Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week

Well its been a bit difficult to find any interesting/insightful articles on the candidates. Here is a few articles that I’ve spotted that are worth reading.

Democratic Platform Calls For WWII-Scale Mobilization To Solve Climate Crisis [link]

Analysis of Trumps speech by Daily  Wire, who thinks it is brilliant [link]  …

Trump’s acceptance speech succeeded in bringing Republicans together, but failed to broaden his support [link]

GOP Environmental Platform: Free Market Directions  [link]

True making America’s energy policy cheaper faster better [link]

The case for making Donald Trump king: [link]

A  look back at the career of the Indiana governor who Donald Trump has picked as his running mate. The Best Reporting on Mike Pence Through the Years [link]

Hillary Clinton could run on strongest climate change platform ever [link]

UK

UK Government axes climate dept [link]

Priti Patel and Boris Johnson are now the international face of Britain’s climate ambitions: will this pair of cynics be won over by the green economy? [link]

Why Britain Suddenly Has A New Prime Minister, Explained For Americans [link]

 

783 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Curious George

    “The Foreign Office runs a network of 80 climate attaches.” Nice to know.

  2. Clinton names Sen. Tim Kaine as VP pick. Not well known, but lots of experience in the right places. Brings a swing state, Virginia, and speaks Spanish. Lots of pluses here.

    • johnvonderlin

      Jim,
      Checked a few different websites about his bio and came away feeling better about this centrist pick than I did initially. He’s Harvard-educated, but from an ironworker’s family. A law graduate, but he took a year off to run a school in Honduras. Seventeen years of civil rights litigation, including a huge settlement against insurance companies for redlining.
      One of only twenty Americans to be a mayor, a governor and a senator. His (only) wife of thirty years is a smart, and highly successful woman whose bio of service and accomplishment are also admirable.
      Of particular interest was the dearth of political enemies. He is generally characterized as well-liked and someone who tries really hard to find a common ground. If Hillary drops out for some reason I’d feel comfortable with him as President, based on what I know now..

    • Good speech in the roll-out today. He has a great personal history that he laid out, Kansas working family roots, faith important, military son, wife was Virginia Governor’s daughter during the 60’s education integration, used his Spanish to effect with the Miami crowd. Hits all the buttons. Trump should just quit now.

    • So Clinton chose as her running mate the senator from Wall Street. Who woulda thunk it?

      And one more time, the MSM puts its bias and one-sidedeness on display for the whole world to see. The Trump campaign has to do its own opposition research on Kaine and point out his long history of special interest pandering. If it were Clinton, the MSM would be doing all the heavy lifting for her.

      Trump campaign readies assault on Kaine
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/23/politics/donald-trump-tim-kaine-attacks/index.html

      Donald Trump’s campaign is beginning to pick apart Hillary Clinton’s new running mate, seeking to flip Tim Kaine’s image from moderate and experienced elected official to that of career politician beholden to special interests….

      “If we went to central casting for someone who gives us the clearest contrast against the Trump-Pence ticket, they couldn’t have picked a better person from our perspective,” a senior Trump adviser said. “They are doubling down on the status quo. They are doubling down on the system as it currently stands.”…

      Trump followed up his campaign’s messaging in a series of tweets Saturday morning that accused Kaine of being “owned by the banks” and slammed his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump has railed against during his campaign.

      • Listen To Tim Kaine’s “I’m Conservative” Radio Ads From 2005
        https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/listen-to-tim-kaines-im-conservative-radio-ads-from-2005?utm_term=.mkmg1n928#.he6EMxwdr

        Kaine speaking in one campaign ad:

        “I’m Tim Kaine, I’m running for governor and I’m not afraid to tell you where I stand…

        I’m conservative on issues of personal responsibility. As a former Christian missionary, faith is central to my life. I oppose gay marriage, I support restrictions on abortion — no public funding and parental consent — and I’ve worked to pass a state law banning partial birth abortion.

        And from another Kaine campaign ad:

        “I’ll enforce the death penalty as governor and I’m against same-sex marriage. I’m conservative on personal responsibility, character, family and the sanctity of life. These are my values, and that’s what I believe.”

      • The difference between a conservative Democrat and a conservative Republican, is that conservative Democrats don’t want to impose their conservative, often religion-based, beliefs on everyone else via laws. Freedom of personal choice and separation of religion from law are key values for Democrats.

      • Jimd

        The overwhelming majority of Muslims vote democrat. They tend to be conservative and religion is often central to their lives.

        http://www.gvhlive.com/gvh-daily/2016/3/18/z11wv6q3tl1vt63lwiy0vycne8j1lo

        Tonyb

      • Tony, that says more about the religious divide espoused by Republicans versus religious inclusiveness which is central to Democratic values. It is no surprise.

      • Tonyb,

        I abhor all religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, HIndu, Islamic or that of the stealth secular relgions like Communism, Nazism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Alarmism/Warmism or New Atheism.

        It seems there is, however, a reluctance on the part of the elite to criticize Islamic fundamentalism.

        Swedish Women Urged to Wear Headscarf – Or Be Raped
        http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160715/1043031851/sweden-headscarf-rape.html

        The rise of radical Islamism throughout Europe has left no exceptions. Notoriously tolerant Sweden has found itself on the receiving end of multiculturalism, with religious extremism steadily gaining ground.

        Images of the stickers have set the Swedish social media alight with debate. Some blamed the incident on the newly arrived extremists spreading radical messages to recruit possible companion-in-arms, whereas others suspect the stickers to have been pasted by “hate-mongers.”….

        Following the unhindered influx of migrants, which was heavily advertised by media and the majority of the political establishment, Sweden has seen an equally unhindered wave of sexual attacks.

        And,

        MUSLIM IMAM CLAIMS WOMEN WHO DON’T WEAR HIJABS ARE “ASKING TO BE RAPED”
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/180393/muslim-imam-claims-women-who-dont-wear-hijabs-are-daniel-greenfield

        “Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked,” Imam Shahid Mehdi said.

      • Jim D,

        You got that right.

        The Democrats are all in favor of “religious inclusiveness” like this:

      • The belief that the current ROP is conservative deserves due diligence, TonyB:

    • And has a matching resume of corruption so that he fits right in with the ever corrupt and Lying Clinton. How did Obama fail to appoint him has Defense Secretary?

    • stevenreincarnated

      The Huffington Post has article saying

      “If Clinton becomes nominee, Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is a refuge, and viable and powerful choice for president.”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05
      ouch

    • stevenreincarnated

      First email casualty: Schultz to step down after convention.

      • Danny Thomas

        DWS deserves to be ‘fired’ so bring on the Trump!

        Interesting that Trump had similar concerns about the system being rigged, and to his credit he’s overcome. The interesting part is that Bernie obviously faced similar issues and Trump not being a fan of ‘loser’s’ has come out in Bernie’s defense. Wonder why that might be?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Trump didn’t face a system that could be rigged nearly as easy as the system the Democrats have in place so not a fair comparison. Trump may feel some empathy for Sanders, but I would guess the primary motivation behind his comments is influencing the Sanders supporters. You’d have to be crazy to be in his position and not want to stir this pot.

      • Danny Thomas

        Steven,
        “Trump may feel some empathy for Sanders, but I would guess the primary motivation behind his comments is influencing the Sanders supporters.”

        So you think he want’s to make Sanders supporters ‘great again’?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Right.

      • Trump got more than half the delegates with less than half the votes. How did that happen? Why is he compaining about that system? Sanders got less than half the votes and less than half the delegates. That one makes sense.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Winner take all states, Jim.

      • Yet Trump still complains. Why? It was rigged in his favor, if anything.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I remember him complaining. I think it was Colorado where the delegates weren’t bound by the vote but if you want to know for sure why he was complaining you’ll have to search it.

      • JimD

        What makes sense is Hillary got 55% of the popular vote, and 90% of the super-delegates.

      • Who says Trump is complaining Jim D?

        I know, you can’t help making things up.

    • stevenreincarnated

  3. Brian G Valentine

    This “climate” thing could blow Democrat party chances right out of the water.

    • Yep.

      I think that some people are finally connecting the dots, and have figured out that the hallowed “Green economy” is kryptonite to the real economy.

  4. Trump was pretty clear– he’s LGBTQ-friendly and hostile to global warming alarmism.

    • Brian G Valentine

      I think there is more hope to get him to a more enlightened view of international trade than there is to get Democrats away from climate nihilism.

      • One of the issues that’s never talked about is the huge price the United States pays — both in treasure and in blood — to guarantee “free” trade.

        As Kevin Phillips points out, the United States is not the first country to go down this road. The British Empire — pax Britanica — tried it first, and eventually failed:

        One vital component of that ebbing pax, the openness of the world economy from 1870-1913 — reexamined with interest as the debate over the next great globalizaiton heated in 2000 — was less a phenomenon of global fraternity than a projection of British power and its demand that investment and export opportunities remain open.

        Indeed, some economists believed that “globalization” of trade and investment had achieved slightly higher percentages under British auspices in the late Victorian and Edwardian years than it had again by 2000.

        The notion that Britain did this through laissez-faire rather than government activism is a Victorian fairy tale. From 1845 to 1870, laissez-faire dominated British domestic policy in the sense of denying any role for government in aiding the masses or ameliorating poverty. Globally, however, Britain spent huge sums on the principal supervisory force that watched its world commerce… With that kind of laissez-faire, Britain built an empire and projected the globalization regime of open sea-lanes, open ports, and (relatively) free movement of investment.

        — KEVIN PHILLIPS, Wealth and Democracy

        If we are to do an honest cost-benefit analysis of “free” trade, then we need to include all the costs, and also look closely at cui bono. As Reinhold Niebuhr noted in 1932, as the old pax Britanica was imploding:

        At present the economic overlords of a nation have special interests in the profits of international trade, in the exploitation of weaker peoples and in the acquisiiton of raw materials and markets, all of which are only remotely relevant to the welfare of the whole people.

        They are revevant only because, under the present organisation of society, the economic life of a whole nation is bound up with the private enterprises of individuals.

        Furthermore, the unequal distribution of wealth under the present economic system concentrates wealth which cannot be invested…in the nation itself. The whole nation is therefore called upon to protect the investments and the markets which the economic overlords are forced to seek in other nations.

        — REINHOLD NIEBUHR, Moral Man and Immoral Society

        So here’s the question: Why should I have to pay to guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil, transnational corporations that have no country and have no loyalty to the United States or to me?

      • Inequality, and especially in the ownership of financial assets, was already pronounced before Obama:

        http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

        But under the firm, guiding hand of President Obama, we now have inequality on steroids, since the wealth of the top 1% has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis, but that of the bottom 90% has not:

        http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2016QJE.pdf

      • In reply to Glen Stehle:
        “So here’s the question: Why should I have to pay to guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil, transnational corporations that have no country and have no loyalty to the United States or to me?”

        You don’t. You buy the products of Goldman Sachs or Exxon Mobil
        because they provide products you want relatively cheaply. You don’t want to pay extra just so some greedy corporation based in the U.S. makes more than another greedy company based outside the U.S.

      • The true cost of not being energy independent is something the EU may ultimately pay in spades…

      • Alan McIntire said:

        You buy the products of Goldman Sachs or Exxon Mobil
        because they provide products you want relatively cheaply. You don’t want to pay extra just so some greedy corporation based in the U.S. makes more than another greedy company based outside the U.S.

        Oh really?

        Earth to Alan McIntire: The domestic US oil industry — mostly small and medium sized independents — was single-handedly responsible (with almost no help from the ExxonMobils of the world) for the shale revolution.

        Earth to Alan McIntire: Just who is it you believe caused this?

        Earth to Alan McIntire: Just who is it you believe caused this?

        Earth to Alan McIntire: Just who is it you believe created these jobs in the United States?

      • Lying Willard said:

        You don’t [pay to guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil.]

        Once again, Willard, you put your lies and spin doctoring on display for everyone to see. Sometimes your dishonesty and calumny goes way beyond the pale.

        Here’s the breakdown of the taxes I pay on my oil and gas run checks:

        Wellhead Severence Taxes: These are different for oil and natural gas, but for me average about 6% of gross oil and gas sales

        Ad Valorem Taxes: These vary substantially from lease to lease, but for me average about 6% of gross oil and gas sales

        Federal Income Taxes: On oil and gas revenues the IRS allows me an oil and gas depletion allowance of 15%, so the effective tax rate I end up paying after accounting for the depletion allowance is about 34%.

        If you add it all up, I pay about 46% of my gross oil and gas sales in taxes.

        Lying Willard, I have been extremely blessed during my lifetime, so don’t in the least mind paying taxes. But it is extremely offensive for you to say that I don’t pay.

      • Wagathon,

        North America was very near being oil independent until the crash in oil prices put the brakes on:

      • Just trying to keep up:

        Alan said you don’t (pay).

