenn,

      You seem to harp persistently on these economic issues but don’t seem to realize that we have essentially been following the Republican/Reagan agenda since the 1980’s. We’ve cut taxes, deregulated, removed protections for labor unions (and they have declined), outsourced jobs and manufacturing, become almost energy self-sufficient, and pretty much let business do what it wants.

      So whatever you want to complain about just remember it has been the Republican/Reagan policies that have got us to this point.

      Trump isn’t going to change any of this and from the best I can tell he is more likely to accelerate it.

      • James Cross,

        Lordy! Lordy! Have you ever picked up a history book in your entire life?

        Or is it that you are such a Democratic patisan and Hillarymonger that you are completely blinded to factual reality?

        Granted, Saint Ronnie was certainly no friend to the working stiff. And he is undoubtedly the leading neoliberal guru who set us down the road to perdition.

        But once we embarked down that road, Clinton and Obama certainly took the ball and ran with it, and carried the ball farther down that road than what Reagan would have ever though possible. The screwing of the American working- and middle-class was a bipartisan affair.

        You say:

        Trump isn’t going to change any of this and from the best I can tell he is more likely to accelerate it.

        Here, let me fix that for you:

        Hillary Clinton isn’t going to change any of this and from the best I can tell she is more likely to accelerate it.

      • So you think Trump is going to change anything. He isn’t even interested in the job. He just wants to build his brand.

        From the article:

        But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

        When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

        Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

        “Making America great again” was the casual reply.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=0

      • David Springer

        Glenn Stehle | July 20, 2016 at 7:10 pm |
        James Cross,

        Lordy! Lordy! Have you ever picked up a history book in your entire life?

        ——————————————————–

        It doesn’t appear that he has.

      • James

        I’m fascinated by the apparent omnipotence Reagan still has nearly 30 years after he left office. Dems continue to blame him for everything but the kitchen sink even though they held firm control of both chambers under both Clinton and Obama and if they had the courage of their convictions they could have repealed all the harm he has supposedly imposed. Were they asleep or were they just such a bunch of feckless and impotent ninnies without any backbone? During the entire 8 years of Reagan, the Dems had a firm grip on both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Appropriations Committee. No taxes were approved and no spending was authorized without Democratic acceptance. Or did the Dems pull a Flip Wilson defense and proclaim “The Devil made me do it.”?

        You brought up the myth of Reagan cutting taxes. It is correct to say he lowered the top marginal rate on the Individual Income Taxes. But that is not the same as the generally accepted definition of cutting taxes. Federal taxes (including SS taxes) as a % of GDP were greater under Reagan than they were when the top marginal rate was 91% in the 1950s and early 1960s. Also, the percent of Gross Income paid in Individual Income Taxes was greater under Reagan than it was in the 1950s. During those years that “effective tax rate” was mostly in the range of 11 to 12%. In 1988 when the top marginal rate dropped to 28%, the “effective tax rate” was 13.8%, the same amount it was in 1963, the last year of the top marginal tax rate at 91%.

        Even after the Bush tax cuts, taxes on the Individual were higher as a % of GDP than in the 1950s and early 1960s when the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

        Just as an aside, I bet a very high % of Democrats believe that those who paid the top marginal tax rate of 91% in the 1950s paid 91% of their Gross Income in taxes. Such is the state of the financial and economic illiteracy in this country. It appears Bill Maher believes that.

        I wonder if on the 100th anniversary of Reagan’s inauguration the Democrats will still be blaming him for his actions and the myths around his policies.

      • > [T]he generally accepted definition of cutting taxes.

        Citation needed.

        ***

        > Federal taxes (including SS taxes) as a % of GDP were greater under Reagan than they were when the top marginal rate was 91% in the 1950s and early 1960s.

        In fairness, reality may have curbed that top marginal rate quite a bit:

        The illusion commences with that famous 1950s top rate of 91 percent. Official rates matter, but so do effective rates, the percent of income that people actually pay in tax. The Internal Revenue Service reckoned that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent.

        Or lower. Marc Linder, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has shown that a more comprehensive interpretation of income that includes capital gains suggests the real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953. The effective rate dropped throughout the decade, reaching 31 percent by 1960. That 31 percent is just slightly higher than the 29 percent level a Congressional Budget Office report figures the average effective tax for the top quintile will be in 2014. And that number for 2014 doesn’t include taxes in Obama’s health-care law.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare

      • Willard

        Help from an unexpected source. The same guy who said the other day he doesn’t read my comments. Thanks.

        I just reran the number for 1954 from the IRS report for that year. I get 54%

        for the effective rate for millionaires. They are right that the effective rate declined as the decade went on. I’m not sure how they got the 70%.

        The second paragraph conflated millionaires with top quintile which have vastly different numbers. But generally the article was in the ballpark. The author is a well known conservative.

      • cerescokid

        “…Dems continue to blame him for everything but the kitchen sink even though they held firm control of both chambers under both Clinton and Obama..”

        I don’t know where you are going with that. My basic point still stands that this is the Reagan/Republican agenda.

        The Democrats had full control of both houses and the Presidency for just two years under Clinton and two years under Obama. These were the only times they had control of both houses.

        The Republicans have held the House for 18 years out of the last 24, both houses for 12 (compared to 4 for the Democrats) of the last 24 years, and 4 years of full control under Bush.

        Your point that the Democrats might have repealed this agenda is right but beside the point that this is, in fact, the Republican agenda that has us where we are and that Glenn is complaining about. The Democrats did raise taxes under the first two years of Clinton and the Republicans all predicted economic disaster but what came about instead was better growth and lesser deficit than we had under Reagan. Obama and the Congress could do little or nothing to remedy long term problems in their first two years because they had inherited the complete economic mess bequeathed to them by Bush and the Republican policies of the previous eight years. The problems we have today are still the result of the slow recovery from that disaster.

      • > The same guy who said the other day he doesn’t read my comments.

        Didn’t, Kid, which may have been a bit strong, considering that we’ve have at least one previous exchange. I admit that I was interested to know what I was missing, and that if you can’t provide a citation of what you refer to as the generally accepted definition of “cutting taxes,” my interest would decrease.

        Appealing to the 1950s Tax Fantasy is usually done by your opponents, but in this case it is you who does. I’m not sure why this helps you, but I’m glad I did. In fact, I can do even better just by reading thy Wiki on Reganomics and following breadcrumbs:

        “Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts,” said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

        Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together “constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,” Thorndike said.

        http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/

        It’s the same Thorndike as the one cited in Amity Shlaes’ piece, I believe.

        In return for this help, if you could acknowledge that the Reagan cuvée 1986 was a bit more luxurious, and that by that time reaganomics transformed the United States from the creditor of the world that it was at least since the WWII to one of the biggest debtor known to man, that would be great.

      • David Springer

        Willard | July 21, 2016 at 10:46 am |
        > [T]he generally accepted definition of cutting taxes.

        Citation needed.

        ***

        > Federal taxes (including SS taxes) as a % of GDP were greater under Reagan than they were when the top marginal rate was 91% in the 1950s and early 1960s.

        In fairness, reality may have curbed that top marginal rate quite a bit:

        ———————————————————————–

        Twillard loses. Again. He never gets tired of it. Losers lose. Just the way it goes.

      • Lying Willard said:

        In return for this help, if you could acknowledge that the Reagan cuvée 1986 was a bit more luxurious, and that by that time reaganomics transformed the United States from the creditor of the world that it was at least since the WWII to one of the biggest debtor known to man, that would be great.

        Well as ususal, Lying Willard, you play fast and loose with the facts.

        In 1986 the United States was still a creditor country. It would not be until 1989 that the net international investment position of the United States would go negative.

        The real freefall into debtor hell, however, wouldn’t happen until Clinton, Bush II and Obama came along.

      • > you play fast and loose with the facts.

        I though the words “reading thy Wiki on Reganomics and following breadcrumbs” should been enough, but yet again I’m misunderestimating you, Glenn.

        FYEO:

        In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987 and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget. The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world’s largest international creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the “greatest disappointment” of his presidency.

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

        The emphasized bit leads to the above-mentioned citation.

        Please beware that cheap ad homs can backfire.

      • Lying Willard,

        Well once again, you’re just spouting a bunch of lies.

        If you want to talk about U.S. federal debt, as opposed to the US’s net international investment position, the U.S. federal government was not “the world’s largest international creditor” when Reagan entered office. In fact, the U.S. federal government was a debtor at the time.

        And it was not Reagan who “transformed the United States [federal government]…to one of the biggest debtor known to man.” That honor goes to Barak Obama:

      • The general point was that the left goes into an orgasmic fit about the top marginal tax rate being critical when as your referenced piece supported my contention that what is critical is the effective tax rate. When the top rate was 91% the effective rate was actually lower in the 1950s than it was under Reagan even after he took the top marginal rate down to 28%. There are many variables in determining the effective rate and the top marginal rate is just one. The nominal amount of Income taxes went up by 66% under Reagan. Thus tax revenue went up. The question is whether or not the tax base would have gone up at the same rate with no changes to the marginal rate. Maybe and maybe not. That is unknowable and part of the issue of dynamic scoring in analyzing the effects of tax policy.

        Not related to our discussion but brought up by other comments is the effect of the Clinton tax increases. Generally, Lefties credit increasing the top marginal rate to 39.6% as having been responsible for the balanced budget under Clinton. Overall tax revenue did increase by $925 Billion. (I’m completely ignoring that spending went up by only 30% with a Republican Congress the last six years). But of that total only about $75 Billion was due to the higher top rate. The real champion for the balanced budget was the technology and internet boom and the fact that Adjusted Gross Income increased by 73%. Under Bush the AGI increased by only 30% and for the first time since 1948 that amount went down year to year from 2000 to 2001. Then it went down even further in 2002. By 2003 it went up but was still lower than 2000. Most likely a first since the Depression. Irrespective of the top marginal rate, it is tough making tax revenue go up when the tax base is going down.

      • So we are doing control knob arguments for the economy? Just like climate, it’s chaotic and non-linear. All things being equal, the country with the lowest corporate rate gets the most economic activity. But all things are not equal.

        Where is Medtronic these days? Bunch of bullheaded voodoo economics believers. These other countries just complain about corporations from sun up until sun down?
        Bunch of socialists are kicking our backside.