        Willard said you do (pay).

        You say you do (pay).

        You say Willard is lying when he says you do (pay).

      • > Sometimes your dishonesty and calumny goes way beyond the pale.

        Try reading harder before you choke in your own vomit, Glenn.

        We both agree that you actually pay to “guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil.”

        I’m not sure exactly how wellhead Severence Taxes, ad valorem taxes, and federal income taxes “guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil,” but hey, since you’re Kid’s new tax guru, I bow to your expertise.

      • Earth to Alan McIntire: Just who is it you believe caused this?

      • Lying Willard said:

        I’m not sure exactly how wellhead Severence Taxes, ad valorem taxes, and federal income taxes “guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil,” but hey, since you’re Kid’s new tax guru, I bow to your expertise.

        I suppose you believe that, even with its terrible failings and its appalling dictator (who was partly created by U.S. policy two decades ago), were Iraq to have been the world’s largest exporter of bananas or oranges, there would still have been Operation Iraqi Freedom, the hysteria over mysteriously vanished weapons of mass destruction, the transporting of an enormous army, navy, and air force 7000 miles away to destroy a country scarcely known even to the educated American, all in the name of “freedom.”

      • > I suppose you believe that […]

        What’s “that,” Glaring Glenn?

        ***

        > [W]ere Iraq to have been the world’s largest exporter of bananas or oranges, there would still have been Operation Iraqi Freedom,

        Of course not, Glaring Glenn.

        Yet again, we seem in violent agreement.

        If you could connect wellhead severence taxes, ad valorem taxes, and federal income taxes with the Resources on Defense you’ve shown and I might agree even more violently with you.

        What about fossil fuel subsidies, BTW?

      • Lying Willard,

        Do you really believe it was the Harold Hamm’s of the world who were watering at the mouth to get their hands on this?

        Before you answer, you might want to take a look at some of those who participated on Cheney’s Energy Task Force:

        • Bob Malone, BP regional president, and Peter Davies, chief economist.

        • Alan Huffman, Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips.

        • Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron.

        • Steven Miller, Shell Oil chairman.

        • Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Royal Dutch/Shell Group’s chairman.

        • James J. Rouse, former Exxon vice president.

        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cheney_Energy_Task_Force#cite_note-18

      • > Do you really believe it was the Harold Hamm’s of the world who were watering at the mouth to get their hands on this?

        For that rhetorical question I’m quite glad, Glenn. I’m not sure you can afford it, however. In this subthread alone:

        – you failed to acknowledge that you misread me about your indirect financing of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil;

        – you still haven’t answered my question as to why you don’t include fossil fuel subsidies;

        – you have yet to identify what I was supposed to believe that led to a previous rhetorical question.

        While flourish may help you smash open doors, it may not help you connect the dots between wellhead severence taxes, ad valorem taxes, and federal income taxes and the Resources on Defense.

        As for your social network analysis, I again must concede to be in violent agreement with you. I do hope you agree with me that SNA only provides circumstancial evidence.

        In exchange for your glaring work, Glenn, here’s some visuals:

        Please, do continue.

      • dougbadgero

        I am all for eliminating loopholes and lowering the corporate tax rate. Pandering to the politically well connected is economically inefficient.

        In an economically sensible world corporate taxes would be 0%. Taxes on production raise the cost of capital. All costs are paid by individuals in any economy; either as a taxpayer or a consumer. Who else is there?

      • On Dr. Roy Spencer’s FB page we demolished the isolationist, protectionist demon thoroughly and I don’t feel like going through that again. Free trade is the only thing that kept the US and Eurozone afloat the last few years. Start taxing that and the next big recession will hit with a vengeance.

      • > All costs are paid by individuals in any economy; either as a taxpayer or a consumer. Who else is there?

        Corporations, entities that exploited a loophole in the Constitution to came into existence, and that now haz the freedom of speech to spend money during polical campaigns, among other forms of lobbying.

        Nominalism doesn’t apply to our social reality.

      • David Springer

        oldfossil

        Who is “we” and would Roy Spencer agree you “demolished” anything except perhaps anyone thinking you have a brain in your head?

      • Gllen Stehle wrote:

        So here’s the question: Why should I have to pay to guarantee the viability and profits of transnational corporations like Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil, transnational corporations that have no country and have no loyalty to the United States or to me?

        Well… you know, the real apostles of nineteenth-century British free trade, Richard Cobden and John Bright, were also anti-imperialists who called for a “Little England” approach — the equivalent of “America First.”

        I.e., we could have plain and simple free trade, without the multi-thousand page treaties, without the international bureaucratic “trade” organizations, and without paying for a military and foreign policy that soaks ordinary Americans for the benefit of the big banks and oil companies.

        Might be worth a try, eh?

        Dave Miller in Sacramento

      • Alan M:

        “You don’t. You buy the products of Goldman Sachs or Exxon Mobil
        because they provide products you want relatively cheaply. You don’t want to pay extra just so some greedy corporation based in the U.S. makes more than another greedy company based outside the U.S.”

        You do. You pay for the US military to keep trade flowing all over the world.

      • Well Glenn, US Middle East policy has never been about US energy production or protecting the profits of Exxon and its counterparts. It is our partners that are dependent.

        And do you really think that the US policy – one supported and enforced from our founding – regarding maintaining open sea lines of communication is outdated or unjustifiable?

      • timg56 said:

        US Middle East policy has never been about US energy production….

        Sure it has.

        • 1970: U.S. OIl production peaks

        • After 1970, U.S. Oil imports soar and the U.S. becomes dependent on oil from the Middle East

        • 1979: Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Energy Crisis

        Line at a gas station in Maryland, United States, June 15, 1979.

        • 1980: Carter militarizes U.S. energy policy when he proclaims the Carter Doctrine

        During the 1980s, the Pentagon began gearing up for large-scale and sustained military operations in the region.

        This reorientaiton actually began in the waning days of the Carter administration, when President Carter publicly declared control of the Persian Gulf to be a vital interest….

        Simply put, the United States would rely on military might to keep order in the Gulf and maintain the flow of oil, thereby mitigating the implications of American energy dependence. By the time that Reagan retired from office, this had become the basis for national security strategy in the region….

        [F]or Reagan and for each of his successors, the Carter Doctrine has remained a sacred text, never quesitoned, never subject to reassessment. As such, it has provided the overarching ratinale for nearly thirty years of ever-intensifying military activism in the Persian Gulf.

        – ANDREW BACEVICH, The Limits of Power

      • timg56 said:

        And do you really think that the US policy – one supported and enforced from our founding – regarding maintaining open sea lines of communication is outdated or unjustifiable?

        This is another neocon fairytale, almost as nonsensical and fact-free as the one that our military involvement in the Middle East is to “fight terrorism” or to “spread democracy and freedom,” instead of being realpolitik to insure the flow of oil and natural gas from the region.

        Granted, during the 18th and 19th centuries the US cleared nearby seas of pirates and sought to impose regional hegemony in the Americas. But its foreign policy during this time was unquestionably isolationist. Isolationism refers to America’s longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars.

        • GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1776:

        The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

        • THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1801:

        The “essential principles of our government” is that of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

        • JAMES MONROE, 1823:

        In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.

        The United States’ policy of isolationism and non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish–American War, which ultimately resulted in the Philippine–American War from 1899–1902.

        The long-running policy of U.S. isolaitonism, however, would be fully reversed with the Utopian dreams of Woodrow Wilson and his ideal of international liberalism — “make the world safe for democracy”. Wilson would invoke the notion of an “American commitment to maintaining open sea lanes across the Atlantic” as part of his war message to justify U.S. involvement in WWI.

        After WWi, however, international liberalism would take a back seat to the Christian, or moral, realism espoused by E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr, which would after a couple of decades degenerate into the amoral realism of Henry Kissinger.

        It would not be until 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union, however, that neoconservatism, which Hans Morgenthau dubbed “Wilsonianism with teeth,” would emerge as the dominant philosophy in U.S. foreign policy.

      • President Wilson’s elaborate campaign to sell WWI to the American people was where the field of mind science, psywar and public relations, as well as a great deal of oppression and physical violence directed against the American people themselves, got its start.

        The history of this pivotal moment in American history is set out beginning at minute 26:20 in the following documentary:

      • Glenn,

        I don’t need you to lecture me on history.

        The founding fathers statements on not getting involved in European conflicts were primarily addressing land wars. They were fully aware of how the convoluted histories and relationships managed to drag nations into war even when they weren’t interested. What they did not warn against was the concept of freedom of the sea. Because they were a maritime trading nation. The US had the luxury of operating in the shadow of Pax Britiania, courtesy of the Royal Navy. But following the end of the Civil War, it was recognized that going forward the US needed its own Navy to protect its interests. And guess what? The world pretty much enjoys unlimited freedom of travel on the sea, thanks almost exclusively to the United States Navy. No need on your part to thank us.

      • David Springer

        timg56 | July 26, 2016 at 6:09 pm |

        “I don’t need you to lecture me on history.”

        You need someone to do it. Might as well be Glenn. I don’t have the patience for it.

      • timg56,

        The world pretty much enjoys unlimited freedom of travel on the sea, thanks almost exclusively to the United States Navy. No need on your part to thank us.

        Thank you for what? Who do you think pays for all your neocon folly, other than the American taxpayer?

        I’m quite familiar with the kind of neocon boilerplate you’re reciting. For example, it could have been lifted straight out of this article:

        Keeping the Open Seas Open
        http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/23/keeping-the-open-seas-open/

        The author starts out by hyping the identical historical fiction that you do: “America has been keeping the open seas, well, open for 215 years.”

        And then, after a rather tortuous butcheering of history, he finally gets around to the punch line, which is of course advocating for more military spending. This is where these neocon screeds invariably end up. To wit:

        That brings us to America’s enduring role in defending freedom of the seas…..

        Today, 90 percent of global trade, equaling more than $14 trillion, travels by sea. It doesn’t happen by accident or by magic. The burden of keeping the sea lanes open—discouraging encroachment, deterring bad actors, fighting piracy, clearing vital waterways and chokepoints—falls on the U.S. Navy, which is why the Freedom of Navigation Program continues….

        Washington should end the bipartisan gamble known as sequestration. The defense budget has fallen from 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.2 percent today—headed for just 2.8 percent by 2018. The last time America invested less than 3 percent of GDP in defense was 1940. As China builds up and builds out, this is the best way to invite the worst of possibilities: what Churchill called “temptations to a trial of strength.”

        Given the reservoir of U.S. military capacity, the White House seems to argue, the balance of power will still favor the United States, even after sequestration takes its toll. That may appear to be true—but only until one considers that America’s military assets and security priorities are spread around the globe, while China’s are concentrated in its neighborhood.

        At the height of Reagan’s buildup, the Navy boasted 594 ships. Even the post-Cold War Navy of the 1990s totaled 375 ships. Today’s fleet numbers just 284 ships. “For us to meet what combatant commanders request,” according to former CNO Admiral Jonathan Greenert, “we need a Navy of 450 ships.”

        It’s a matter of simple arithmetic: The U.S military cannot carry out an ever-growing number of missions—deterring China in the Pacific and Russia in the Baltics, fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, protecting North America, NATO, South Korea, and Japan, defending freedom of the seas—with an ever-shrinking number of resources.

      • Glenn,

        Your latest cut and paste makes what point?

        Besides being a happy little clam because you’ve decided in your mind that I’m a neocon (which is apparently the dirtiest thing you can call someone) what is the point of the piece you quoted? I haven’t made any comments on the size of the US military, or any of the points in the article, other than perhaps the opening paragraph. And unless you can prove that to be false, you got squat. Global trade depends on ships. Ships which can go from point a to b without being seized, hijacked or sunk. Supposedly the presence of the US Navy helps ensure that. Then there is the deterrent effect. Having a carrier battle group over your horizon or knowing one could be sent there in a matter of a few days, might give pause to anyone with bad intentions. Now is there an argument to be made that this presence isn’t necessary? That there is no real deterrent effect, nor any significant threat to freedom of the seas? Maybe. But you haven’t raised that point. You’ve just argued against the unarguable.

        BTW – I think you would find, if you bothered checking, that most people who serve don’t get caught up in arguments about who is a neocon or not.

      • Springer,

        Patience isn’t the only thing you are lacking. Though at least you do have original thoughts, unlike Glenn.

      • David Springer

        You still need the history lectures, Tim.

        In a free market the losses due to piracy are priced into the cost of goods.

        Let’s say I don’t care to buy goods imported from other continents and make do with products made in America. Why then should my tax dollars be spent on a navy to make shipping lanes safe from piracy? If you want goods from those continents you can bloody well pay more for those goods to cover the losses from piracy.

        That’s what the founders intended, son.

        And speaking of taxes you’re now taxing my patience.

  5. Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton’s Intercepted Emails …

    RESET
    ?

    • You might believe this if you think Putin wants Trump to win. Why would Putin prefer Trump? Explain.

      • –e.g., “Would you please tell Gore to stop calling? I could sell lipstick to women in burkas… we don’t need his help selling global warming: Obama has the folks believing he stopped the seas from rising. Tell Al if he calls again he’ll have the IRS counting the trees that have been planted by his non-profit foundation.” ~Hillary Clinton (see, wiki leaks)

      • OK, so maybe now you will support Hillary?

      • … votes for Hillary are 100% pro-establishment and that doesn’t include typical Sanders-voters but may very will include pro-establishment Republican voters… sort of like those who supported continued British rule during the American Revolution–e.g., like those who don’t understand Brexit!

      • You imply Putin is the Russian with the emails…
        maybe not!

      • The Russians got hundreds of times more useful information from the combined efforts of Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning and various government hacking efforts than they would have gleaned from any emails that they may or may not have from Hillary.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Bill was in charge when we got involved in Bosnia. Serbia is a traditional Russian ally in a region they would consider strongly within their sphere of influence. It could be they just don’t like the Clintons.

      • They also share with Trump not liking NATO and American troops in Europe, which might be a bigger factor.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Trump is right. The other NATO nations need to start paying up for their own defense. If threatening to stop defending them on our dime is the only way to make that happen so be it. You have a problem with Europe helping to pay for their own defense?

        http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/

      • Money before security is Trump’s way. He is moneycentric. That’s his life. There are other things. The US is not about to go bankrupt by paying its 2% to NATO, but you would not know it from listening to him.

      • Danny Thomas

        Lest we forget:
        “This explains why both the Bush and the Clinton administrations strongly objected to any thoughts of abandoning NATO after the end of the Cold War in 1989–1991. The largely unchallenged American dominance of NATO was the most important and most powerful tool at the disposal of the United States to maintain its influence in Europe and beyond. More than a decade later this was still the case. In view of the increasingly frequent economic and trade as well as political and strategic disagreements in transatlantic relations in the early twenty-first century, Washington’s efforts to bolster NATO and turn it into one of its main pillars of influence in the contemporary world was hardly surprising. NATO still provided the United States with a crucial instrument of global leadership. Moreover, in the aftermath of the entirely unexpected terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., in September 2001, NATO would also serve as the instrument that was able to provide the United States with crucial military and logistic help and indeed much needed political and moral support in the war against international terrorism.”

        http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization.aspx#

        Affiliation may mean more than just money. It may have an entirely different value.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, so you don’t want Europe to pay for their own defense. When was the last time you voted for someone that ran on increasing our defense spending?

      • Europe are paying a lot. The US gets a lot of leverage and effectiveness for the amount that they are contributing. We can read more here to see what Trump’s complaint is really about and really not about.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-for-nato/

      • stevenreincarnated

        I know what he’s complaining about. Same thing I’ve been complaining about for 30 years. Europe is paying a lot, Jim? Then we should be paying as much as they are, or about 1/3rd what we are currently paying.

      • He has to make it look more like he would not take Putin’s side in an invasion, because that doesn’t play well in the West. Treaties mean something beyond financials.

      • Jim D wrote

        Why would Putin prefer Trump?

        Because Vlad would much sooner see Melania or Ivanka at international affairs than Hillary?

      • Jim D wrote:

        Why would Putin prefer Trump?

        Because Vlad would much sooner see Melania or Ivanka at international affairs than Hillary?

        (corrected for formatting error)

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, when there are no armies left in Europe to defend it, at that point, what difference does it make?

      • Exactly, and Trump would have it that way to save money, in the short term. He doesn’t have the long view.

      • Danny Thomas cited:

        NATO would also serve as the instrument that was able to provide the United States with crucial military and logistic help and indeed much needed political and moral support in the war against international terrorism.

        One must first be honest about what the purpose of the US’s and NATO’s involvement in the Middle East is. The unvarnished reality, if we look beyond all the flowery rhetoric, is that these are resource wars. If they were indeed about fighting terrorism, then the United States and its allies in the region would not be funding extremist Islamist groups, as they began doing in 1979, and continue to do to this day.

        When Carter formulated the Carter Doctrine in 1979, which militarized US energy policy, the United States needed to guarantee the flow of oil from the Middle East, Carter felt this was necessary in order to insure the continuance of “the American way of life.” George Bush the elder reaffirmed this conviction when in 1992 he declared, “The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period.” And the reality is that it takes one heck of a lot of oil to fuel the American way of life.

        With the shale revolution, however, and America’s waning appetite for oil, North America is now almost oil self-sufficient. The bottom line is that we don’t need Middle Eastern oil any more to insure the American way of life, as we have ample supplies in North America.

        The situation for Europe, however, is quite different. It is still reliant either on Russia or the Middle East for much of its oil and natural gas supplies. So the United States and Europe no longer have the common interest of insuring the flow of oil and natural gas from the Middle East.

        So here’s the quesiton: Why should the United States continue to pay the price in blood and treasure to insure the flow of oil and natural gas from the Middle East to Europe, other than the fact that the ExxonMobils of the world can make a lot of money doing that, as well as the US military industrial complex?

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “So here’s the quesiton: Why should the United States continue to pay the price in blood and treasure to insure the flow of oil and natural gas from the Middle East to Europe, other than the fact that the ExxonMobils of the world can make a lot of money doing that, as well as the US military industrial complex?”

        I’m not sure this is the ONLY question of concern.

        Here’s a Heritage.org ‘study’ which goes in to detail w/r/t potential for Russian aggression in the Baltics, cybersecurity, and other. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/the-baltic-states-the-united-states-must-be-prepared-to-fulfill-its-nato-treaty-obligations

        While I’m not even an arm chair quarterback on this topic, I fear the reduction of the discussion to such a small area devalues the broader ‘usefullness’ of NATO to the U.S.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Do you really believe that breaking Putin’s stanglehold on Europe’s natural gas supplies is not what our current involvement in Syria is all about?

        Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict?
        http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

      • Danny Thompson,

        Well that’s certainly an example of the neocon argument.

        Here’s the counter argument. This particular article is from a right-wing site. I could could just as easily have cited dozens just like it from left-wing sites.

        US Sends Another 1,000 Troops To Poland As Part Of NATO Effort To Counter Russia
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/us-sends-another-1000-troops-poland-part-nato-effort-counter-russia?page=2

        President Obama is in Warsaw, Poland today where NATO members are holding a summit to show the alliance will stand firm against new threats, including a “resurgent Russia.” The Warsaw meeting is being held in a district of the capital, Praga, that Poles view as a symbol of Russian betrayal of their nation.

        In the meeting, Obama called on NATO to “stand firm” against Russia, terrorism and other challenges even as a key member, UK, retrenches from Europe. In an op-ed published in the Financial Times on Friday, Obama says the U.S. and European nation “must summon the political will, and make concrete commitments” to affirm European cooperation.

        “This may be the most important moment for our transatlantic alliance since the end of the Cold War,” Obama wrote. “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine threatens our vision of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace.” The US president added that “NATO will once again send a very clear message that we are here.”….

        NATO’s massive build-up in the three Baltic countries and Poland is officially labeled “assurance measures,” but not everyone in the alliance is keen to take part in what the Foreign Minister of Europe’s most important NATO member, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, called three weeks ago “saber-rattling and warmongering.”

        “Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken,” Steinmeier said in defiance of multiple war games in the region. A recent YouGov poll found that 64 percent of Germans agreed with his statement, with only 16 percent rejecting it….

        But the most important development was Obama announcement that the U.S. is sending an additional 1,000 U.S. troops to Poland as part of a NATO effort to reinforce its presence on the alliance’s eastern flank….

        Naturally, Russia will promptly respond in kind and send even more troops to its borders with Europe, and the escalation will continue until finally an “accident” happens and the next phase of this unprecedented redux of the Cold War enters its next phase.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “Here’s the counter argument.”

        Yes, but the question remains. Do these ‘counter arguments’ (from any point of view) lessen or increase the value of NATO in ways other than financially?

        I suggest there are uncertainties. The suggestion of abandonment appears to be less than prudent with the information in hand. IMO.

      • Gee Jim D,

        This one is pretty simple, at least on the surface.

        Putin is currently being ostrasized by the West. Sanctions from Crimea and Ukrainian actions are hurting. NATO troops are being deployed to his borders. Clinton is unlikely to change current policy on those counts. Meanwhile her opponent is openly questioning both US commitment to NATO and the need to be the world’s policeman in general. Which one do you think he thinks he can make a better deal with?

      • The attraction to Trump goes deeper than his words. A couple of his advisors have been pro-Putin in past careers, and I am sure his taxes will show a lot of financial cross-ties too, because Russian oligarchs are some of Trump’s best customers. Perhaps Trump’s words on NATO just reflect these deeper connections he has, and are not just the random thinking out loud that he normally is accused of.

      • Danny,

        When it comes to “military and logistic help”, far more often it is the US providing this help to our allies than them providing it to us. The “help” we get is primarily in the form of basing and overflight rights. When it comes to operational support, for example the air strikes against Libya, it is the US pulling most of the weight.

      • Danny Thomas

        TimG56,
        Capability wise there is no question of where that value lies and it is with us. However, there is an alternative value which comes with the affiliation and that is the power of ‘consensus’ (for want of a better term). Plus, our logistics are supported substantially by proximity. The point I’m seeing in the relationship is it is symbiotic and should not come down strictly to dollars. We use each other.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        I suggest there are uncertainties. The suggestion of abandonment appears to be less than prudent with the information in hand. IMO.

        Then it would appear that Clinton is your candidate.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        I’m not a single issue voter. But this issue (as portrayed) is not leaning Trump’s way.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Danny, that depends on who portrays it. Right now the same people portraying it as something we must do are also the same people that want to cut our military to the point where we can’t do it anyway.

      • David Springer

        Jim D | July 24, 2016 at 11:11 pm |

        “Money before security is Trump’s way. He is moneycentric. That’s his life. There are other things. The US is not about to go bankrupt by paying its 2% to NATO, but you would not know it from listening to him.”

        When is the last time you lost sleep worrying about how you were going to make ends meet? Trump understands money alright. It’s about time we had one that does.

        Vote Trump, The not extremely careless candidate.

      • “The Russians got hundreds of times more useful information from the combined efforts of Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning and various government hacking efforts than they would have gleaned from any emails that they may or may not have from Hillary.”

        This is what the US has become. The Russian intelligence services (according to Hillary) have taken up the job ignored by American media in exposing how corrupt the DNC is.

      • David Springer

        CNN Woman Focus Group: Black Trump Voter Tells Hillary Voter If Hillary Were You, You’d Be In Jail

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/cnn_woman_focus_group_black_pro-trump_voter_tells_pro-hillary_voter_if_hillary_were_you_youd_be_in_jail.html

        Six women. Only one was in the tank for Clinton. Two were in the tank for Trump, and the other three were undecided.

      • Danny,

        There are a couple of your points I’m not sure I understand, and a couple I’d like to respond to.

        “Capability wise there is no question of where that value lies and it is with us. However, there is an alternative value which comes with the affiliation and that is the power of ‘consensus’ (for want of a better term). Plus, our logistics are supported substantially by proximity. The point I’m seeing in the relationship is it is symbiotic and should not come down strictly to dollars. We use each other.”

        Don’t quite get the meaning of the first sentence. If you are referring to capabilities, then yes, there is no question where those lie. If you are referring to the “value” of those capabilities, then you’ve opened up a broad topic offering long hours of discussion. Boiled down, how does one value capabilities which contribute both to our own security and those of our allies. Does one benefit more than the other. Don’t know. If I had to lean one way or the other, I’d say the parties who get the benefit, without the cost, probably are reaping the greater value.

        Yes, there is value in what you call consensus. If NATO helps in getting European nations to line up along side of the US with regard to policy decisions (example: current sanctions against Russia), then that counts as value added.

        You lost me with the logistics bolstered by proximity statement. I can’t discern what point you are trying to make.

        Your last point on symbiotic relationship and value beyond just money. Nothing I would disagree with. A peaceful, economically stable Europe is in the US interest. Having the United States playing the role of your bad ass big brother is clearly in the interest of Europe. Which is of greater value? Well, I’m guessing that the US can handle Russian tanks back on the Oder better than most of Europe. Same is true of the return of a Caliphate to southern France or the Balkans. And if Europe gets us to play big brother without worrying about picking up any of the cost, then they are really getting value.