      • > If you want to talk about U.S. federal debt, as opposed to the US’s net international investment position, the U.S. federal government was not “the world’s largest international creditor” when Reagan entered office. In fact, the U.S. federal government was a debtor at the time.

        From footnote 20 of thy Wiki entry, Glenn:

        The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be “out of control,” the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world’s largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

        To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

        Reagan’s “economic policy . . . was a disaster,” University of California at Berkeley economic historian J. Bradford DeLong wrote this past weekend on his Web site. “The tax cuts made America a more unequal place, and the deficits slowed economic growth in the 1980s significantly.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html

        I already told you the claim came from my citation.

        Kid’s “but orgasmic fit” should have been a tell.

        The last emphasized bit shows that James’ position is quite commonly held.

        (Still waiting for the “generally accepted definition of cutting taxes,” Kid.)

        ***

        > And it was not Reagan who “transformed the United States [federal government]…to one of the biggest debtor known to man.”

        Your chart does not even show that, Glenn.

        Perhaps we don’t share the same concept of “transformation.”

      • Lying Willard,

        Don’t you ever tire of all the lies and spin you dish out?

        The facts speak for themselves.

        You find some spin doctor on Wikipedia, the Huffington Post, Twitter or the Washington Post who says something you like the sound of, and then evangelize it as if it were sure truth.

        This, of course, should come as no surprise, since you believe “the fact/value dichotomy is fishy,” ( https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/19/clean-energy-emergency/#comment-797976 ) and “the fact/theory dichotomy” has completely “collapsed.” ( https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/19/clean-energy-emergency/#comment-798166 )

      • > You find some spin doctor on Wikipedia, the Huffington Post, Twitter or the Washington Post who says something you like the sound of […]

        That almost looks like an admission that you’re putting words in my mouth, Glenn.

        That’s progress.

        One of the authors you dismiss as “spin doctor” is Joseph Thorndike. Another is Brad DeLong. If you want to know more about the international debt cycle, Glenn, do like me and start here and report.

        I’d go lightly with the evangelical line if I were you. It usually implies repetition of the same mantras over and over again. More than a bit like the same citations and quotes you recycle on just about every open thread at Judy’s for months now.

      • W

        I am always willing to educate the less fortunate. What is not usually acknowledged is how many more of the “rich” became rich during those years. What changed the numbers most dramatically was the increase in households earning more than $100,000. Yes, those who started over that income benefitted, but in terms of having the most impact on income inequality it was the great number who moved up the income scale. When Reagan came in there were 600,000 households making more than $100,000. When he left there were 2.5 Million. As a group their taxes went down from an average of $67,000 to $59,000. Since income relates to gross income not take home pay, using your theory then the extra $8,000 a year available for investment created the added income for the 1.9 Million households who were able to increase their sub $100,000 gross income to over $100,000. Investing that $8,000 had to result in a tremendous rate of return to create such income inequality in just a few years. What investment geniuses they must have been.

        Even at higher income levels, how do after tax incomes create such an explosion of incomes for those earning middle incomes so that all of a sudden they can get into the upper income? Not by taking higher take home pay and reinvesting it. Maybe in 20 or 30 years but not in 3 or 4 years. There were other factors at play beside tax policy. One of them is that individuals incorporated under Chapter S went from having some of their income reported under the Corporate Income taxes ledger to having it show up in the Individual Income tax statistics. That changed in 1986. The incomes were being earned they just didn’t show up under the Individual Income Tax IRS reports. Millions of tax filers were affected.

        But given income inequality did increase under Reagan, it pales compared to how things changed under Clinton, after he raised taxes. If tax policy determines income equality then one would expect that after Clinton raised taxes it would be more equal. In fact the opposite is true. During the 8 years of Reagan the top quintile of households went from 17% of aggregate income to 18%. But under Clinton, after his tax increases, the top quintile exploded from 18.1% to 22.4%, making the change under Reagan look like a rounding error. Clearly, with tax increases that number should have gone down, not up.

        Democrats don’t want to bring up that the number of millionaires went from 66,000 to 240,000 from 1992 to 2000 or that those earning more than $200,000 went from 900,000 to 2.7 Million. An inconvenient truth. That is massive growth in income inequality, all after increasing the top marginal rate. The truth is that the top marginal rate has very little to do with income inequality compared to all the other changes in our economy. Changes in demographics, culture, technology, globalization, education gaps, losing a manufacturing base, losing unionization, growth in the financial sector and many other factors have been more responsible for growing income inequality. But it sells to the Dems since they have no answers except government solutions, which just increases dependence on left wing politicians.

      • Lying Willard said:

        That almost looks like an admission that you’re putting words in my mouth, Glenn.

        Oh, I don’t think you need any help in that department. You lie so prolifically, and are so ham-fisted at it, that you hardly need any help sabotaging your own arguments.

      • > Since income relates to gross income not take home pay, using your theory […]

        Not sure which theory you’re referring to, Kid. If it’s “the tax cuts made America a more unequal place, and the deficits slowed economic growth in the 1980s significantly,” that’s Brad DeLong’s. He has a blog in case you’d like to educate that less fortunate soul, and he also has a tweeter account. Perhaps I should send him your note, even if his “theory” reads more like an historical claim than the lawlike strawman you tried to shoot down with your note.

        Your laundry list of other factors (“changes in demographics, culture, technology, globalization, education gaps, losing a manufacturing base, losing unionization, growth in the financial sector”) has been covered and discussed on the relevant Wiki page, which also contains a section on taxes on capital. By some kind of Internet magic, it also addresses the S corporation stuff you alluded to:

        Many studies argue that tax changes of S corporations confound the statistics prior to 1990. However, even after these changes inflation-adjusted average after-tax income grew by 25% between 1996 and 2006 (the last year for which individual income tax data is publicly available). This average increase, however, obscures a great deal of variation. The poorest 20% of tax filers experienced a 6% reduction in income while the top 0.1 percent of tax filers saw their income almost double. Tax filers in the middle of the income distribution experienced about a 10% increase in income. Also during this period, the proportion of income from capital increased for the top 0.1 percent from 64% to 70%.

        There is a citation closing this paragraph that may deserve due diligence. Here’s how ends the summary:

        Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006. But overall income inequality would likely have increased even in the absence of tax policy changes.

        If all you need as incentive to write your notes is some cheap “but Dems” tu quoques, please, do continue to indulge. Meanwhile, I am still awaiting your “generally accepted definition of cutting taxes.”

  87. David Frum:

    “Since Sunday, every journalist at this convention has been collecting examples of the Trump campaign’s failures and incompetence: the quarrel with Ohio Governor John Kasich, the absent senators and governors, the no-show donors, the convention’s financial embarrassments, the floor fight over rules, the lack of a proper schedule, and the defective apps and other technology. Suddenly, there is one easy-to-understand incident that encapsulates in one grim joke all this convention’s cavalcade of derp.”

    “Trump has just vividly demonstrated that his campaign—never mind the campaign, he himself—have zero skill at crisis management. Confronted with this comically absurd failure, their instinct is not only to lie, shift blame, and refuse responsibility, but to do so in laughably unbelievable ways. It’s all a big joke when the crisis in question is a plagiarized speech by a would-be first lady. It won’t be so funny when a President Trump tries to manage a truly life-and-death crisis in the same blundering, dopey, and cowardly way.”

    “he mood of Republicans at this convention was already embattled, defensive, and pessimistic. Conventions are, among other things, important fundraising opportunities—and as Ken Vogel reports in Politico today, the state of Trump’s fundraising remains calamitous. Even Trump’s own named finance directors are not giving money. That mood of pessimism must be even grayer the day after Melania’s speech than the day before.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/melania-trumps-speech-matters/492038/

    • David Springer

      Has Frum ever been right about anything?

      Fercrisakes even the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN are coming around to Trump. The last few establishment holdouts, basically the Bushes and a dwindling number of hanger’s on to that past its due date dynasty, are SO irrelevant, SO 20th century.

  88. James Cross,

    David Frum?

    You’re kidding, right?

    Neocons like Frum don’t like Donald Trump, neocons being some of the biggest Hillarymongers around.

    So, James, why don’t you enlighten us with something we didn’t already know?

    Who got us into the Iraq war?
    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/list-of-neocons-for-Iraq-war.htm

    “David J. Frum (born 1960) is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush”

    “Frum is widely cited as having authored the phrase “axis of evil,” “

    “Frum’s latest book, An End to Evil, was co-written with Richard Perle. It provided a defense of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and advocated regime change in Iran and Syria”

    In An End to Evil, Frum declared Operation Iraqi Freedom “a vivid and compelling demonstration of America’s ability to win swift and total victory.” He went on to add that,

    By toppling Saddam Hussein….

    1) We put an end to the threat from whatever weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein actually possessed of 2003….

    2) We won a great victory over terrorism by eliminating a Middle Eastern regime that has for thirty years been one of the leading sponsors of terrorism in the region.

  89. David Springer

    Commentary: Ted Cruz is never going to be president now

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-ted-cruz-is-never-going-to-be-president-now/

    Hell he’s not even gonna be a senator after 2018, I sent a scathing letter to the disloyal sore loser saying he’d lost the vote of everyone in my family within 5 minutes of him stepping off the RNC stage.

    What a little bitch!

    • David,

      And yet, the MSM is trying to spin Cruz’s public betrayal as Trump’s long-awaited and much desired apocalypse. “At last!,” the pundits exclaim.

      So now, after spending untold barrels of ink trying to portray Trump as Hitler’s evil twin, the talking heads tell us there “is no doubt that Trump ain’t a conservative.”

      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/21/opinions/republican-convention-day-3-reaction-stanley/index.html

      The problem the MSM faces, however, is that the public has figured out that it is not to be trusted, no more than climate “scientists” are to be trusted.

      It’s amazing how thoroughly the public has learned to tune out the MSM/Climate Science propagandists — to see the cacaphony and hyperventilating for what it is, and to relegate it to its proper place — such as this segment from last night’s CBS Evening News (beginning at minute 06:27):

      http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/720-trump-returns-to-cleveland-for-pence-night-at-rnc-roger-ailes-may-be-on-his-way-out-at-fox-news/

      • Trump isn’t an evangelical, Cruz is. That’s the main difference.

        Trump also isn’t a classical GOPer. He is more open to the LGBT community and in general is more of a social liberal.

        But, should the GOP keep doing the same old thing over and over again and keep losing elections? I don’t think so. This isn’t the demise of the GOP, it’s just an evolution.

      • David Springer

        I often rapidly switch between cable news channels CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Last night’s prime time (8-10pm Central) was no exception. CNN had it in the worst for Trump, Fox was neutral, and MSNBC was amazingly in Trump’s corner. I’m struggling to understand what’s going on at MSNBC. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are almost gushing at times especially over Trump’s kids. Remember months ago when I decided to switch support to Trump I said it was his kids that sealed the deal not Trump himself. Pence put it real well last night “You can’t fake good kids.” Evidently Ivanka, Eric, and Don Jr. had a large influence on him too. Event Tiffany did good on her first outing but the other three are tremendous and from all accounts they are now running the show. Dad is the brand and they’re the brand managers.

        Hard to believe isn’t it? I love it so!

        Vote Trump, The not extremely careless candidate.

      • jim2,

        One of the most intriguing aspects about all this whole thing is that we now see Clinton in league not only Cruz’s evangelical wing of the Republican Party, but with the neoliberalism and neoconservatism of its Romney-Bush-Kristol wing as well.

  90. Very eye-opening interview with Newt Gingrich, and the over-the-top hostility of MSM pundits to anyone who dares question the neocon straight and narrow:

    VIDEO: Trump’s conditions for NATO allies
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/newt-gingrich-on-ted-cruz-rnc-speech-donald-trump-conditions-for-nato-allies/

  91. I really like Bob Schieffer, but his portrayal of the Bush’s and Romney’s neoliberal/neoconservative extremism as “the moderate wing of the Republican Party” defies all reality and all common sense.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/did-donald-trump-campaign-make-calculated-decision-to-let-ted-cruz-speak/

  92. David Springer

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/ted-cruz-puts-his-political-career-ahead-his-count/

    Good read. Cruz ruined his political career last night. Everyone is turning on him except the bitter dregs of the neocon apparatchiks.

    Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

    Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

  93. Darling Donald:

    • David Springer

      ??? just blank space after “Darling Donald”

      Get Adblock Plus and you can be spared Twillard’s Twitspin too!

      https://adblockplus.org/

      It’s free! Like welfare. Only it works.

      Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • Perhaps Donning Donald would be better:

        In a theatrical performance—delivered in a prime-time viewing slot on Day Three—Mr Cruz first congratulated the tycoon on his victory, then delivered a virtuoso argument for freedom and the constitution, conservative orthodoxies in which Mr Trump has little interest. “We deserve leaders who stand for principle,” said Mr Cruz, to, initially, thunderous acclaim from a crowd grateful, at last, for a revivifying dose of conservative dogma. “Please, don’t stay home in November,” Mr Cruz continued: “Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the constitution.” But then it dawned on the crowd that Mr Cruz had not named Mr [Donning Donald] because he did not mean him. He had just punked the convention. As many [Donning Donald] supporters began to boo, members of the [Donning Donald] campaign rushed around the delegates, allegedly trying to whip up more dissent. To deflect attention from the wrecking-job afoot onstage, Mr [Donning Donald] entered the arena and stood waving generally, with a waxen half-smile, like a senile dictator. By the time Mr Cruz finished, there was pandemonium; his wife Heidi, assailed by livid [Donning Donald] supporters jeering “Goldman Sachs!” (the capitalist outfit for which she works), had to be escorted outside by bodyguards.

        http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702513-amid-chaos-and-rancour-donald-trump-was-confirmed-republican-nominee-donning

  94. The Brits made a brilliant move with Brexit. They will thrive and be able to look after themselves instead of a plethora of people who didn’t “earn” it.
    From the article:

    Spaniards, Italians and Poles are more scared of a hit to their countries’ economies from Brexit than Britons are about the impact on the U.K. economy, a survey from market research firm Mintel showed on Thursday.

    The survey of over 7,000 people across Europe found almost half (48 percent) of Spaniards thought Brexit would have a “somewhat” or “extremely” negative impact on their own economy, as did 41 percent of Italians and Poles.

    However, only 39 percent of Britons expected the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) last month to knock the British economy.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/europeans-fear-brexit-more-than-britons-report.html

  95. No wonder the neoconservatives are hysterical and hyperventilating.

    Trump is advocating a complete rejection of neoconservatism and a return to the type of amoral realism — realpolitic — that guided US foreign policy up until after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, after which the neoconservatives became dominant.

    Trump would break sharply with US foreign policy tradition
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/trump-foreign-policy-interview/index.html

    Donald Trump, in a New York Times interview published Thursday, outlined a sharp break in US foreign policy tradition, suggesting the US wouldn’t defend NATO allies like the Baltic states against Russian aggression if they haven’t “fulfilled their obligation to us.”

    Trump has repeatedly made the case that most of NATO’s 28-member countries are not making the requisite financial contributions for their common defense, and he’s said in the past that “the US must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”

    Throughout the interview, the Republican presidential nominee seemed to reject core assumptions of US military and foreign policy thinking — including foreign troop deployment and advocating for civil liberties — and argued for an unprecedented global retrenchment, frequently framing his argument in economic terms….

    He also suggested that the massive expense of maintaining an international order that is contributing to trade losses for the US “doesn’t sound very smart to me.”

    “We are spending a fortune on a military in order to lose $800 billion,” Trump said….

    Trump was also asked about the recent attempted coup in Turkey, praising President Recep Erdogan “for being able to turn that around.”

    And Trump suggested that the US shouldn’t chide Erdogan’s administration about potential violations of civil liberties because “when the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger.”

    “I don’t think we have the right to lecture,” he said.

    As the article goes on to explain, Trump was immediately attacked by the neocons on both sides of the aisle: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Clinton on the Democratic Party side, and Lindsey Graham on the Republican Party side.

  96. FEC report: Trump forgave more than $47 million in loans to campaign in June
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/donald-trump-fec-report-forgiving-loans/index.html

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump last month forgave more than $47 million in loans he made to his own campaign committee, according to a report filed Wednesday to the Federal Election Commission.

    The move finalizes a decision to pay for much of his primary battle with his own money but also underlies his struggle to catch up to Hillary Clinton in the fundraising wars. Trump first announced his plans to forgive the loan last month.

    The Trump campaign raised roughly $27 million in contributions in the month of June, including $2 million from Trump’s personal funds and $2.2 million transferred from joint fundraising accounts.

    The Trump campaign had $20.2 million in the bank as of June 30, less than half the amount the Clinton campaign reported ($44 million) as the two opponents enter the home-stretch of the 2016 election.

    • David Springer

      Wow… Trump raised $27 million without even trying in June. Spent only a fraction of it, and is dead even in the polls with Hillary. Obama had close to $100 million in the bank at the end of June 2012. Hillary is not only way behind the 8-ball in fundraising compared to previous Democrats but adding insult to injury she can’t pull ahead of Trump despite the hugely greater amount of money.

      All this does is proves that Trump can get as much done as any Democrat and spend ten times less in the process. *That* is what I call an endorsement and *that* is precisely what our bloated national budget needs.

  97. So is NATO a defensive organization, as the neocons argue? Or is it an offensive, “expansionist” organization, as Farage argues?

    Farage reacts to Trump’s proposed NATO agenda
    http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/07/21/nigel-farage-rnc-newday.cnn

  98. U.S. Considers “Pause” In Supplies For Group Beheading Sick Child
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/us-considers-pause-in-supplies-for-group-beheading-sick-child.html

    Yesterday some ten year old kid in Syria was beheaded by U.S. supported “moderate rebels”.

    The “rebels” alleged that the boy was a fighter for a Palestinian group on the Syrian government side. But the boy looks very small and weak, has infusion tubes in his arm and no military attributes like a uniform or weapons.

    The five “individuals” who killed the child are members of the Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, a group supported by the CIA as well as with Saudi money and weapons.

    Despite the publicly available video and the statement by the Zinki group leaders admitting the case, the U.S. State Department had only a very subdued response to it…

    We may expect, says the State Department, a “serious pause” in the delivery of new lethal U.S. weapons to the group. Will a day or two do?

  99. Chamber of Commerce May Prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/20/chamber-of-commerce-may-prefer-hillary-clinton-to-donald-trump/

    THE PRESIDENT OF the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday signaled that the big-business community is still undecided between newly minted Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Chamber President Tom Donohue’s statements to Fox Business News on Wednesday morning represented an astonishing break from the organization’s nearly invariable support for Republican candidates…..

    Chief among Donohue’s complaints about Trump was his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)….

    The Chamber spent tens of millions of dollars backing GOP candidates and attacking President Barack Obama during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Although the organization remains supportive of congressional Republicans, it has clashed with Trump over international trade agreements. Trump has said the Chamber should “fight harder” for workers.

    Donohue has also suggested that presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would implement the TPP — a major chamber priority — despite her current position of opposing the agreement.

  100. Cruz last night, it’s tough to understand. The reaction from the Republican establishment I think tells us something. They spent most of the last year hoping Trump would go away. Now unable to do that, they suggest the same kind of thing with Cruz. Remarks like he’s finished and such. Trump’s rise was unconventional. That they now do conventional amongst the Republicans Party would be nice, but recall the trail of wounded politicians in Trump’s wake. It was said the New York delegation lead the boos. New Yorkers would boo the Pope.

    Who was Cruz speaking for? He’ helped the old Republican establishment by hurting Trump. Little different from those sitting out this convention. What about every other politician who hasn’t endorsed Trump? The New York delegation should follow them around and boo them too.

    Why was Cruz allowed to speak last night? A confident person would let Cruz speak. A practical person would want the Cruz supporters. I think some of the reaction was just an act. Strong statements to be latter replaced by more moderate statements. Trump’s team is already adapting I’d gather and I expect Cruz to do that as well. Recall the first part of his speech last night. It was great. If Cruz could just change his focus to Clinton, he’ll bring Trump some more votes.

    People fight at a convention. Something that over the years has been quashed by who was that? The establishment. I think this race will go to the adaptable.

    • David Springer

      Everyone should boo the pope! But I’m a native of New York so of course I’d say that.

  101. Everyone’s favorite, Michael Moore:
    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win
    Michael Moore Gives 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win.