        Here is something to keep in mind about Trump’s comments regarding NATO. The last three administrations have put pressure on NATO’s European members over them living up to their commitments. That’s 2 1/2 decades without any noticeable change on their part. Trump comes along and gives one interview to the NYT and look how many European nabobs start running around gnashing their teeth and pissing themselves. If you truly think all Trump had on his mind was money, then I recommend you dig deeper.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, what are you talking about? Trump isn’t responsible for heading our troop levels to what they were before WW2. If you want to be the world’s policeman you have to pay for it. If you don’t pay for it then someone else has to. You can’t do something with nothing although you keep trying with your argument to do just that. Now, when was the last time you voted for someone that ran on increasing the defense budget?

      • Sounds like he wants to pull out of Europe, Japan and Korea, probably the Pacific too. He needs to decide if he wants to add funding to already the best force in the world, but also for them to withdraw and just stay at home not projecting their power as much as they have been doing. It looks contradictory, and it needs explaining.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, the best force in the world is getting mighty small and over taxed. We had soldiers doing combat rotation after combat rotation for just a small regional anti-insurgency operation.

        Your position is the one that needs explaining. Why should the US tax payer commit a higher percentage of their income towards defending someone than the someone that is being defended does?

      • The US is needed there as a large part of NATO. This is not an economical decision. It is treaties, responsibilities in the world, global presence, phrase it how you like. Trump doesn’t think in those geopolitical strategic terms, and I don’t think his supporters do either. They don’t know that Putin does think in those terms, and would appreciate having a naive leader who doesn’t.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m glad it isn’t an economical decision. Europe should have no trouble finding the money then.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You know what Putin thinks? Have you been reading his emails to learn what his responses to any action we may take will be?

      • Putin appears interested in gaining territory and puppet states in Europe. Maybe you don’t see the evidence for that. Trump doesn’t care, and that is fine with you. It turns out to be cheaper for the US to keep their troops in Europe than basing them at home too, but Trump didn’t get that memo.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Cheaper to have additional bases and to ship personnel back and forth across the ocean. Yes, of course I see that would be the case.

        Russian expansion isn’t anything new. All that geopolitical expertise that you and yours have doesn’t seem to be doing much to stop it. I’m not surprised that Russia wants the Crimea. They have always wanted a warm water port and renting one probably isn’t good enough for a nationalist, they have a large Russian population there, and they knew NATO wouldn’t do a thing to stop them because NATO is weak both militarily and in resolve so that even a weak Russia doesn’t fear them. With all your geopolitical expertise why didn’t you warn NATO?

      • For a while Manafort was helping Yanukovych as he tried successfully, but controversially, to get elected as a Putin puppet in Ukraine. Luckily he was later overthrown, Ukraine started to turn west, and Putin became threatened. The rest is history and now Manafort works for Trump. Trump knows how to pick aides. What was his vetting process? Doesn’t this kind of thing raise a red flag?

      • stevenreincarnated

        No.

        “He made a name for himself working for leading Republican figures, including Ford, Reagan, Dole and George H.W. Bush.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/07/from-ukraine-to-trump-tower-paul-manafort-unafraid-to-take-on-controversial-jobs/

      • It is interesting that he started working for Yanukovych during the Bush 2 administrarion at which time the Republicans were not fond of Yanukovych being a Putin puppet. Why did he defect in 2004 to join a Putin puppet? That would be my first question if I was hiring him.

    • You may wonder why Trump never criticizes Putin but does criticize NATO. Here’s some idea why.
      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

      • In short, Manafort’s previous job was with a Putin ally (deposed in Ukraine), and anoher advisor is close with Gazprom, plus Trump relies on Russian oligarch millionaires as his best customers. He is part of this global oligarch club. Those are his buddies, and his tax forms would show it.

      • As Yves Smith noted, Josh Marshall, “Democrat apparatchik, is helping Clinton appeal to Republicans by adopting classic Republican messaging”:

        Joe McCarthy: “I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were made known….”

        The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! Look under your beds! worked great with Republicans in the 50s, and no doubt the Clinton campaign thinks it will work for them, as they appeal to the Republicans of today… And of course, the Two Minutes Hate for Putin is a two-fer.

        http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1977881_1977887_1978204,00.html

      • I am just explaining why he doesn’t criticize Putin. Trump’s main advisors haven’t hidden their ties, even if they never talk about them. You won’t see Trump object to anything Putin does or says when he has this type of advice. You can decide for yourself if those connections and influences in the US election make you comfortable. I won’t say anything.

      • This may also explain why Palin has been rather sidelined. Not a Putin fan at all. If there was one thing she knew about foreign policy, that was it.

      • Jim

        What do you make of this high profile democrat resignation apparently due to fixing the nomination in favour of Hillary?

        tonyb

      • The DNC were supposed to be impartial, and they were caught not being. It’s just all inside game. Bernie made no big deal of it, because this was all known even before the emails. A Bernie-favoring DNC member resigned months ago because of this. No one sees this as a big new thing. He lost the vote count, and in the end that was what mattered.

      • Fact-Checking That “Trump & Putin” Thing
        View story at Medium.com

        As background, Josh Marshall published the above mentioned post.

        I disagreed w/ Josh and gave a few reasons why. Josh asked me for specifics.

        What follows are seven statements from the TPM article which Josh has claimed are facts. He only got two out of seven correct.

      • Tony –

        “Fixing?” Really?

        Do you think there was sufficient public sentiment from Dem voters to nominate Sanders, but that a conspiracy among DNC insiders “rigged” the nomination?

        I am no fan of the DNC, but they had logical reasons to favor Clinton over Sanders for the national election. I’m not even sure I agree with that logic (I happen to think that pandering to moderates is not a good strategy and that focusing on young voters and minorities would be a better strategy, but the DNC has long favored “triangulation”), but I understand why it is a logical strategy for then to think that nominating a socialist is not desirable.

      • Joshua said:

        I understand why it is a logical strategy for then to think that nominating a socialist is not desirable.

        It’s amazing how quickly people forget that in a Sanders v. Trump matchup, Sanders consistently outpolled Clinton in a Clinton v. Trump matchup.

      • JIMD

        You said;

        “No one sees this as a big new thing.”

        The fact that no one saw this as a big new thing perhaps explains the appeal of Trump, as surely it illustrates a deeply corrupt establishment who need clearing out root and branch?

        We gave our elite a two finger salute because of their continual erosion of our democracy and that they thought they could do what they want.

        Your political elite seem every bit as bad, indeed with the large scale lobbying and an apparent belief in political dynasties, it seems worse.

        tonyb

      • Trump has a lot worse things going for him with the tax-hiding, lawsuits for fraud, Putin-buddying, bankruptcies, etc.. You can’t blame the DNC on Hillary doing anything, but there is a lot of bad stuff Trump has his name on. The intelligence community are having second thoughts about giving Trump the briefings that candidates normally get, because these briefings go over US foreign policy strategies and stances, and Trump has the closest association of any candidate to date with foreign powers who could take advantage of such information.

      • tonyb:

        Political dynasties? Perhaps you’ve heard of Queen Elizabeth?

      • David Springer

        Any of you clowns ever seen a Russian kill an American or an American kill a Russian? I have no problem with Russia. They haven’t made an aggressive move towards the US since the Cuban missile crisis. Why should I be distressed that Putin likes Trump more than Clinton? Trump wants us to stop sticking our military nose in where it doesn’t belong and I agree. We should be allies not enemies.

      • David Springer

        Any of you clowns ever seen a Russian kill an American or an American kill a Russian? I have no problem with Russia.

      • This is the corner Trump supporters find themselves in. Friends with Putin, friends with Kim Jong-Il. What would they be saying if they found that any Democrats had such friends, and if those friends were trying to influence the US election for them?

      • David Springer

        They haven’t made an aggressive move towards the US since the Cuban missile crisis.

      • Tony –

        What is the “corruption” that you see here?

        No doubt, this is about powerful oaety insiders exercising their power. No doubt, it is about a disproportionality of political influence aming those who have greater wealth. But a “fix” and “corruption” and “erosion of democracy” looks like a bunch of drama-queening to me.

        The overall trajectory reveals that more people have more influence on our governing institutions than ever before…natuonally and internationally.

        Trump is exploiting real issues to fear-monger for his own political expediency. Consuder how he expoits the issue of criminal violence to create a false narrative about a worsening trend.

      • David Springer

        NATO’s funding system is Marxist. It goes by percentage of GDP.

        That’s literally “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

        I object on principle. The US is not a communist country but it could certainly become one if the bleeding heart libtards have their way.

      • David Springer

        J0shua, you ignorant slut. Did the thought pass through your pointy little head that Clinton is exploiting fear of Trump to get votes? Of course it didn’t. You’re an imbecile and can’t think things through that far. Typical libtard with emphasis on the tard.

      • So I take it from your anger, tim, that you wouldn’t speak about your daughter in the creepy manner that Trump does about his.

        so the point is why did you attempt that lame form of an excuse for his creepiness? And yes, “They do it too” is yet another lame form of excuse.

        And no, his creepiness doesn’t speak directly to his qualifications to formulate policy, but it does speak to his qualities as a leader and a role model. Apparently, you think favorably so. Well, that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.

      • Springer –

        =>> Did the thought pass through your pointy little head that Clinton is exploiting fear of Trump to get votes? ”

        How profound.

        Of course she does.

        Let me ask you, do you have ANY arguments that doing boil down to “they do it too?

      • JimD, “The intelligence community are having second thoughts about giving Trump the briefings that candidates normally get, because these briefings go over US foreign policy strategies and stances, and Trump has the closest association of any candidate to date with foreign powers who could take advantage of such information.”

        Kinda looks like they already have the information.

      • Trump could just tweet this stuff on a whim. It’s what he does. I think they will exclude him on anything that can benefit his friends.

      • JIMD

        I think you may have created a squirrel strawman….

        I was not talking about Trump, but that the ruling party-who will probably keep on ruling-have preselected the next President of a democratic country by fixing the result.

        I do not understand why you are so sanguine about it.

        Clinton has got issues of her own without introducing alleged ones by Trump.

        Why don’t you just unreservedly condemn the tactics used by the democrats elite?

        tonyb

      • That one fizzled because Trump keeps stealing the spotlight with his ever more brazen statements. Anyway, the DNC problems cannot be put on Hillary, however hard you want to try, and nor would it affect the millions of votes by which she won the Democrats. Even Bernie stands by her now, so how bad can it be? The DNC also capitulated to Bernie on some major platform issues, so how bad can they be? I think everyone who mattered came to the same place in the end.

      • Tony B said:

        Why don’t you just unreservedly condemn the tactics used by the democrats elite?

        I think the rhetorical strategy is: “Hey! Look over there!”

      • Tony B said:

        Why don’t you just unreservedly condemn the tactics used by the democrats elite?

        I think the rhetorical strategy the Clinton campaign is using is: “Hey! Look over there!”

      • jimd

        The Democratic candidature was fixed. That is NOT ok. There is no point in gesturing to a whole scurry of squirrels in order to hide this disconcerting fact. A little more condemnation and a little less gesturing would seem the right response.

        tonyb

      • As I mentioned, the Democrats have already moved on from this, much as the Republicans want to dwell on it. If you want to care more about it than even Bernie and the Democrats, that’s fine. They realize it didn’t affect the result.

      • Tonyb, by the way, this DNC thing was your squirrel when I was pointing out that Trump never criticizes Putin, so don’t accuse me of squirrels before answering the original point.

  6. Thanks, Professor Curry, for having the courage to address the politics of science. I hope to meet you and many of your followers at the London GeoEthics Conference on Sept 8-9, 2016:

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

    • Lord Christopher Monckton explains the history of the UN’s IPCC and the decision to make global climate change a political issue:

      • Omanuel,

        Thank you for that link. It’s very interesting. I agree with most of what he says. And I happen to know bit about Morris Strong’s role in this.

        I expect the usual suspects will make their usual derogatory ad hominem attacks to try to discredit the speaker. perhaps, they could focus instead on showing what is wrong with the main message he is explaining.

      • omanuel,

        Amazing how the economic interests of the 1% dovetail so nicely with their CAGW advocacy.

        I suppose the elite’s great sacrifice for the greater good needs a recompense.

        As Hernán Cortés devoted companion, the historian Bernal Díaz del Castillo, put it with such disarming frankness: “We came here to serve God and the king, and also to get rich.”

      • Donald Trump is being roundly attacked by the foreign policy elite for suggesting that he might not be up for one world government, and the nexus between military might and “free” trade couldn’t be more explicit:

        Donald Trump’s speech: ‘America first,’ but an America absent from the world
        http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/opinions/donald-trump-speech-amanpour/index.html

      • Jim D: Also, no surpise, a birther.

        Even people who are almost always right are wrong sometimes. You have to focus on the arguments (evidence, logic, analogies, etc), not the person.

      • Matthew, and you are shocked, shocked, that Monckton could possibly be a birther, I suppose, especially given that video rant from 2010.