    • David Springer

      You forgot the /sarc tag. Someone might think you’re serious about yesterday’s news Phat Phuck Michael Moore. That guy looks bad. He’s headed to an early grave if he doesn’t start living right.

    • David Springer

      Thanks for the links. I watch Real Time on Fridays but have avoided the after the convention shows because I don’t want to give him any help in the Nielsens – the new voting booth is the remote control for the cable TV box. It’s working too. I vote by watching any channel that is objectively portraying Donald Trump on it and immediately switch stations if it goes negative and/or Hillary’s face or voice appears in a positive portrayal. The MSM is driven by showing what people want to watch rather than what they should watch. So I tell them through the remote control what I want them to put on the air.

      • I watch Maher once in awhile. He’s biased. Has some interesting guests, and occasionally gets it right. Trump has energized the elections. Can’t say the same for Clinton.

  102. How does one interpret this?

    I interpret it to mean that LIttle Oil knows the fix is in, and it isn’t any more afraid of Clinton banning fracking than the Chamber of Commerce is afraid of Clinton nixing NAFTA or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    Oil Industry CEO Claims Democrats Have Done More For Oil
    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Industry-CEO-Claims-Democrats-Have-Done-More-For-Oil.html

  103. Tonight’s entrance music for Trump:
    Star Wars- The Imperial March (Darth Vader’s Theme)

  104. David Springer

    “Clinton blows through cash haul as race heats up”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-fundraising-fec-225929

    “Poll: Trump, Clinton tied in battleground of Ohio”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288685-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-ohio

    In case you’re Wiggy Willard and can’t connect the dots the summary…

    Clinton spending money like a drunken sailor and doesn’t get anything in return.

    Just like democrats “govern” the nation. Take everyone’s money, spend it, and don’t get any results.

  105. David Springer

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-were-panicked/article/2597251

    With start of the Democratic National Convention just three days away, Democratic groups are expressing dismay that Hillary Clinton is neck and neck with Donald Trump in the polls.

    “Were PANICKED, friends,” said an email shot from the Democratic Governors Association.

    The group and other Clinton supporters are concerned about the polls and the new analysis by numbers guru Nate Silver showing Clinton’s lead down to three points.

    The RealClearPolitics average is even worse. Today’s analysis has Clinton’s lead at 2.8 points.

    “This is not good,” said the DGA fundraising email.

    Their note:

    We’re PANICKED, Friends:

    Nate Silver just confirmed that Donald Trump could be our next president – and polls show him within single digits in key swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida). Meanwhile, 92,038 people still haven’t activated their DGA memberships to help increase Democratic turnout across the country.

    This is NOT good. If we lose these swing states, Donald Trump becomes president and Republicans will defund Planned Parenthood, slash Social Security and deport millions of families. We can only win if we know NOW that top Dems like you are committed to fighting.

  106. David Springer

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-moore-says-trump-is-913121

    Michael Moore Tells Bill Maher: “Trump Is Going to Win”
    9:51 PM PDT 7/20/2016 by Eli Flesch

    The filmmaker appeared on Maher’s ‘Real Time With Bill Maher’ GOP convention special on Wednesday.
    During Wednesday’s special edition of Real Time With Bill Maher, Michael Moore told Bill Maher he thinks that Donald Trump will win the election.

    Maher first took the stage at his Los Angeles studio to offer his take on a raucous three days that has seen a rebellion on the convention floor, accusations of plagiarism and booing of prominent speakers.

    Maher started things off a bit late (“Mike Pence wouldn’t shut the f— up”) to an enthusiastic response from his audience. Speakers at Wednesday’s “Make America First Again”-themed program at the Republican National Convention included Ted Cruz, Newt Gingrich and Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, who used his speech to accept the GOP’s vice-presidential nomination.

    Maher’s guests for the evening were documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid and “Savage Love” columnist Dan Savage. Later in the show, he spoke to Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of Trump’s Art of the Deal, who recently condemned the Republican nominee.

    “After three nights of watching the Republican convention, it is great to be here with my gay, black communist pals,” Maher said of his guests.

    Moore drew gasps from the audience when he stated his belief that Trump would win the election. “I’m sorry to have to be the buzzkill here so early on, but I think Trump is going to win.”

    The audience booed, but Maher responded that “the enemy is complacency” and he was glad Moore said it because he “certainly could win.”

    Conversation turned to Trump’s reading habits, the third-world quality of government that Trump’s sons bring to the table and whether Obama would be held to the same standards as Trump. Schwartz delivered a harsh criticism of Trump, whom he called “a sociopath” and a step toward the end of civilization.

    The special edition retained audience favorites such as “New Rules,” a segment that Maher used Wednesday to put Roger Ailes, the embattled Fox executive, on blast, saying he was responsible for a virulent conservatism in America.

    Maher was not the only late-night host to air special episodes during the convention, with Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Samantha Bee and Trevor Noah also airing their own special editions throughout the week.

  107. Leaking Donald:

    For the AdBlocker impaired:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974

    Digest Donald:

  108. Covers Trump and Cruz pre-speech communications:
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/ted-cruz-non-endorsement-donald-trump/
    I don’t think Trump was worried, and the Cruz voters were recognized through Ted. Much ado about little.

    • > Much ado about little.

      How non-Shakespearian of you, Ragnaar!

      I rather liked this piece:

      An excerpt:

      Poker pro Phil Hellmuth once reduced all poker players to five distinct types: the mouse, jackal, elephant, lion, and eagle. We don’t need to discuss all of them here, but suffice it to say that Trump is a jackal—he always bets big, regardless of the hand he’s holding. Jackals can be difficult to play against because, as in Nixon’s Mad Man theory, they don’t abide by the rational rules of poker. This makes it hard to tell if they’re bluffing, but it also makes them vulnerable to an opponent who catches good cards and isn’t afraid to bet them, because they’ll never fold but just keep raising until they’ve bet all their chips on a losing hand.

      http://www.wired.com/2016/07/poker-theory-explains-ted-cruzs-convention-speech

      AdBlocker users may need to disactivate their memory hog plugin from Wired’s site to read it.

  109. Trumps sounding good so far.

  110. Danny Thomas

    He’s a very good salesguy! I’d hire him. Zig Ziglar would be proud.

    Enjoy him pausing for ‘the close’ in a room full of ready, willing, and able buyers.

    He’s hitting all the ‘buttons’ and talking down the ‘other guy’ (which is not normally considered a good sales technique). Sure look forward to what he says he’ll do.

    • David Springer

      His kids are hitting the buttons. The Donald is a puppet, a stage prop, and they’re holding the strings.

      Hard to believe, isn’t it?

  111. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

  112. The speech didn’t fare well under the fact-checking. His so-called truth was either wrong or massaged statistics. Not saying it like it is. Is someone going to be fired for those numbers? Anyway, he has picked up the Washington politicians’ fast and loose with numbers methods now. That was fast. He’ll fit right in with Congress.

    • Trump was on the radio as I was drifting off to sleep last night. He was certainly speaking much better and more lucidly than anything I had heard from him before. He is still a rabble rouser but I guess that is the nature of this type of audience.

      Anna Coulter was then interviewed who wrote ‘adios America’. I had never heard of her but she was very fervent. Has anyone read her book?

      tonyb

      • Tony
        I have not read any of her books but know they serve up red meat for conservatives with a little nasty wit aimed at the hypocrisy of Liberals. Not many things on TV make me laugh out loud like some of her quotes.

        These are a few of her books: “How to talk to a Liberal (if you must)”, If Demcrats had any brains, they’d be republicans”, “Slander: Liberal lies about the American right”, “Never trust a liberal over 3-especially a Republican”

        She always has a devious and sarcastic wit about her targeting the loony left but has policy positions that make me feel uncomfortable. She has joined the anti-establishment right which surprised me a little bit, but the dichotomy on the right this year has turned everything upside down. Having followed elections since 1956, all of the developments in this cycle leave me scratching my head.

        I’m too cheap to buy her books since they are predictable but I might cough for her latest.

      • David Springer

        Ann Coulter is a US national treasure.

      • David Springer

        If Ann Coulter were as predictable to you as you seem to believe then you shouldn’t have been surprised that she didn’t side with the neocons. That’s not at all surprising to me. In fact her backing of Trump was as predictable and American as apple pie.

      • It’s this gal, though, that brought the house down at the RNC:

      • This guy also brought the house down.

        VIDEO: Black Pastor Darrell Scott Brings Down House at RNC: The Democratic Party Has Failed Us
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/20/black_pastor_darrell_scott_brings_down_house_at_rnc_the_democratic_party_has_failed_us.html

      • Anne Coulter is a rabid right-wing extremist often on TV. Sometimes it looks like she is just kidding with the views she spouts, but I think she isn’t.

  113. David Springer

    Landslide in the making.

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/19/frank-luntz-rnc-focus-group-blown-away-donald-trump-jr

    Recall it was Trump’s children months ago that convinced me that Trump couldn’t possibly be as bad as the guy he plays on TV. Evidently that sentiment is widely shared. I mean really widely. They stole the show at the convention. Trump has this election locked up. It’s his to lose. We’re voting not to get the celebrity version of him in office but to get the private version of him that his children Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr. evidently command and control.

    I wasn’t at all surprised that Ivanka was the one who introduced him at the grand finale. She’s the real star of the show and will bring in the crucial younger women voters that Trump Sr. has managed to alienate. She is easy to look at too which is a big bonus.

    Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

  114. David Springer

    Worth watching again.

    • Unbelievable!

      A meritocracy, instead of an orgy of victimhood and resentment and a celebration of losers, and a commitment to build a social structure to make opportunity available to everyone.

      What a novel idea.

  115. The RNC convention was brilliant. They took advantage of the RNC happening first to weaken the Dimowit planks.

    1. Women – Ivanka made the case for Trump being an advocate for women. He pays equal pay and doesn’t penalize mothers.

    2. LGBTQ issues – Peter Thiel “comes out” to a standing ovation at the convention.

    3. The poor and middle class. Trump has been hitting the degradation of the middle class from day one.

    Ivanka also painted Trump as a “blue collar billionaire” who mingles and listens to the lower ranks of his business.

    I didn’t watch the previous nights closely, but last night went gangbusters.

    • After the usual tedious talking heads went on how dark and negative the speech was, one of the polls showed 75% thought the speech was positive or somewhat positive. Another indication of how detached the DC leech class and elites are from the American people.

      • It’s natural that Dimowits, being the law abiding citizens they are, would fear anyone who mentions “law and order.”

    • Speaking of the LGBT issues, Caitlyn Jenner speaks of what it’s like being a Republican within the LGBT community.

      It’s a greater cross to bear, she says, being a Republican within the LGBT community than it is being an out trangendered person in the larger society.

      Her experience, she says, has been that the LGBT community is far more intolerant of Republicans than the larger society is of transgendered persons.

      VIDEO: Caitlyn Jenner Stumps For Trump At RNC LGBT Event
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/20/jenner_stumps_for_trump_at_rnc_lgbt_event.html

      • Yep, we’ve dropped into a rent in space-time.

      • David Springer

        jim2 – lol

        It’s worse than we thought. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC is gushing over Trump now.

        The big guns coming out. Real world. Actions speak louder than words. Trump can’t fake the payroll of Trump Enterprises, its hiring policies, childcare for working mothers, and so forth. The fact of the matter is his business has an enviable track record for hiring and promoting women and minorities. Everyone is treated the same and paid the same regardless of race, creed, color, age, gender, gender identity, or ethnicity.

        Hillary is toast. He’s going after her base and he’s going to put a huge phucking dent in it.

    • And in his speech Thiel made an excellent point, that the real role of the culture wars and the PC sensitivity Gestapo is to distract people’s attention from more important issues — like our sick economy — and the government’s perverse, misdirected priorities, like permanent war.

      “Instead of going to Mars, we have invade the Middle East,” charges Thiel.

      Hillary Clinton “pushed for a war in Libya, and today it’s a training ground for ISIS,” adds Thiel. “On this most important issue Donald Trump is right. It’s time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country.”

      VIDEO — Thiel: Fake Culture Wars Only Distract Us From Our Economic Decline
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/21/thiel_fake_culture_wars_only_distract_us_from_our_economic_decline.html

    • David Springer

      Let’s try again. It’s *supposed* to start at 4:30.

    • David Springer

      Nope, WordPress is stripping the time parameter out of the link when it posts. Unfortunate.

  116. The high number of demonstrators expected didn’t materialize. I think the Dimowit establishment realized that having a bunch of idi0ts waving the Mexican flag and destroying property was just helping Trump. I think they told their toadies to knock it off. I’m surprised they could pull their collective head far enough out of their collective @$$ to figure it out, but hey, stranger things have happened.

  117. One thing about it, the RNC offered quite an alternative to the celebration of losers and the orgy of victimhood that have sickened our culture and debilitated our body politic.

    With Trump, it’s all about winners.

    • My family are all winners, and not a single one of us would ever vote for Trump.

      • JCH,

        Are you sure of that?

        Something tells me that as doctrinaire and dogmatic as you are, your family members might be reluctant to open up to you.

        I certainly have individuals like you in my family. So I bite my lip and hold my tongue around them, just to keep peace in the family.

      • JCH,

        There’s also the thing about equality of opportunity.

        Do you believe that all children born in the United States were given the same opportunities that your children were?

      • You know nothing about me, or my family, and your hunches are dreadfully awful.

      • Do you believe that all children born in the United States were given the same opportunities that your children were?

        In general, no. I sent my children to inner-city public schools in part so they would learn about their peers… all of them. The chickens moved to the suburbs… white bread land. None of us are chickens.

      • At least admit that our Mexican correspondent knows everything about your heritage, JCH.

      • JCH said:

        You know nothing about me, or my family, and your hunches are dreadfully awful.

        Well I certainly know your history of comments on this forum, and they speak volumes about you.

      • Like all bullies, you are a nasty pos.

      • JCH said:

        In general, no. I sent my children to inner-city public schools in part so they would learn about their peers… all of them. The chickens moved to the suburbs… white bread land. None of us are chickens.

        You seem to be unaware that gentrificaiton has its share of critics too.

        Why is Gentrification a Problem?
        http://web.williams.edu/Economics/ArtsEcon/library/pdfs/WhyIsGentrificationAProbREFORM.pdf

        The risk of displacement that is characteristic of gentrification imposes a social cost on the neighborhood. This cost is borne by the community as a whole and not by only those persons who are poor or those who are displaced.

      • JCH and Lying Willard.

        What a team.

      • JCH said:

        Like all bullies, you are a nasty pos.

        There’s that bacchanal of self-righteous piety again.

        It seems to be a hallmark not only of the radical Christian right, but of the radical Green left as well.

      • Accusations such as:

        Something tells me that as doctrinaire and dogmatic as you are, your family members might be reluctant to open up to you.

        may very well be classified as bacchanal of self-righteous piety, JCH.

        If that’s the case, either Glenn belongs to radical Christians or the radical left, or else his hallmark lacks generality.

      • First, Dallas and Houston are not high on the list of cities being gentrified, and definitely were not in that category in the early 1980s when we moved to Dallas. Second, the invaders seldom, and I mean hardly ever, send their kids to public schools.

      • David Springer

        JCH | July 22, 2016 at 11:16 am |

        “In general, no. I sent my children to inner-city public schools in part so they would learn about their peers…”

        Sounds like child abuse to do that on purpose.

      • > A long time ago in school, I was taught some simple stuff. Present information according to the standards.

        Some simple stuff teached in schools is to read footnotes, Ragnaar.

        Some less simple stuff teached in schools is to stick to the problem at hand.

        Would your suggestion ensure that Warren Buffet has a higher effective taxe rate than his secretary who makes 60K?

  118. Danny Thomas

    Well at least someone named Trump got in to some policy issues. Question is, who’s policies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/who-exactly-was-ivanka-trump-endorsing/
    “CUOMO: Do you pay the women at the top of your organization the same way you pay the men?
    TRUMP: Yes, I do, absolutely.

    That’s not the case on his campaign, by the way.”
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/04/donald-trump-campaign-pays-women-less-than-men/VIu0v2MUJiHqhvc5C0W5dO/story.html

  119. Danny Thomas

    Mostly half truths, some ‘mostly’ true, and a couple of ‘mostly’ false. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/21/fact-checking-final-night-rncincle/

    On balance, not awful. Must be a problem with the reporting.

    • Politifact is about as neutral as you are, Danny boy.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        Hence, the comment that ‘there is probably a problem with the reporting’.

        How about a novel (at least to you) concept? Instead of ‘arm waving’ away the critiques why not try addressing them in lieu of castigating the medium. Think you’re up to it? I’d guess not, but that’s based on your history of being such a ‘neutral’ guy.

      • If I want to waste my time, I’ll at least pick something I like to do.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        “If I want to waste my time, I’ll at least pick something I like to do.”

        Yep. Wouldn’t wanna bother you with an analysis of facts. I can see how that would be something you wouldn’t ‘like’.

      • Oh, so now you claim Politifact, in fact, contains facts. Sorry, it’s not reliable and I won’t waste my time with it.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        Are these not facts:
        “43 million Americans are on food stamps” (rated true)
        “”Our trade deficit in goods reached nearly — think of this, think of this — our trade deficit is $800 billion last year alone,” he said.” (rated true)
        “”My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said.” (rated false).

        But I can still see why you’d not ‘waste your time’ looking at ‘facts’ as you may not ‘like’ what you see.

        I get it!

      • Danny, “The US is one of the highest taxed nations in the world”. Total US taxes, federal, state, local etc. are currently 36% of GDP which would make it one of the highest taxed nation in the world. They could go with mostly true, but not mostly false.

        “Hillary wants to essentially abolish the second amendment.”
        In an interview with George Stephanopoulus discussing individual rights, “CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.” Not even a constitutional right.. but If it is a constitutional right … makes me wonder how Polifact could be so positive it was completely false.

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.

        Trump did not say that Clinton’s intentions were to regulate, what he said was: “”My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said.

        This is not a stated policy of the Clinton campaign. In both her 2008 and 2016 White House bids, Clinton has called for more gun regulation while saying she “believes in the Second Amendment.” (Examples are here, here, here, here, here and here.)”

        Clicking the links ‘here, here, here, here, here and here, might lead one to agree that Trumps statement that Hillary wants to ‘essentially abolish’ the 2nd being false. In fact, hasn’t Trump himself suggested some 2nd amendment rights be regulated in that those on the ‘no fly’ list should not have access to guns?

        Falsehoods, are in fact, falsehoods.

        And even excluding this one point, does the associated results nullify all of the others? Arm waving by Jim2, any way you look at it.

      • I did Willard, tax policy center has one number government revenue another and they both supposedly get their data for the census bureau. It looks to me like tax policy center left out “other revenue” which if the government is taking it from people it is tax revenue. Perhaps other governments don’t report “other revenue”, but 36% of GDP effective tax considering all revenue appears to be pretty accurate.

      • Danny, “Falsehoods, are in fact, falsehoods.” and we are talking about what Hillary Clinton is thinking. She has a touch of a track record of not being truthful on the campaign trail, like “saying” she opposed the surge in Iraq when she actually supported it, after the fact of course. Then you have to consider what “essentially” means. Opinions are opinions.

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.,
        Hillary? Not you also. This is about factchecking Trump’s speech. That is all. Hillary is an easy (and soft) target. Her’s will rightfully be addressed when she speaks the words. She’s just as likely to render falsehoods as Trump has and does.

        But neither is an excuse for the other.

        Essentially has a common definition. Unless you’re suggesting that Trump’s words suggesting those on the no fly list not have access to guns. Then ‘essentially’ he’s all about elimination of the 2nd.

      • If you can be put on a list without due process that would essential violate your right to bear arms. The main point is that this is more an opinion comment than something easily fact checked.

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.,
        Is it your opinion that Trump put this segment of the speech forward as an opinion? Sounded like a factual statement, but that’s my ‘opinion’.

        Maybe Vox is on to something since it uses an expanded vocabulary to include ‘misleading’ and ‘ exaggerated’ in addition to ‘true’ and ‘mostly true’. Although, in this example, they also chose the word ‘false’.

        But then again, if it’s misleading or exaggerated can it also be ‘true’? http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12254434/fact-check-trump-acceptance-speech-republican-convention-rnc-2016

      • yep, trump is not a politician and hillary isn’t a contract.