      • Jim D: Matthew, and you are shocked, shocked, that Monckton could possibly be a birther,

        I do not care whether he is a birther. I know people who believe that Obama and his mother never claimed Obama had been born in Kenya. Monckton’s writing about CO2 and climate change have a lot of merit.

        Everybody is wrong sometimes.

      • As you see from the video, he comes at climate science from the perspective of the “world government” conspiracy theory. Some people are just prone to these conspiracy theories, and it is a distorted world view, to put it kindly.

      • > You have to focus on the arguments (evidence, logic, analogies, etc), not the person.

        Birtherism is a position, and a birther is someone who holds birtherism.

        ***

        > Monckton’s writing about CO2 and climate change have a lot of merit.

        So much the worse for evidence, logic, analogies, etc.

      • Willard, do the right thing. Clock out…

      • As you see from the video, he comes at climate science from the perspective of the “world government” conspiracy theory. Some people are just prone to these conspiracy theories, and it is a distorted world view, to put it kindly.

        Actually, he is not coming “at climate science from the perspective of the “world government” conspiracy theory.” He’s coming at the IPCC from “the perspective of the “world government” conspiracy theory.

        Too funny. This from somebody insisting on the need to “investigate” Exxon for “conspiracy”. Among a constant refrain of “conspiracy” theories about “denier” money for research they don’t like.

        Also, no surpise, a birther. Fantastic stuff.

        Of course, if you actually follow the link he gave, you find this:

        “I have no idea where he was born,” said Monckton, who was working the crowd and signing autographs. “What I do find strange is that the public records of his Hawaiian birth have been sealed, and can not be obtained by the public. His lawyers have spent a lot of money trying to seal the records of his public life. All of those records should be open to the public, as they always were for previous presidents.”

        I pointed out to Monckton that the state of Hawaii released Obama’s certification of live birth nearly two years and ago, and that the persistent challenges to his citizenship have inspired some members of the military to refuse to serve under Obama. “The effective classification of all of these documents of his early life is surely contrary to the spirit of freedom and openness in the Democratic west,” said Monckton. “It’s bound to raise questions in some peoples’ minds. However! I have no idea where he’s born, but it made a nice joke.” [my bold]

      • Lying Willard said:

        So much the worse for evidence, logic, analogies, etc.

        Well there you have it.

        If Lying Willard said it’s true, then it must be so.

      • > Well there you have it.

        Well that’s glorious, Glenn.

        You get caught glaringly misreading me not far from here on the same thread, and instead of acknowledging any of this, you spring up on a sub-thread that Arch already quiet down, about stuff that I know a little bit about, and offer Denizens this empty self-confirmation?

        That’s just glorious, Glenn.

        In case you haven’t got the memo, Jim D expressed an opinion, and MattStat whimpered about that by expressing an opinion that doesn’t even identify the proper paralogism. Technical point aside, I do hope you agree that there’s no problem in expressing one’s opinion in the comment section of a blog.

        If Judy had a quarter each time a Denizen expressed an opinion void of any real argument, her fortune would more certain than than Gilded Donald’s.

      • Lying Willard,

        Watching you bawl for victim status, while at the same time vying to crown yourself Scientist King — the potentia absoluta who arbitrates the one true “Science” — is quite a demonstration of cognitive dissonance.

      • AK : I pointed out to Monckton that the state of Hawaii released Obama’s certification of live birth nearly two years and ago, and that the persistent challenges to his citizenship have inspired some members of the military to refuse to serve under Obama.

        Actually, the State of Hawaii released an official copy to Pres. Obama, and the White House later released a copy that seems to have been photoshopped. Why exactly Obama does not simply permit anyone to view the official birth certificate, or an officially notarized copy, is a mystery.

        From the time he enrolled in school in Indonesia, through his enrollments at Punahou Academy, Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard University, and lectured at U of Chicago, it was said of him that he had been born in Kenya. Not until he ran for public office did he publicly declare that he had been born in Hawaii.

      • David Springer

        Oh I’m sorry. I must have missed it when the convincing evidence of Barry Soetoro’s birthplace came out. Are there even pictures of his mother pregnant, friends and relatives who attest to it, a doctor or nurses or original birth documents? Monkton may be mistaken or he may be correct. I’d bet dollars against donuts that Ann Dunham isn’t his biological mother and he most certainly wan’t named Barrack Hussein Obama at birth. It’s all a concocted narrative IMO but what the phuck it’s just beating a dead horse at this point. He’s history soon enough and republic survived. Barely.

      • Lol. David and.Matt = birthers.

        Oh. My sides.

    • I am grateful to Christopher Monckton for his personal courage in challenging questionable consensus opinions. The London GeoEthics Conference will explain why Earth’s changing climate has remained a scientific enigma.

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

  7. Any Americans reading Judith’s hilarious link as to how Britain got a new Prime Minister should bear in mind that its satirical and bears only a passing resemblance to the truth.

    However, it IS true that Theresa May barely needed to do anything, amply confirming Ronald Regan’s line ‘don’t just do something, stand there’

    If anyone can get the BBC I-player its worth checking out the Impressions satirical radio show ‘Dead ringers’ every Friday. The one immediately following the Brexit vote/Theresa May becoming Prime Minister, is a classic.

    Anyway, if we can get a new Prime Minister in a few days why does it take the US around three decades each time? And around 25 threads

    tonyb

  8. “Why Britain Suddenly Has A New Prime Minister, Explained For Americans “

    British Conservative Party and an east European Communist Party may be on the opposite sides of political spectrum, but their ‘modi operandi’ in choosing the party leaders appear to be closely related, however the tory’s loser fate is by far more favourable.

    • Vuk

      yes, the Ex British P{rime Minister gets a severance pay plus a large pension and STILL gets to keep their MP’s job, salary and pensions..

      tonyb

  9. David Wojick

    I have a new essay out on Brexit and chaos in science funding. If this happens let us hope that CAGW biased research takes a big hit.
    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/brexit-shows-science-politics-dont-mix

    • Note that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) which approves treatments for all EU countries is based in London. The EMA is run by regulators from the member states. That means there does not need to be a separate national process and, once granted by the EMA, the authorisation is valid both in member states and countries in the European Economic Area (EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).
      The association of Germany’s pharmaceuticals industry insists that Europe’s equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has to move to a city within the EU. I believe that they employ more than one thousand medical experts and supporting staff.

  10. David Wojick

    If Trump wins then Pence might well do what Gore did and make energy and environment his special focus, undoing what Gore did.

    • David Springer

      Pence will effectively BE president. He’s in charge of foreign and domestic policy. Trump is in charge of preening, deal making, and making America great again. His kids are the ones actually making the policy decisions just like they are now running the Trump empire. The Donald is a figurehead, that crazy lovable uncle who will say anything to be the center of attention.

  11. Science driven politics.
    I would like to have a complete, multi-spectrum, dynamic brain connectome map of all elected national leaders so we can develop technology to control their behavior while in office. If the politicians realized we could MAKE them keep their promises I bet we would end up with better leaders.

    Of course ordinary citizens don’t need to be screened because of “The Wisdom Of Crowds” AKA pure democracy, AKA mob rule.

  12. Danny Thomas

    Interesting how Vox proposes Trump be made king. Guess Vox doesn’t read other MSM.

    From Vox: ” If a New York Times report is to be believed, Donald Trump doesn’t want to do the hard work of actually being president.”

    “Evidently, Trump is interested in the prestige and public attention that comes with the presidency. But he doesn’t want to spend a lot of time worrying about niggling policy issues like Brexit or corporate tax reform.”

    ‘We’ are opposed to monarchies (Unless he’s our king): http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/21/barack-obama-is-king-not-president.html

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/20/all-hail-king-barack-obama-emperor-of-the-united-states-of-america/

    • Maybe they forgot the /sarc tag. Or maybe they figured their target readership was smart enough it wasn’t necessary.

      • Danny Thomas

        If we’re suggesting ‘maybe’s’ then maybe, what they wrote was what they meant. (Or maybe not) :)

        All appearances are that 1) Trump does not wish to do ‘the hard work’ of being president. and 2) Trump does not wish to spend time ‘ worrying about niggling policy issues’.

        This is based on the perfunctory (love that word choice) approach to policy presentation on Trump’s part.

      • David Springer

        No president has the time to devote to the details, Danny. It’s a big country with a lot of details. The job involves choosing a bevy of the right people to handle all the details then riding herd over them. All indications are that Trump knows how to build effective management teams. This is why the nation doesn’t collapse when, for instance, first term senators from Illinois with no experience at governing or managing large organization get elected to the job through affirmative action. They’re all on a leash. Trump’s probably going to be better at slipping the leash though. He’ll be on TV every damn day rallying public support for whatever he wants to do at the moment. He’s a cagey bastard. The bully pulpit will have a world class bully in it for a change. A perfect fit for the job, actually. About time too.

      • Danny Thomas

        Chairman does seem apt.

        “For months, it’s been clear that Trump has no meaningful understanding of public policy or even how government works at a basic level. By any fair measure, his ignorance and incompetence about affairs of state is unlike anything Americans have ever seen in a major-party presidential candidate.”

        “As for the GOP candidate’s ability to demonstrate his preparedness for the Oval Office, Manafort added, “Does he know enough? Yes, because he knows he has more to learn.”” (To whom else might this description apply? I’d suggest pretty much everyone).

        We want as ‘chairman’ one who has ‘no meaningful understanding of public policy’ and one who ‘has no meaningful understanding of how government works at a basic level’?

        Think I’ll try that on my next resume`. I could use a few million dollar a year job.

      • Danny, “Think I’ll try that on my next resume`. I could use a few million dollar a year job.”

        It is kind of limited to politics, well, unless you want to by a degree from Axact. The qualifications for president are native born, over 35 and the belief you are the smartest mofo in the land.

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.,

        2 outta 3?

      • “Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere.” Reagan

      • Bush the W, too. Didn’t know much about running a country, got by on the family name, used cronies in high positions, outsourced his foreign policy to Cheney’s neocon troupe.

      • Soros does. Then what?

      • Speaking of Ronald:

      • David Springer

        Jim D | July 23, 2016 at 3:12 pm |

        “Bush the W, too. Didn’t know much about running a country, got by on the family name, used cronies in high positions, outsourced his foreign policy to Cheney’s neocon troupe.”

        Bush was elected governor of Texas twice. If Texas were a country it would have the 12th largest economy in the world. He helped his father get elected to run the world’s only remaining superpower. Sounds to me like that’s more knowledge than most people have of running a country. Maybe it’s you that doesn’t know much about running a country, Jim, and that makes it impossible for you to accurately gauge how much anyone else knows.

      • David Springer

        Speaking of Ronald:

        And then nothing. What’s on your mind, Twittering Twillard? Spit it out, boy!

      • David Springer

        Trump’s job isn’t to understand public policy, dummy. His job is to manage those who do. Lee Iaccoca didn’t know how to build a car himself but he sure knew how to hire and retain people who did know how. You seem so clueless I’m convinced it’s an act. You’re a troll.

      • I’ve read your resume, Mr. Trump. I see you’ve never run a country before. Could you say a few words about that?

  13. Attention Stephen Segrest, in case you missed it. Hillary Clinton could run on strongest climate change platform ever [link]

    Carbon tax, tighter restrictions on fracking, priority for renewables over natural gas plant. Availability of natural gas, hence relative value of new nuclear plants, will depend on the wording of the new restrictions. The combination of a tax on all CO2 emissions and new subsidies for wind and gas farms will slow economic growth (or induce contraction.) Not sure things, but hardly “strawmen”.

    • matthewmarler — You didn’t also read the part where she opposes a carbon tax? What about the last sentence: “But he said the politics of swing states such as Pennsylvania – which Trump is targeting – made her cautious of seeming anti-oil. “I think Clinton is reluctant to give Trump an opening that is anti-energy production,”

      But we elect Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen, not Queens. I’ve pointed you to sources of BP, EIA, IEA, Shell which project a growing availability of natural gas in their long term forecasts.

      Again, can you provide the CE Denizens a reputable source making a “doom and gloom” long range forecast on natural gas? Its not BP, Shell, EIA, or IEA.

      • Stephen Segrest: Again, can you provide the CE Denizens a reputable source making a “doom and gloom” long range forecast on natural gas? Its not BP, Shell, EIA, or IEA.

        I merely provided evidence that the idea that a Pres Clinton would curtail natural gas is not a straw man. Here is her environment plan: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/.

        Here is one item: As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.

        What areas are too sensitive? Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Illinois, Montana, and all Federally owned land? Stay tuned. New York, for sure, as that state has banned fracking. All those have been mentioned by supporters of Hillary. Those supporters do not claim “doom and gloom”.