      • Danny Thomas

        Aye. Trump is the epitome of a politician. He sits in guilded chairs in a glitzed up building with gold emblazoned letters and tells us ‘little people’ to watch out for the elites and we buy it. Giving him a pass when asking for policies and he pats our heads and says ‘daddy’s here, everything will be just fine now’.

      • David Springer

        captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | July 22, 2016 at 3:24 pm |

        “I did Willard”

        I threw up in my mouth a little just now.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It says his spokesman stated he was referring to corporate taxes. If you are talking about competitiveness of industry that would be the tax rate you would be interested in. I rate the rating as mostly uninformed.

      • That’s strange, Cap’n – thy Wiki also reports 26,9%. Also, since Glenn’s link doesn’t work, I’m not sure how you checked the accuracy of his graphic.

        Besides, your perhaps other governments don’t report “other revenue” seems to indicate that Glenn’s argument is not as sealed tight as Kid puffes.

      • I didn’t use his graphic Willard, I went to governmentrevenue.com and looked. I also expanded the line items can checked those against taxpolicycenter.com, the US census and a couple of other sites, but I failed to check wikipedia. When I mention it looked like taxpolicycenter left out “other revenue” it would be because a few hundred billion in “other revenue” could be important. I am not sure what the “exact” answer is, but checking back to 2010, 18.2 % federal, ~10% state and ~7% local as percentage of GDP has been pretty steady.

        Perhaps Wikipedia hired an astrophysicist to do accounting?

      • > I went to governmentrevenue.com

        That name’s for sale, Cap’n.
        Or is it for sail?

        Also, thy Wiki cites the Heritage Foundation’s work.
        If you insist in shooting that messenger, please do.

        Interestingly, the line showing “Gov’t Expenditure % GDP” for US is 38.9%. Proly just a coincidence.

      • Sorry, didn’t check heritage foundation either, Willard. I did check kff.org the Kieser family foundation site since it popped up on google and spot checked state budgets. There is federal revenue shuffled back to states, but that didn’t appear as a line item for revenue sources. You know though, 10% of GDP for state revenue sounds fairly reasonable. Personally, I think 7% for local is a bit high but with all those sin taxes it is hard to tell whose pocket they go into.

        Since you likely agree that 18% is in the ballpark for federal, perhaps you can explain the magic of states and local governments surviving on 7%?

      • I don’t know why the link doesn’t work.

        Here’s the link to usgovernmentrevenue:

        http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total

        Their data for the federal government comes from FRED (see chart) and for state and local government from the United States Census Bureau. Here’s a screen shot of the page with the revenue information from the U.S. Census Bureau.

      • No idea how your rhetorical question matters for Double-Accounting Donald’s claim that the United State is one of the most taxed country in the world, Cap’n. One secret ingredient behind the magic you’re looking to be explained to you may reside in what we call transfers.

        What’s quite clear is that the Tax Policy Center states:

        TOTAL TAX REVENUE

        US taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2012, US taxes at all levels of government represented 24 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 34 percent of GDP for the 34 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

        Among OECD countries, only Chile and Mexico collected less than the United States as a percentage of GDP. In many European countries, taxes exceeded 40 percent of GDP. But those countries generally provide more extensive government services than the United States does.

        Op. cit.

        Another interesting figure:

        Seems that the total federal receipts as a share of National GDP is between 15 and 20%. Also note that the TPC cites the Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, Historical Tables, so this might be to Kid’s taste.

        Must be a vocabulary thing.

      • Just for you, Glenn:

      • “Raj Shah, a Republican National Committee spokesman, told PolitiFact that Trump was talking about the corporate tax rate.”
        Not including Chad and United Arab Emirates, we have the highest corporate tax rate.

        “The corporate tax rate would be cut to 15 percent, which would also be the top pass-through rate for businesses.”
        The above is radical. Top rate now is 35% I believe. What can be missed is the large tax cut for S-Corps. The currently pass-through income at ordinary rates.

        While the context he used was individuals and businesses, we perhaps can give him a half wrong rating.

      • Willard, what you missed in your attempt to impress the world, is “other revenue”. Some of that is user fees and licenses and some of that is things like penalties and fines. Your police department for example goes out and hunts up reasons to write you a ticket to make sure his pay check don’t bounce. They might need to visit the other side of the tracks sometimes in order to keep the jail and court busy. Some find their, “just doing their job”, kinda taxing.

        In the US, police are ten times more efficient than in the UK at arrests and the 25 plus million traffic stops per year is about 20 times the UK rate after adjusting for population.

        So considering just tax rate instead of total revenue you are missing about a 1 trillion dollar revenue stream. If Trump builds the wall, he can charge admission so instead of a coyote getting 2,500 per head and not paying taxes, we can get 2 grand a head easy peasy.

        So government revenue as a percentage of GDP is a great “effective” tax rate.

      • Capt Dallas,

        That’s correct.

        For 2013 for state government we have the following breakdown (only 51% of revenues from own sources after deductions for intergovernmental revenue come from taxes):

        Total Revenues: $2.193 trillion
        Less Intergovernmental revenue: -$0.527
        Revenues after intergovernmental revenue: $1.666 trillion
        Revenue from taxes: $0.847 trillion

        For 2013 for local government we have the following breakdown (only 52% of revenues from own sources after deductions for intergovernmental revenue come from taxes):

        Total Revenues: $1.709 trillion
        Less intergovernmental revenue: -$0.54
        Revenues after intergovernmental revenue: $1.169
        Revenue from taxes: $0.608

      • > Top rate now is 35% I believe.

        Sources tell me it’s 39%.

        ***

        > What can be missed is the large tax cut for S-Corps.

        What also can be missed are tax shelters and tax havens, like the legend of the following graph reads:

        There are also tax subsidies to take into account, which can lead to negative taxes.

        Divestiture Donald’s slogan of law and order does not seem to apply here.

      • > [W]hat you missed […] is “other revenue”.

        I’m not sure the Tax Policy Center or the Heritage Foundation missed any of that, Capt’n. The TPC states:

        Roughly 80 percent comes from the individual income tax and the payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs (figure 1). Another 11 percent comes from the corporate income tax, and the rest is from a mix of sources.

        The mix of sources include: federal excise taxes, and “revenue from estate and gift taxes, customs duties, earnings from the Federal Reserve System, and various fees and charges.”

        So for now I’d rather say that you redefine the concept of taxation into “whatever whichever government gets out of your pocket,” Cap’n. This extends the concept of taxation beyond limits of justified disingenuousness. (Interests revenues may become a form of taxation, for instance.) This may also extend Disinvestiture Donald’s intervention to the state level. Finally, once you reinterpret “government revenue” as taxation, you need to do the same with all the other countries.

      • Glenn, It would be nice to know how “other revenue” is treated in other countries. Iirc, several use special VAT categories for things like vehicle registration.

      • Capt Dallas,

        I don’t know about other countries, except a small amount about Mexico.

        In Mexico, 40% of the federal revenues come from dividends that PEMEX, the state-owned oil company, pays the federal government. That’s the main reason why the chart Willard posted shows taxes to be so low in Mexico.

        I suspect there are many other quirks like this, making these cross-country comparisons using only taxes as the criteria not too meaningful.

        It seems to me a much more significant metric for a cross-country study would be total government revenues as a percentage of GDP.

      • Willard, I am not sure what is missed, but they didn’t double dip on transfers. “This extends the concept of taxation beyond limits of justified disingenuousness.” I don’t think questioning a trillion dollar discrepancy requires being disingenuous – sarcasm yes. In any case, traffic citations are only in the 50 billion ballpark, a drop in the bucket. Severance taxes could be a large percentage along with licensing fees. So if you are raising funds from “non tax” source and putting in a general revenue fund it is still money paid in by part of the population. Hunting and fishing licenses raise tons of money that should go directly to the resources allowing others to not be taxed. That is kind of the whole point of user fees instead of general taxation. Now if you don’t want to give them credit for raising 500 billion or so in revenue, remember they are the gun owners :)

      • > I am not sure what is missed,

        Non-tax revenue, Cap’n.

        Accounting as ontology.

      • Glenn, right, so we are comparing eu nations that raise revenue mainly with VAT (consumption) taxes and nearly no corporate taxes to the US that raises taxes mainly with income taxes and not counting close to a trillion in licensing fees and other user fees which are basically consumption taxes. It is brilliant.

      • I’ll drop the state rate. Minnesota’s is 9.5% and South Dakota, the tax haven of the Grain Belt is 0.0%.

        Effective tax rate: Decisions are often made on the margins. Earn X. What happens? We get 0.65X and the government gets 0.35X. Spend Y. What happens? We pay 0.65X and the government pays 0.35X. It’s the sensitivity of accounting and we know what it is. I’d say 4 out of 5 times individuals make decisions using the marginal rate. The effective tax rate is not often used for that. When they are taxing the heck out of my clients bonus, I could say, Well, your effective is only this. That would be weak.

        At your link they don’t explain why ExxonMobil paid negative income taxes? Here’s my guess. They show U.S. Profit. Which arguably not even a thing. I don’t think it says anywhere on their tax return what their U.S. Net Income is. It would show worldwide income. So it is possible they lost more overseas than they made here giving a worldwide income of a net loss. How much tax do you think they should pay in that case? I’d say nothing, and if they carry the loss back, they could get prior taxes paid refunded. The general rule is clear. One is taxed on their worldwide income.

      • Matt Bruenig to the rescue:

        This suggests that the SNA’s Other Revenue category is just the nontax revenue excluded from the OECD accounting.

        Ze graph:

        According to the OECD, non-tax revenue include variables such as property income, sales of goods and services, fines, penalties and forfeits by sector.

      • > The general rule is clear.

        Indeed:

        As billionaire investor Warren Buffett likes to point out, he pays a lower annual tax rate on the tens of millions of dollars he earns than does his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year. It’s an illustration, he says, of how the backward and loophole-ridden the US tax system is.

        Here’s another: Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies’ tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.

        http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/ge-exxon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate

        ***

        > At your link they don’t explain why ExxonMobil paid negative income taxes?

        The second link in the article, Ragnaar, under “an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice”:

        http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2011/06/twelve_corporations_pay_effective_tax_rate_of_negative_15_on_171_billion_in_profits_reap_624_billion.php

      • David Springer

        Danny Thomas | July 22, 2016 at 1:19 pm |

        “”My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said.” (rated false).