        You may like BP, Shell and the like, but she does not: Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.

        Luckily, energy is way down on her list. I wonder if it will make it into the acceptance speech or nomination speech.

      • David Springer

        “You may like BP, Shell and the like, but she does not”

        Nonsense. Like any other whore her love is for sale to the highest bidder.

  14. richardswarthout

    The comments regarding Trump’s management preferences ignore the overriding problem; that he is a malignant narcissist. It is incurable, as evidenced by his Friday morning, months old and widely discredited, rant against Cruz. We should not depend on great staff to overcome the problems to be wrought by a grandiose unprincipled leader.

    • David Wojick

      But Clinton’s malignant darcissim is curable?

      • richardswarthout

        Read about the disorder, then judge. Not all criminals are malignant narcissists, in fact it is a rare disorder. And people who have it are rather proud of the symptoms they exhibit, and those symptoms often play a role in attracting victims.

      • Danny Thomas

        “And so, this idea that somehow we’ve got to opt for a neoliberal disaster as the only option vis-à-vis the neofascist catastrophe,”………..

        Considered a 3rd option?

      • johnvonderlin

        David,
        Since “d” and “n” are far apart on the keyboard your use of “darcissim” doesn’t seem to be a typo. Having a tremendously huge vocabulary (Believe me! My brain is really great, better than anyone else’s) I was surprised by my unfamiliarity with the term. I searched online for it and found nothing. How about some splaining?

      • David Wojick

        Richard, I was joking. I think the claim that Trump suffers from malignant narcissism is stupid, but thought to lighten the point. Typical anti-Trump garbage, of which there is great stock and endless variety it seems. If only we could package it….oh wait.

        (Danny, I type with one finger on each hand a hit d with left instead of n with right. Mistyping on the conspection of fools.)

      • richardswarthout

        David

        Malignant Narcissism is the diagnosis of Sam Vaknin, noted expert on the subject. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/donald_trump_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder_an_interview_with_sam_vaknin.html

      • Any doctor who makes a diagnosis on someone who is not their patient is either a fool or unethical.

      • David Springer

        Swarthout you ignorant slut. Do a little reading on “malignant narcissism”. First you’ll learn it isn’t a recognized mental disorder it’s a hypothetical condition. Its inventor had this to say about it:

        The social psychologist Erich Fromm first coined the term “malignant narcissism” in 1964, describing it as a “severe mental sickness” representing “the quintessence of evil”. He characterized the condition as “the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity”.

        In other words, Hitler. Imbeciles like you and Sam Vankin are equating Trump to Hitler. I’m calling “Godwin’s Law” and declaring you the loser by default by raising the hyperbole level to comparisons to Hitler. ‘

        Dumbass.

  15. It just keeps getting better.
    Emails Released by WikiLeaks Appear to Show DNC Trying to Aid Hillary Clinton

    Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC:
    “Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

    https://gma.yahoo.com/emails-released-wikileaks-appear-show-dnc-trying-aid-002308788–abc-news-topstories.html?bcmt=1469121213245-09f7ec3f-5c30-4b39-983b-6c1715d3f93f_00018g000000000000000000000000-4fb85a08-3dd3-489f-a523-3e124ba58448&bcmt_s=u#

    • johnvonderlin

      Ragnaar,
      I’m shocked to my core by this devious plot you’ve shared with us. In a recent Gallup poll atheists finally climbed out of the bottom spot as the least favored group of folks when considering a Presidential candidate, pushed upwards by Muslims and socialists, the bottom rung, That DNC activists, worried about the power of their political party’s influence, would be likely to favor Hillary over an avowed socialist who was never a democrat in the past is truly mind boggling. Somebody intimating he might be an atheist would seem to be giving him an upgrade. Now that’s a conspiracy worthy of the attention of the numerous rightwing websites that seem to be running with this yawner. Bernie has apparently been rendered speechless by these startling revelations. Though he might be napping.
      I guess we’ve come a long way since Tricky Dicky got the boot for his cover-up of the Watergate clowns’ “hacking” efforts. I leave the reading of the 20,000 stolen and undoubtedly enormously boring emails to those who don’t have a life. My prediction? The only “smoking guns” will be just a few fizzling blanks. Keep us alerted though.

  16. I get daily email updates from Texas Monthly. Here’s what they had to say about Ted Cruz:

    Unfavorite Son

    Ted Cruz must be feeling pretty lonely right about now.

    After refusing to endorse Donald Trump, urging Republicans to “vote with your conscience,” and being booed off the stage at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, Cruz turned to his home-state supporters to explain his decision. Perhaps he was hoping to find comfort in the familiar embrace of the Texas delegation.

    There was no embrace. According to the Dallas Morning News, the Q&A session with the delegation over breakfast on Thursday morning was “often tense,” with some delegates literally turning their backs on Cruz. One had a sign that said “Clinton/Cruz 2020.” Even Cruz’s supporters were reportedly disappointed in him.

    • richardswarthout

      I saw the event and the Texas Monthly description is not what I saw. There was one delegate that seemed bent on arguing with Cruz and there were many delegates supportive of him.

      • Cruz embraced the dark side. Good thing Republicans had better choices or they’d have lost big, again. The establishment right wing might make for a viable 3rd party though… if there was a way they somehow could become as smart as William F. Buckley or George Bush.

      • richardswarthout said:

        There was one delegate that seemed bent on arguing with Cruz and there were many delegates supportive of him.

        Well that’s not the way the Dallas Morning News tells it, and has photographs to prove it:

        In an extraordinary and often tense Q&A session, Cruz debated and parried with pro-Trump delegates irate over his refusal to explicitly endorse the GOP nominee — and won fierce and defiant cheers from his own supporters.

        His nuanced stance on the nominee has made him a hero to diehard never-Trumpers, while also handing his critics fresh ammunition to paint him as self-centered and anything but a team player.

        Some delegates turned their backs. One stood with a sign that read “Clinton/Cruz 2020,” a silent accusation that all he was really doing was helping the Democrats win….

        Even many pro-Cruz delegates expressed disappointment that Cruz had refused to play by the rules by keeping the nominee at arm’s length, whether out of bitterness or ambition….

        Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — like Cruz, a casualty of Trump’s juggernaut in the primaries — chastised his fellow Texan.

        “If a convention’s goal is to unite your party behind one candidate, Senator Cruz didn’t get the memo,” he said on CNN. “We all made a pledge that we were gonna support our nominee. If you don’t want to keep your word, don’t be signing pledges.”

      • richardswarthout,

        And the meeting was televised and recorded, posted on YouTube. There were a heck of a lot more than just “one delegate that seemed bent on arguing with Cruz,” as you claim. Or am I to disbelieve my lyin’ eyes?

        Ted Cruz Addresses Texas Delegation Breakfast FULL 7/21/16

      • richardswarthout

        Glen Stehle

        I was going from memory, relying on an overall impression of the video, which was applause and support from the delegates. The video clearly shows this and the Texas Monthly clearly distorted it.

      • richardswarthout,

        I’ll respond to you the same way I do Lying Willard: The facts speak for themselves.

        Or are you one of those like Lying Willard who agrees with the New Atheists and the constructivists that the fact/value and fact/theory dichotomies have “collapsed”?

      • Glenn and Richard

        I don’t know Cruz in the slightest.

        I watched the first few minutes of the video link. I didn’t especially like him but the audience seemed happy enough.

        I dipped in again at around 15 minutes and witnessed several people standing to applause him, then again I watched from around minute 23 to the end and again they were standing to applaud.

        A woman asked a long rambling question I could not hear properly and several people started shouting USA USA! .

        Again Cruz spoke and once more a considerable number of people jumped to their feet to applaud, but it was obvious there was at least one heckler.

        So I dipped in and out and overall by the end the impression I formed was that Cruz was better than I had first thought, he handled the audience well and on the whole they seemed to like him and any hostility to him was limited to a very few people. All in all it lasted around 29 minutes.

        Obviously my overall view of the room was limited and the picture came from one fixed source so what was happening elsewhere I can not say as any dissension was not audible or visible from the perspective of the viewer.

        Perhaps there were nuances I missed? If so, please advise at what times in the video they occurred and I will look again

        Whether Cruz should or should not have endorsed Trump at the Republican conference I can not say

        tonyb

      • Tony b said:

        So I dipped in and out…

        Perhaps there were nuances I missed?

        The challenges to Cruz start at minute 07:30. It looks like you skipped over this part if you “watched the first few minutes” and then “dipped in again around 15 minutes.”

        If one looks at all the video, and not just select parts of it, the Dallas Morning News got it just about right:

        In an extraordinary and often tense Q&A session, Cruz debated and parried with pro-Trump delegates irate over his refusal to explicitly endorse the GOP nominee — and won fierce and defiant cheers from his own supporters.

        Certainly there was more than “one delegate that seemed bent on arguing with Cruz,” as richardswarthout claims.

      • richardswarthout

        Tony

        You saw what I saw, and I saw the whole video. Thank you for your observation. I will pray that Glen Stehl regains his hearing and eyesight.

      • Danny Thomas

        Hmm. Might be able to hear just fine, but processing however………

        “The sounds and noise in the surrounding environment is heard by the auditory system but only certain parts of the auditory information are processed in the brain.[1] Most often, auditory attention is directed at things people are most interested in hearing.[2] In an article by Krans, Isbell, Giuliano, and Neville (2013), selective auditory attention is defined as the ability to acknowledge some stimuli while ignoring other stimuli that is occurring at the same time.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_auditory_attention

      • So is Willard right?

        Have the fact/value and fact/theory dichotomies “collapsed”?

        Instead of looking at all the evidence, as the scientific method requires, folks these days seem pretty adept at finding that evidence that bolsters their pet theory or their moral vision, and ignoring all the rest.

      • Glenn

        In fairness to you both I will try and watch the entire video later this evening. You will appreciate that its content is of limited interest to someone from the UK ,hence why I dipped in and out.

        tonyb

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Most often, auditory attention is directed at things people are most interested in hearing

        Sharmini Peries and Michael Hudson said pretty much the same thing about the Republican convention:

        PERIES:Michael, what is becoming very clear is that there’s a great deal of inconsistencies on the part of the Republican Party. Various people are talking different things, like if you hear Mike Pence, the vice presidential candidate, speak, and then you heard Donald Trump, and then you heard Ivanka Trump speak yesterday, they’re all saying different things.

        It’s like different strokes for different folks. And I guess in marketing and marketeering, which Trump is the master of, that makes perfect sense. Just tap on everybody’s shoulder so they feel like they’re the ones being represented as spoken about, and they’re going to have their issues addressed in some way.

        He also in that sense appealed to, as you said, the Bernie Sanders people when he talked about the trade deals. You know, he’s been talking about NAFTA, TTIP, TTP, and these are areas that really is traditionally been the left of the left issues. And now he’s anti-these trade deals, and he’s going to bring jobs home. What does that mean?

        HUDSON: Well, you’re right when you say there’s a policy confusion within the Republican Party.

        I guess if this were marketing, it’s the idea that everybody hears what they want to hear. And if they can hear right-wing gay bashing from the Indiana governor, and they can hear Trump talking about the LGBTQ, everybody will sort of be on the Republican side they choose.….

        I think that the most, the biggest contradiction, was that you can look at how the convention began with Governor Christie. Accusing Hillary of being pro-Russian when she’s actually threatening war, and criticizing her for not helping the Ukrainians when it was she who brought Victoria Nuland in to push the coup d’etat with the neo-nazis, and gave them $5 billion. Trump then reversed the whole thing and said no, no, no. I’m not anti-Russian, I’m not going to defend Ukrainians and escalate the Cold War. Just the opposite.

        It’s obvious that the Republicans have fallen into line behind them. No wonder the Democrats want them to lose. You’ve had the Koch brothers say they’re not going to give money to Trump now. They’re backing Hillary. You’ve got the Chamber of Commerce saying because Trump isn’t for the corporate takeover of foreign trade, they’re now supporting the Democrats, not the Republicans.

        So this is really a class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector on the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. Who knows whether he [Trump] really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. When he says he’s for the blacks and that they and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.

        The interesting thing is that all he gets from the Democrats is denunciation. So I can’t wait to see how Bernie Sanders is going to handle all this at the Democratic Convention next week.

        http://michael-hudson.com/2016/07/trump-the-neocons/

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        Yep. And you and I both ‘know’ that it will be no different this week at the Democrats convention.

        Loved this part: “And I guess in marketing and marketeering, which Trump is the master of, that makes perfect sense. Just tap on everybody’s shoulder so they feel like they’re the ones being represented as spoken about, and they’re going to have their issues addressed in some way.”

        Returns me to yesteryear. When “Daddy’s coming home” and “everything will be all right”. Well sometimes, when Daddy came home, someone got spanked.