        How would Politifact know what Hillary does or does not want? Knowing Hillary I would guess it’s mostly true but that would just be a guess because I’m not a mind reader. The point being that Politifact can’t read minds either.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        “”My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said.”

        “How would Politifact know what Hillary does or does not want? ” That’s a pretty good question. Maybe you should ask Trump. Unless you’re suggesting Trump also cannot read minds.

        So is she guilty until proven innocent? That doesn’t fit with a ‘law and order’ theme.

        Duh.

      • David Springer

        Creepy Willard you need to either use non-partisan sources for data or stay home. No objective person is going to assign any credibility to Mother Jones fercrisakes. Put on your big boy pants and use sources like the US Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so forth like the honest folks here are doing.

      • > No objective person is going to assign any credibility to Mother Jones fercrisakes.

        As opposed to Breitbart’s, Fox, or any crappy sites featured by the Jim & Glenn Show, Big Dave, no doubt.

        The report was from Citizens for Tax Justice, BTW.

        You may have missed it, for slow readers may need more than three seconds to scan the article.

        You know there’s a correlation between reading and IQ?

      • Willard:
        Your link didn’t really lay out how they figured things.
        I found this:
        “McIntyre said the companies reported higher rates because they included state and local taxes, taxes they deferred paying and taxes paid to foreign governments, while CTJ looked solely at a companies’ U.S. profits and what they forked over to the federal government.”
        ““The debate here is about U.S. tax policy, not about how Saudi Arabia treats ExxonMobil,” McIntyre said.”

        Deferred taxes? I want some of that. I suspect it’s related to accelerated depreciation. It’s often trotted out as not paying taxes, a loophole or something. Say congress renews section 168 depreciation. Somewhere around half of new fixed assets are written off in the current year instead of 20% in year one and 32% in year 2 and so on. It is a timing difference and after awhile the government will get its money. It’s not a loophole. Congress throws a bone to business knowing it will get paid later, so it doesn’t cost the government anything once we get to later.

        Foreign taxes? A company makes half its money overseas. Overseas countries expect their corporate taxes. ExxonMobil pays them. So do we double tax or not? We do not. They get a credit on their U.S. Return. It’s not a loophole. If one files two state income tax returns, similar rules are in place to minimize paying twice on the same income.

        Let’s talk about a loophole. The 30% solar tax credit available to individuals and Berkshire Hathaway. The government hands you money. You don’t have to pay it back. For a business you have to reduce what you said you paid for your solar by the amount of the credit. But you are still way ahead.

      • “Warren Buffett likes to point out, he pays a lower annual tax rate on the tens of millions of dollars he earns than does his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year. It’s an illustration, he says, of how the backward and loophole-ridden the US tax system is.”

        Usually heard from someone who has a lot of stock investments. The secretary pays 7.65% in FICA taxes. We’ll put her in the 25% bracket. 32.65%.

        Qualified dividends taxed a maximum rate of 20% same rate for long term capital gains. For people with less income, 15% if the rate. There is a 3.8% surcharge on the two things here for higher incomes. I will ignore the AMT.

        Buffet pays 23.8%. FICA taxes are ignored for him as given sufficient wages for him, they are probably around 2% of the total because Social Security tax paid stops at certain level.

        I could argue the low rates offset the double taxation of qualified dividends. He could be more specific in his criticism of the US tax system, and he knows some people. He could suggest improvements. Mine is to end the C Corporation income tax and pass the income through to the shareholders who then report it on their personal income tax returns. We’d have to withhold taxes on foreign owners to make sure they pay their share. Think of all the people who would out of work if this happened? Corporations could stop hiring platoons of CPAs to fight the IRS. Judges could play more golf. Companies would not leave us for Ireland, and it would make America great again.

      • ragnaar, “Buffet pays 23.8%. FICA taxes are ignored for him as given sufficient wages for him, they are probably around 2% of the total because Social Security tax paid stops at certain level.”

        Right, the more you make the less you put into social programs. Steve Forbes tried to get the tax system in line with the rest of the world years ago but no one listened. Cruz is a putz, but at least he had a clue on taxes.

      • > He could suggest improvements. Mine is to end the C Corporation income tax and pass the income through to the shareholders who then report it on their personal income tax returns.

        Would your suggestion ensure that Warren Buffet has a higher effective taxe rate than his secretary who makes 60K, Ragnaar?

      • > Your link didn’t really lay out how they figured things.

        Click on “Read the report,” Ragnaar, and follow links.

        I do hope Freedom Fighters can play fetch all by themselves.

      • I looked at the 3 page pdf you linked to. It’s limited and I’d like to see their work. How they got Pretax U.S. Profits is what I want to see. If a company had credit carryforwards or carrybacks, or foreign tax credits, we’d like to know that. I suspect bias, but I’d have to see their work to know. Say the government owes me money in the form of a credit carryfoward. I use that carryforward to cover all my taxes for the year. It’s not fair to say I paid no taxes. The carryforward that had real value was used up. I am not saying that happened, but we just don’t know at this point.

        A long time ago in school, I was taught some simple stuff. Present information according to the standards. Sometimes generally accepted accounting principals GAAP. Sometimes tax accounting. You aim for reliable, useful and accurate. I don’t think the study was guided by what I just said, but rather to make a point. They perhaps worked towards a desired answer.

      • “Would your suggestion ensure that Warren Buffet has a higher effective tax rate than his secretary who makes 60K, Ragnaar?”

        Yes. I assume Corporate operating income would be taxed at ordinary rates. Ending the C Corporate tax would end the double taxation of qualified dividends. I suppose it would be fair now to tax annual profits at the usually higher ordinary rate, the same rate as S Corporations get. Long term capital gains would still be taxed at lower rates. I also assume Buffet is in the highest Federal bracket.

        However, if long term capital gains are kept as is, Buffet might still pay less if he had enough long term capital gains. I vote him the man most likely to have those.

        Social Security taxes can make it difficult to get a black and white answer. Is it a tax if it’s likely to pay my wife and I in 10 or 15 years? Or is it for my retirement? IRA contributions are not thought of as a tax and do a similar thing. When I was younger, the payments into Social Security meant my young children had some income insurance if I had died. The law deems that it is half paid by the employer and half by the employee? Who really pays it? Some say the employee pays it all or the employer does. I am in effect self employed with my S Corp and pay it all. So now we say, small businesses need a tax break. I pay 15.3% plus the regular income tax rate. I have some clients who pay this: 15.3% plus 25% Federal and 7% State. 47.3%. Life is wonderful. Property taxes, sales taxes. But I am not lobbying on my behalf on this day. Just suggesting an end to the C Corporate income tax, and to make America great again.

        I have a neutral opinion on Buffet. I inherited some Berkshire Hathaway and have no plans to sell or buy more of it. We are renewables. I don’t know how I feel about that?

      • Willard, the Tax Policy Foundation has a good post on the Common misconception of the lower rate on capital gains and dividends. I find it a bit amusing that you are arguing a common misconception, but not surprising in the least.

        http://taxfoundation.org/blog/common-misconception-about-lower-rate-capital-gains-and-dividends

        That though doesn’t address the social program taxes. If you want a great example of the tax system screwing someone consider an independent contractor that has to pay the full 15.3% plus 28% for a whopping 43.3%t at 118K per year plus health insurance. I believe Hillary can boost that to 50% easy.

      • captdallas:
        I have a few very successful clients with S Corps. As I said, they pay both ends of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA). Now combine that with a 28% ordinary rate. Add in a state income tax, and they are carrying a lot of people with them. Tax loopholes? No, they don’t have any. All they can do is defer income through something like a 401(k). I suppose some good would be done by raising he Social Security wage base ($118,500 now), significantly. But that assumes people don’t react to tax rates, and I think they do. And it puts more money where the politicians can get to it. Social Security is this thing that it’s hard to agree on how to improve it.

      • ragnaar, “I have a few very successful clients with S Corps. As I said, they pay both ends of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA). Now combine that with a 28% ordinary rate. Add in a state income tax, and they are carrying a lot of people with them. Tax loopholes? No, they don’t have any.”

        There used to be some great loopholes, then it was fun to be in bidness. I think I filed 6 Schedule C one year when “artists” didn’t have to make money :)

      • > the Tax Policy Foundation has a good post

        The link you provided comes from taxfoundation.org, Cap’n.

        The post amounts to say that Warren Buffet doesn’t know that he has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, because “capital gains tax,” Warren paid 50%, a rate that his common in many countries, incidentally.

        Look how this explanation holds for 2011:

        Warren Buffett is fond of saying his tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. He does not publicize his tax returns, but for the tax year 2010, he paid $6.9 million on taxable income of $39.8 million, according to partial disclosures he made in 2011.

        What is astounding about those numbers is not the 17.3% tax rate, but that Buffett’s $39.8 million of taxable income is only about 0.05% of his reported net worth ($71 billion according to Forbes, which put him third on its list of the 400 wealthiest people in the world for 2015).

        Proportionately, that’s like someone with an ever-expanding net worth, currently $10 million, reporting taxable income of only $5,000 and paying a federal tax bill of only $900.

        http://www.barrons.com/articles/warren-buffetts-nifty-tax-loophole-1428726092

      • Willard, you do realize that Buffet’s net work is only paper. Just one train could wreck near Charlie Koch’s house next week and it could be zero.

      • Thanks for your comment, Ragnaar.

        As far as I am concerned, there’s no need to delve into what is or what should be a tax. It was fun the see Cap’n split hairs over non-tax revenues. Let’s wait until Glenn suggests that national oil companies dividends are disguised taxes to explore fiscal ontology furthermore.

        As long as we can agree that taxation is simply the price we pay for civilization, all is well. If you can tell there are ways to simplify the taxation system and to make it fairer, I’ll always be listening.

        I wish I could defer paying my own taxes forever too.

      • If Warren’s net worth’s only paper, Donald’s ethereal, Cap’n.

        40 mil /7 mil = 5,7% is not even paper.

      • Limiting things to long term capital gains, 15% in 2010 and 20% top rate now, plus a 3.8% bonus tax on investment income now for higher income people. 20% arrived for 2013 returns.

        Now we have the more equitable 23.8% more or less rate. Assuming no AMT. AMT can rear its head when it’s not expected using rules of thumb. We also have phase outs of exemptions and itemized deductions causing a minimal rate increase in some cases.