      • > Instead of looking at all the evidence, as the scientific method requires […]

        When was the last time you looked at all the evidence, Glenn? I doubt that looking at all the evidence is humanly possible, even for you, the fiercest keyboard gladiator, Glenn.

        If you could provide a link as to where I can find that “scientific method” of yours, that’d be great too.

      • It is like at the Convention, Cruz can reel them in by spouting his very conservative values, which he can do with sincerity, but he separates Trump, who he sees as an interloping faker, and he isn’t the only Republican to see through Trump. So when he said to them to vote your conscience, it was addressing Trump the man, and whether he is true to those values, or what he stands for in reality apart from himself.

      • richardswarthout

        Glen Stehle

        I admitted above, after seeing the video a second time, that my statement about one angry delegate was from memory and based on an overall impression. Although there were, admittedly, more than one belligerent, the delegates in large were friendly and supportive. I have no way of measuring the support but my guess is 95% support vs 5% billegerence.

      • Lying Willard,

        You’re foaming at the mouth again.

        The theory of the rational-empirical method of modern science is expressed by Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations:

        In general, this method has three parts which we might call (1) gathering evidence, (2) making a hypothesis, and (3) testing the hypothesis….

        The first of these, “gathering evidence,” refers to collecting all the observations relevant to the topic being studied. The important point here is that we must have all the evidence, for, obviously, omission of a few observeations, or even one vital case, might make a considerable change in our final conclusions.

        The practice of the rational-emprical method of modern science, however, looks like it might be something quite different:

        We have affectively-valenced intuitive reactions to almost everything, particularly to morally relevant stimuli such as gossip or the evening news. Reasoning by its very nature is slow, playing out in seconds.

        Studies of everyday reasoning show that we usually use reason to search for evidence to support our initial judgment, which was made in milliseconds.

        https://www.edge.org/conversation/moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion

      • > The theory of the rational-empirical method of modern science is expressed by Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations […]

        Here, Glenn.

        A historian telling us that historians need to have all the evidence before doing some science. His theory about the Round Tables has only been validated by him because he’s the only one to have had access to all the evidence, it goes without saying.

        No wonder you’re onto so many “but elitists” glosses, Glenn.

        ***

        Here’s an interesting piece of Quigleyan science:

        Martin Needler’s article on “Politics and National Character: the Case of Mexico” (1971) is perfectly correct as far as it goes, but it must be pointed out that the personality traits which he identifies as Mexican are products of a considerably wider and much older cultural entity. Mexico is a peripheral and very distinctive example of the Latin American cultural area which is itself a peripheral and somewhat distinctive example of the Mediterranean cultural area. Some time ago I identified the whole cultural area and the personality structure it tended to produce as aspects of “the Pakistani-Peruvian Axis” (1966:1112-1122, reprinted as 1968:452-463). If I am correct in this, Needler is parochial in attributing “Mexican national character” to a combination of “the Indian’s fatalism and the proud self-assertion of the Spaniard” (Needler 1971:757).

        http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Mexican-National-Character-Circum-Mediterranean-Personality-Structure.htm

        Needler’s wrong because he did not have all the evidence. Once you have all the evidence, z’obvious that there’s a Pakistani-Peruvian axis.

      • Lying Willard,

        Well I did point out that there’s quite a difference between the theory of the rational-emprical method of modern science and its practice, but I guess that just flew right over your head.

      • > I did point out that there’s quite a difference between the theory of the rational-emprical method of modern science and its practice […]

        Indeed you did, Glenn. Indeed you did. So let’s revisit the first claim, and add “in theory”:

        [G*] Instead of looking at all the evidence, as the scientific method require in theory.

        Let’s also add the fact that it’s impossible in practice:

        [G**] Instead of looking at all the evidence, as the scientific method require in theory (but impossible in practice).

        If we insert these two caveats in your original formulation:

        Instead of looking at all the evidence, as the scientific method requires [in theory (but impossible in practice)], folks these days seem pretty adept at finding […]

        even you should see the problem with your latest gloating, Glenn.

      • Lying Willard,

        Calm down.

        You’re babbling a bunch of incoherent nonsense.

      • > You’re babbling a bunch of incoherent nonsense.

        One does not simply gloat about how “folks these days” apply the “scientific method” in theory, Glenn.

        The difference between the present and the past ain’t the same as the difference between theory and practice.

        Besides, fom the Jonathan Haidt interview you just cited:

        [I]f we hope to update the Enlightenment and increase its appeal in a world where religion still holds a bigger market share, then we must do more than examine religion rationally and scientifically, as was done in Enlightenment 1.0. For Enlightenment 2.0 we must also examine ourselves examining religion, and we must lay bare our own motives and biases.

        If we extend this point to science in general, then the opposite of what you say obtains: it is folks of yesterday who got us this far without checking for their own bias as well as we now can do.

        I’m not sure I buy this progressivist conception of science. What I sure don’t buy is you trying to wedge your way with a conception of science that appeals both to a mythical past and to Pangloss, Glenn.

      • Steven Mosher

        I watched the Video.

        richardswarthout needs to have his head examined.

        Cruz is done for.. as in forever.

        Weasel.

    • Lying Willard,

      Well again, you need to try to calm down and get ahold of yourself.

      You’re not making any sense at all.

      • David Springer

        I agree with what Perry said:

        Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — like Cruz, a casualty of Trump’s juggernaut in the primaries — chastised his fellow Texan.

        “If a convention’s goal is to unite your party behind one candidate, Senator Cruz didn’t get the memo,” he said on CNN. “We all made a pledge that we were gonna support our nominee. If you don’t want to keep your word, don’t be signing pledges.”

        Perry was the longest serving governor of Texas ever. Simple and true statements like: “If you don’t want to keep your word, don’t be signing pledges.”

        Cruz’ word isn’t worth spit. Demonstrably. He isn’t likely to be re-elected to another term as US Senator for Texas. I seldom to never write to any politicians but within a minute of Cruz leaving the RNC convention podium I wrote a letter to him wishing and promising to do my part in seeing that after 2018 his name is never again associated with the great state of Texas. Trump pegged him perfectly with “Lyin’ Ted”. Send that phucker back to Cuba if they’ll have him but just get him out of Texas.

      • Steven Mosher

        I have to agree with Springer.

      • I agree with Springer also, as I also agree with what Perry said:

        –snip–

        “Let no one be mistaken Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded,” Perry said during a speech in Washington, D.C. “It cannot be pacified or ignored for it will destroy a set of principles that has lifted more people out of poverty than any force in the history of the civilized world and that is the cause of conservatism.”

        –snip–

        Yeah, Cruz is finished because he basis his opinions on political expediency whereas Perry is admirable when he basis his opinions on political expediency.

        I love you boyz.

      • Er….bases…

        Let’s also note that Cruz is wrong for going against his pledge (based on other principles), but Sanders is a hypocrite for holding to his pledge to support the nominee.

  17. A new kind of drought for Leftist politicians to worry about –e.g., “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of hurricanes at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…

    From weather.com

    The Gulf of Mexico has not had a single hurricane enter or develop in its waters since September 2013.

    If this streak continues for eight more days, it’ll be the longest drought on record, dating back to 1886.

  18. Brian G Valentine

    Corporate anti hero and sometime motion picture impresario Michael Moore believes that Trump will win, by people voting with their middle finger

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html

    I think he’s correct

  19. The London GeoEthics Conference on Global Climate Change, 8-9 September 2016, Pearson Lecture Room, University College London

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

    has been saved and relocated to Conway Hall at Red Lion Square (Holborn) after the head of the UCL Department of Physics and Astronomy suggested moving the event to a different venue, not on UCL premises, to avoid bringing UCL into disrepute or causing dissension in the UCL community.

    The 97% consensus group may fear an open public discussion of the evidence for, and against, anthropogenic global warming.

    I will try to keep readers of Climate Etc. abreast of this latest, unfolding attempt to protect AGW dogma from open, public examination.

  20. David Wojick

    WashPo lets us poor skeptics off the criminal hook:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/exxon-deserves-criticism-but-it-didnt-commit-a-crime/2015/11/14/08dd471e-87fa-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

    They reason thusly (and badly):

    1. Climate change (code words for dangerous human caused climate change) is one of the greatest challenges facing the planet (code word for what?).

    2. Questioning this (speculative dogma) is irresponsible. Pointing out that the models are uncertain (which they certainly are) is misleading.

    3. But it is not criminal because science needs to allow criticism, even if it is unfair (code word for unpleasant). (Expect more.)

    Silly Green nonsense. Thanks for nothing.

    • Brian G Valentine

      People are just plain FED UP with that kind of unctuous, seething nonsense.

      The people promoting this don’t realize, however much they may not like it, that the only answer people have to it is Trump

  21. VIDEO: Michael Hudson: 2016 Is Wall Street and the Corporate Sector (Clinton) vs. the Populists (Trump).

    Trump Policy Will Unravel Traditional Neocons

    Hudson responds to claims made by the New York Carlos Slim Times.

    • Michael Hudson is a leftwinger.

      But the right also has its critics to the permanent war that Hillary Clinton and establishment Republicans and Democrats are peddling:

      PODCAST: Andrew Bacevich — Why wars in the Middle East will cost the U.S. trillions more
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-war-college-bacevich-podcast-idUSKCN1020CS

    • Besides the New York Carlos Slim Times, Hudson also takes aim at the Washington Jeff Bezos Post.

      Trump the Neocons
      http://michael-hudson.com/2016/07/trump-the-neocons/

      At the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum calls him the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, for his boldness in rejecting the neocon craziness.

      This has just driven the neocons nutty because they’re worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump….

      The plan has been that once the election’s over, Obama will then get the Republicans together and pass the (formerly) Republican platform that he’s been pushing for the last eight years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade agreement with Europe, and the other neoliberal policies.

      Now that Trump is trying to rebuild the Republican Party – by re-orienting it – all of that is threatened.

  22. For Spanish speakers, a very interesting program on Mexican leftwing web television on populism, comparing Trump to various populist leaders from Latin America.

    The panelists refrain from painting Trump with the face of evil the way the Mexican gazillionaires (e.g., the New York Carlos Slim Times) do, but they nevertheless do not downplay populism’s warts:

    Jaque al Rey – Populismo: amenaza a la democracia o estrategia política – 21 julio 2016
    http://rompeviento.tv/?p=10782

  23. David Springer

    Head of DNC, Debbie Wasserman, will step down immediately after DNC convention. She won’t be speaking at it either. DNC utterly disgraced by Wikileaks emails. What a frickin’ circus. It makes the Republican convention look polished, professional, and flawless in comparison.

    Bernie supporters are on the warpath now that they know the DNC really did rig the primary against him. They’ll be out in force to disrupt it. Already a thousand of them marching outside the grounds and it hasn’t even started. Bernie hisself, who IS speaking at the convention, at length in a 9pm prime time speech, is incensed as well.

    I’m having more fun than human being should be allowed to have… schadenfreude be damned.

    • David Springer

      And of course Trump is crowing that he was right all along that the contest was rigged against Bernie. He has an indisputable point.

      • Brian G Valentine

        On the other hand, the DNC probably reasoned (correctly) that some Socialist indistinguishable from a Card Carrying Communist would not be electable.

      • David Springer

        Sanders was consistently polling a lot higher than Hillary. Hell even I liked some of his positions such as debt-free education and trashing free trade agreements that are not in the best interest of the American labor force.

      • And regardless of what the Hillarymongers say, Trump ain’t no dummy. He knew who would be easiest to beat in the general.

    • We see Fox News trying to play this up, but Bernie has moved on already. This is old news. The DNC had at least one high-profile resignation months ago because of the bias at the top. Bernie lost fair and square. He had less than half the votes. The bigger news is why this leak, and why now, and who gains?

      • You must know Jim D, that it was more than likely that old snowflake Vladimir Putin. He hit the reset button. Boom.

      • “Since November 2010, Assange has been subject to extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning concerning an allegation of rape. Assange denies the allegation and has expressed concern that he will be extradited from Kingdom of Sweden to the United States of America due to his perceived role in publishing secret American documents.”
        I don’t think Assange is too fond of Clinton.
        “Wikileaks founder: Hillary will push the U.S. into endless, stupid wars that spread terrorism…”
        What a world. The hackers going after Clinton. I wonder if they are hipsters too?

      • Wikileaks seems to be melting down

      • David Springer

        Hillary was getting humiliated by Bernie in debates. So the DNC arranged only seven debates. Last cycle they had several times that many. Could Bernie have won with more head-to-head televised debates with Hilly? We’ll never know, will we?

      • “Wikileaks founder: Hillary will push the U.S. into endless, stupid wars that spread terrorism…”

        Talking about Serbia, Libya, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, arms to people personally known to John McCain? A lot of that was just bombing. She did not have war relations with those persons.