        There are also state income taxes in some cases. So some of this has been mitigated. The argument accepted by many is that long term capital gains should be taxed lower. Why? We like investments. Investing is more desirable than not. Let’s reward people for taking market risk. When Reagan I think it was cut long term capital gains rates, guess what happened? People could sell their stocks, and did and tax revenues were helped. This is from memory. High capital gains locks money up. Locked up money, is not so efficient. Low capital gains says to rich citizens, don’t move to another country. It says to foreign investors, invest here. Here’s something anecdotal. Minnesota taxes capital gains at ordinary rates. When the market has a good year, Minnesota’s state budget gets more money. There are capital gains and Minnesota vacuums up some of that. In lousy years, the opposite can occur. Time for a big budget fight. Low low term capital gains rate helps the stock market go up in my opinion.

      • Willard:
        “Buffett’s $39.8 million of taxable income is only about 0.05% of his reported net worth ($71 billion according to Forbes…”

        Hold the phone. We don’t tax net worth hardly at all, unless you’re are deceased, formerly rich and didn’t have a spouse survive you.

        I am changing my mind again. It’s kind of a loophole. I buy Apple when Forest Gump did. I don’t sell any shares. My net worth has skyrocketed. The government gets nothing. It’s the law. Nothing. Why I like after tax stocks. You can tell the government to wait. For decades. Wait. I have a pile of money. Act like my dog and wait. Wait. Of course this is all somehow unfair. People can’t have a pile of money we can only look at and not get a taste. It’s un-American.

        Trying not to be confusing, traditional 401(k)s and IRA are part of net worth. I can’t say we don’t tax that. It’s taxed upon distribution. But it’s not taxed because it’s net worth, it’s taxed because in 98% of the time, you got a deduction when you contributed the money.

        I am surprised Forbes would make the point about the 0.05%. Are they going soft?

      • Only Barron’s, Ragnaar. The 0,005% oddly suggests that net worth ought to be taxed, but I rather think the author’s using this to indicate that Warren’s loophole and tax deferrals can lead to sizeable taxation exploits.

        The author also suggests that the IRS code has already everything it needs to prevent Warren’s (and many otters’) “cash-rich split-off” gimmick. All it needs is political will.

        In the end, official tax rates are just symbols, icons that mean little if the richest people on the planet can get away from paying almost no tax for a very long while. Perhaps we should see this as some kind of sacrifice we must collectively accept. GRRROWTH may even require this.

        In any case, it’s really hard to see how this can be fair.

      • Willard, ” It was fun the see Cap’n split hairs over non-tax revenues.”

        What is politics if it isn’t splitting hairs? Without clearly showing what is considered non-tax you can’t tell if there is a valid comparison. With plain vanilla revenue per GDP there are no hairs to split. If Buffet donates 10 billion to build a university and provide an endowment for free education, that pretty much takes care of an education issue in his state. You may look at like there isn’t enough money, I might ask what happen to the money.

      • > With plain vanilla revenue per GDP there are no hairs to split.

        There’s always hair to split, Cap’n, since revenue is not taxation, and the question was to evaluate teh Donald’s claim that the United States is one of the most taxed country in the world.

        Moreoever, the concept of GDP is not that vanilla:

        GDP not does include several factors that influence the standard of living. In particular, it fails to account for:

        Externalities […]

        Non-market transactions […]

        Non-monetary economy […]

        Quality improvements and inclusion of new products […]

        Sustainability of growth […]

        Wealth distribution […]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Standard_of_living_and_GDP:_Wealth_distribution_and_externalities

        As much as I would love teh Donald to address more general issues as standards of living instead of throwing populist red meat, I can play the ball where it lands, as the Auditor once said to the Bishop.

      • Willard, I am pretty sure you will find there is no perfect index, but a revenue/GDP is a simple to understand index which makes its useful. What I have seen is that a large amount of the “other revenue” is more closely related to consumption taxation that gifts and tribute, though there are quite a few gifts that reduce state expenses, like education. When comparing 50 states where four or five would be in the top 34 being compared to if they were nations by themselves, there is a lot to question since most of that “other revenue” relates to local and state finances.

      • Willard:
        Never heard of that one before. A cash rich split-off.
        Accountants are just evil. You make a new company with lots of cash in it. You then do a legal stock swap. That’s not a sale. I want to swap my land for your land, also not a sale if it’s a business. Personal property like your house, no. Stop. Consult someone. Stock swaps in some cases should not be taxed. Many deals are set up to not trigger a sale giving a windfall to the government. It’s stretching things making a cash rich company. Form meet substance. Substance is safe. Form can be dangerous. Form has been used to get around substance.
        Rule number one for being old and still a practicing CPA:
        Don’t use the form of a transaction to hide its true substance. If it costs the client more in taxes now, tough. The substance is what should be shown, not some flimsy unsupported form trying to get around paying taxes.

        “In the end, official tax rates are just symbols…”
        Information. Marginal tax rates are signals. As I ranted earlier politicians signal people what to do with tax policies and rates. Congress signaled Buffet to buy renewables. Minnesota signals retirees to move elsewhere. Corporations too. Outfoxed by Ireland we were. Thanks for the memories Medtronic. But at least my clients had to pay. No available stock swap found, and all the Medtronic stock was cashed out and taxes were paid as far as I know.

        About indefinite tax deferral. I don’t know. Quick explanation. Pulling the trigger. An important part of accounting is that. No sale, no tax consequences. Has the trigger been pulled? No. You’re fine. Don’t worry. Say a company has a bunch of appreciated assets, maybe land. They can’t even report the appreciation on some statements. Can’t report the supposed income that accompanies that appreciation. A sale is required. That’s conservative ‘Historical’ accounting still in the rules. Historical accounting is not like watching the History channel when they used to do history. It’s foundational to all accounting. Blame some of it on tradition. No sale, no income.

      • Danny Thomas

        Sometimes even WITH a sale there is no income:

        “Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, though securitized properties are not excluded. The properties exchanged must be of “like kind” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_section_1031

      • A Source of revenue/GDP index would indeed be useful, Cap’n.

        Just like the tax revenue/GDP is.

        So long and thanks for for the fish.

      • Willard, What do you call that, a deja vu strawman? The “other revenue” in question is in the state and local category not federal. Do you have an OEDC chart that excludes state and local for say Germany?

      • Danny Thomas:
        Section 1031 exchanges are deemed trades. You can trade real estate for like kind real estate. They say the gain is deferred into the basis of the new property. It adds liquidity to real estate markets. As I think I mentioned, property gets locked up if one can’t convince themselves to sell it because of the big tax gain. I can’t say I am critical of the law or in favor of it. I see more vehicle trades and farm machinery trades. In those cases, the exchange rules make sense to me.

    • Glenn

      Well, that looks like the coup de grace for that little debate. Just like Willard to try to throw in some left wing propaganda piece. As far as I am concerned the Census Bureau trumps any other source. Cloture has been invoked.

      • Speaking of left wing propaganda, Kid, have a look at the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, the source of Thy Wiki’s page:

        http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables

        I get 25.4. What about you?

        If you ever get the Round Tuit to provide the “generally accepted definition of cutting taxes,” that’d be great.

      • cerescokid,

        Here’s the data for 2013, the last year the U.S. Census Bureau has data.

        The data for federal revenues and GDP comes from FRED.
        The data for state and local government comes from the U.S. Census Bureau.

  120. So, now we enter Phase 2 where the MSM exalts Cr00ked H1llary, heaping praises and kudos upon her nasty persona. We won’t hear the end of breathless tweets, comics kowtowing to her, and the networks having legasms over her.

    • > We won’t hear […]

      We’ll hear the Jim & Glenn Show instead, with musical performances by Big Dave and his Big Band.

      • Lying Willard,

        Well I can understand why you would object to anyone who calls you out on your mendacity.

      • David Springer

        I don’t understand. He must be used to it by now. Just like I’m used to being called an assh0le. It should be like water off a duck’s back.

      • > I can understand why you would object to anyone who calls you out […]

        The Jim & Glenn Show is more about your feisty fight for freedom than about me, Glenn.

      • David Springer

        willard (@nevaudit) | July 22, 2016 at 1:13 pm | Reply

        “We’ll hear the Jim & Glenn Show instead, with musical performances by Big Dave and his Big Band.”

        As usual; wrong. I’m boycotting the DNC.

      • > I’m boycotting the DNC.

        The Jim & Glenn Show is at Judy’s, Big Dave.

        If you could get us a screen shot where AdBlock make Wired’s ads disappear, that would be great.

        Nevermind about the non-existing IQ certificates.

      • David Springer

        Here ya go, Twillard. Wired home page, no ads, Adblock showing it blocked 38 ads (see upper right corner).

      • David

        I checked the US ‘Wired’ site which shows the same stories as your shot but with the addition of two adverts for Samsung.

        The UK version has a very large Advert for watches right along the top. How would that look using adblocker?

        tonyb

  121. I am certainly glad to hear that we have finally found someone who can make our country grreaf again….who can take us back to when crime rates were higher…to when civil rights were denied people because of the committee of their soon or because of their gender identity or sexual irreverence.

    Imagine, in January after Trump’s election, violence and crime will be eliminated, Isis will be eliminated, jobs will flow like water. Of course, I have no idea how trump will do that, and he didn’t specify, but that isn’t necessarily because trump…well businessman and children…. his force of personality will accomplish these tasks. All it takes is faith.

    • Now that was some serious autocorrect.

      Let me try from my computer this time…

      I am certainly glad to hear that we have finally found someone who can make our country great again….who can take us back (to when crime rates were higher…to when civil rights were denied people because of the color of their skin or because of their gender identity or sexual irreverence).

      Imagine, in January after Trump’s election, violence and crime will be eliminated, Isis will be eliminated, jobs will flow like water. Of course, I have no idea how Trump will do that, and he didn’t specify, but that isn’t necessarily, because trump…well businessman and children….

      his force of personality will accomplish these tasks. All it takes is faith.

    • David Springer

      Joshua | July 22, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Reply

      “Imagine, in January after Trump’s election, violence and crime will be eliminated, Isis will be eliminated, jobs will flow like water.”

      In your esteamed opinion Is the hyperbole less than, greater than, or equal to the following:

      generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

      I trust you know the source but for others who might not the quote is from Barrack Hus