      • David Springer

        How is wikileaks “melting down”? Huffpo blowing hot air on it isn’t going to make it meltdown. If that were true everything libtards don’t like would be long gone. AK appears to be melting down.

        As far as Huffpo’s hyperbolic criticism of wikileaks wo published names, addresses, and phone numbers of millions of Turkish women… that’s what is colloquially called a “phone book”. In saner times they were ubiquitous and everyone was listed. Huffpo is going bananas over a phone book. Huffpo appears to be melting down. The internet is making them crazy. A phone book fercrisakes is making them flip out.

    • External actors are selectively releasing explosive information with intentions to affect the outcome of our national elections. I hope they have our best interests in mind because we seem powerless to stop them.

  24. David Springer

    EXCLUSIVE: Democratic National Committeewoman says her party is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary because ‘the women in charge’ want it that way

    Female member of the Democratic Party’s controlling body spoke to Daily Mail Online in Las Vegas following Tuesday’s primary debate

    She rattled off a list of women at the top of the party hierarchy and said two vice chairs helped craft a decision this summer to favor Clinton

    The committeewoman warned her party could promote Hillary ‘because she’s a woman, and risk having her implode after she’s nominated’

    The Democratic National Committee insisted that it ‘runs an impartial primary process, period’

    But it has sanctioned just six debates this time around; Democratic presidential candidates had to survive 27 of them in 2007-08

    DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz campaigned for Hillary in 2008 when she last ran for the presidency

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273404/Democratic-National-Committeewoman-says-party-clearing-path-Hillary-women-charge-want-way.html

  25. David Springer

    Nate Silver sees Clinton’s odds of winning plummet. From 78% a month ago to 58% today.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

  26. It’s my understanding that Theresa May got in because everyone else got serious death threats and dropped out. And now she is refusing to do prop 50.
    Oligarchs wont allow Brexit, it seems.

  27. Seems that all the bases belong to Branding Donald:

    A report Business Insider generated through the domain database Whoisology last week showed that 3,153 web addresses were registered to the [Branding Donald] Organization’s general counsel. Many of these sites are not actually online, but they provide glimpses into [Branding Donald]’s business plans and his company’s anxieties about its brands.

    ***

    Searching for Branding Donald’s “network marketing fraud” led to a story about Dope Donald:

    Through a multi-level marketing project called The [Dope Donald] Network, the business mogul encouraged people to take an expensive urine test, which would then be used to personally “tailor” a pricey monthly concoction of vitamins—something a Harvard doctor told The Daily Beast was a straight-up “scam.”

    […]

    The [Dope Donald] Network ultimately failed, and its assets were sold off. But it was not just a marketing and business disaster—the actions of the all-but-certain GOP presidential nominee reflect his willingness to license his name to a product without fully vetting it: a casual endorsement of a serious matter, all with the flitting nonchalance that characterizes the many falsehoods he utters.

    Make America Dope Again.

    Vote Dope Donald.

  28. Clinton Campaign Manager: Russians Gave Hacked DNC Emails To Wikileaks In Attempt To Elect Trump
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/24/clinton_campaign_manager_russians_gave_hacked_dnc_emails_to_wikileaks_in_attempt_to_elect_trump.html

    We haven’t seen anything like this since the House Un-American Activities Committee conducted its witch hunts in the 1950s.

    Paul Robeson HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) Hearing, 12 June 1956

    • I was hoping it was our own NSA/CIA that did it. Much more dignified to have your election rigged by your own people and not some foreign power.

    • Carlos Slim (The New York Times), Jeff Bezos (The Washington Post) and William Kristol (The Weekly Standard) are all on the same page in accusing Trump of being a Russian mole. What at team!

      Putin’s Party?
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/putins-party/article/2003473

      Trump and his top campaign aide have many troubling connections with Vladimir Putin’s regime.

      Honest and patriotic Republicans who support Trump, or are tempted to do so, should review some of the publicly available evidence. Trump’s business seems to be heavily dependent on Russian investment. His top campaign advisor, Paul Manafort, was the advisor to the Putin-backed stooge Viktor Yanukovich, and has deep ties to the Putin apparat. One of Trump’s national security advisors, retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, was paid to give a speech at a Russian propaganda celebration and was seated next to Putin. Trump’s Russia advisor Carter Page, who does much of his business with Russian companies, has argued, among other things, that “a few officials in Washington” annexed Ukraine and that the “so-called annexation” of Crimea by Russia was a rational response to this injustice.

      Furthermore, practically the only change Trump’s campaign made to the GOP platform was to weaken language supporting Ukraine. Wikileaks, which appears to have connections to Putin’s espionage apparatus, has released emails that are damaging to Hillary Clinton immediately before the Democratic convention. Trump heartily approves of this interference by a foreign power in an American election. They apparently intend to do the same with emails hacked from Clinton Foundation servers. Finally, Trump, to the cheers of the Kremlin establishment, has said he will not uphold our NATO commitments.

      These indications provide sufficient grounds for Trump’s links to Putin to be further investigated.

  29. It looks like there’s trouble in paradise.

    Bernie Sanders Delegates Organizing To Dump Tim Kaine, Who Is “More Corporate Than Hillary”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/24/bernie_sanders_delegates_organizing_to_dump_tim_kaine_who_is_more_corporate_than_hillary.html

    We are very concerned and upset that Hillary Clinton rather than send an olive branch in the direction of Bernie Sanders consituency has really moved in the opposite direction.

    She’s chosen Tim Kaine, who is really more corporate that Hillary Clinton — he voted for the fasttrack of the TPP, is against raising taxes on millionaires, supports coal plants in Virginia, and on and on,

    We just don’t want to give any license to say the party should be run by corproations.

  30. Seems that Roger Ailes resigned:

    Just when I thought the Jim & Glenn Show was everything I needed for my daily dose of Fair and Balanced.

  31. Behind all the talk of love, inclusion and tolerance, we see the true face of Clinton Inc.

    Clinton’s response to all this? Remember Sergeant Schultz?

    Preview: “60 Minutes” interviews the Democratic ticket
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/preview-60-minutes-interviews-the-democratic-ticket/

    “I see nothing, I know nothing.”

    What a spectacle.

  32. Mission Accomplished at DNC, Clinton Hires Wasserman Schultz for Top Post
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/24/mission-accomplished-dnc-clinton-hires-wasserman-schultz-top-post

    Following Sunday’s news, however, Clinton responded with a statement thanking her “longtime friend” for her service to the party and, seemingly without irony, announced that Wasserman Schultz would now serve as her campaign’s honorary chair.

    “There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie,” Clinton said, “which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states.”

  33. We haven’t seen anything like Trump on the Republican side of the aisle since Teddy Roosevelt:

    Trump: Tribune Of Poor White People
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/

    From the Left, they get some smug condescension….

    “We”–meaning hillbillies–“are the only group of people you don’t have to be ashamed to look down upon.”….

    [H]umans appear to have some need to look down on someone; there’s just a basic tribalistic impulse in all of us. And if you’re an elite white professional, working class whites are an easy target: you don’t have to feel guilty for being a racist or a xenophobe. By looking down on the hillbilly, you can get that high of self-righteousness and superiority without violating any of the moral norms of your own tribe. So your own prejudice is never revealed for what it is….

    What does it mean for our politics? To me, this condescension is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He’s the one politician who actively fights elite sensibilities….

    I remember when Hillary Clinton casually talked about putting coal miners out of work, or when Obama years ago discussed working class whites clinging to their guns and religion. Each time someone talks like this, I’m reminded of Mamaw’s feeling that hillbillies are the one group you don’t have to be ashamed to look down upon. The people back home carry that condescension like a badge of honor, but it also hurts, and they’ve been looking for someone for a while who will declare war on the condescenders. If nothing else, Trump does that….

    [T]he meta-narrative of the 2016 election is learned helplessness as a political value. We’re no longer a country that believes in human agency, and as a formerly poor person, I find it incredibly insulting….

    Obviously, the idea that there aren’t structural barriers facing both the white and black poor is ridiculous. Mamaw recognized that our lives were harder than rich white people, but she always tempered her recognition of the barriers with a hard-noses willfulness: “never be like those a–holes who think the deck is stacked against them.” In hindsight, she was this incredibly perceptive woman. She recognized the message my environment had for me, and she actively fought against it….

    The refusal to talk about individual agency is in some ways a consequence of a very detached elite, one too afraid to judge and consequently too handicapped to really understand. At the same time, poor people don’t like to be judged, and a little bit of recognition that life has been unfair to them goes a long way….

    It’s not easy, especially in our politically polarized world, to recognize both the structural and the cultural barriers that so many poor kids face. But I think that if you don’t recognize both, you risk being heartless or condescending, and often both….

    For my dad, the way he tells it is that he was a hard partier, he drank a lot, and didn’t have a lot of direction. His Christian faith gave him focus, forced him to think hard about his personal choices, and gave him a community of people who demanded, even if only implicitly, that he act a certain way….

    I recognize that a lot of secular folks may look down on that, but I’d make one important point: that not drinking, treating people well, working hard, and so forth, requires a lot of willpower when you didn’t grow up in privilege. That feeling–whether it’s real or entirely fake–that there’s something divine helping you and directing your mind and body, is extraordinarily powerful….

    [F]or a kid like me, the Marine Corps was basically a four-year education in character and self-management. The challenges start small–running two miles, then three, and more. But they build on each other. If you have good mentors (and I certainly did), you are constantly given tasks, yelled at for failing, advised on how not to fail next time, and then given another try. You learn, through sheer repetition, that you can do difficult things. And that was quite revelatory for me. It gave me a lot of self-confidence. If I had learned helplessness from my environment back home, four years in the Marine Corps taught me something quite different….

    The Marine Corps ensured that I learned.

    • David Springer

      I have same background as Vance up through Marine Corps except mine’s northern rural low income where his is southern. Like him not quite a hillbilly but I knew some. Rednecks aplenty. I’m from a town on the northern edge of the Allegheny forest with Allegheny river a 10 minute walk for a child from home. Foothills of the the Allegheny Mountains. Those are part of Appalacian America and honest to God hillbilly country.

      Anyhow, here’s another good political book on rednecks and hillbillies that I read when first published in 1998:

      https://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648

  34. Trump moves into the lead on RCP poll average:

  35. David Springer

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

    Schultz thrown under the bus big time. What’s happening to her is like going into a public stockade for humiliation. Trump showed some class letting go of Lewandowsky. Write that down.

  36. David Springer

    A reason to trust Trump. I think he’s setting up opportunities for one or more of his children to be president in the not too distant future. If he doesn’t turn out to be a good president or work hard and get some results on the promises he’s been making then that will ruin the opportunities for his kids. Like father like son (or daughter) as the old saying goes. It’s easier to trust a father’s love for his children than it is to trust his love of country IMO.

    • Yes. Quite a few people have noted his affection for his daughter.

      • Exactly the sort of class we’ve come to expect from you Josh.

      • Tim –

        Do you have any daughters? If so, when wss the last time you mentioned that you’d date her if she weren’t your daughter? Do you speak about them as Trump speaks about his?

        http://gawker.com/the-collected-quotes-of-donald-trump-on-sexy-women-he-i-1730126883

      • Yes, I have a daughter. Step daughter. She’s an intelligent and attractive young women married to a fine young man. I’m extremely proud of her.

        None of which has any bearing on whether or not to vote for Trump for President. Besides, not exactly a door anyone thinking that Hillary is the preferred candidate would be wise to open.

      • So I take it from your anger, tim, that you wouldn’t speak about your daughter in the creepy manner that Trump does about his.

        so the point is why did you attempt that lame form of an excuse for his creepiness? And yes, “They do it too” is yet another lame form of excuse.

        And no, his creepiness doesn’t speak directly to his qualifications to formulate policy, but it does speak to his qualities as a leader and a role model. Apparently, you think favorably so. Well, that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla.

      • Supposed to be answer, not anger.

      • David Springer

        You’re a sick twist. But you must know that, huh?

      • David Springer

        Jizzua doesn’t have a daughter, obviously. I don’t say that just because he’s a homo but that’s part of it. I say that because he doesn’t have the constitution to be a parent. He would probably be a disaster at even adopting a dog. Keep him away from animal shelters. No animal deserves a sick twisted phuck like that for an owner. Sometimes death isn’t the worst thing that can happen.

      • Josh,

        You do know that everyone sees you fabricating a discussion out of nothing but your own assumptions and made up points which you then attribute to others. (Well, maybe not Danny.)

        For example:
        “So I take it from your anger, tim, that you wouldn’t speak about your daughter in the creepy manner that Trump does about his. ”

        You can take it anyway you want. Not likely to resemble reality, but take away. Normal, non-putz’s would take it at face value – I’m proud of my daughter.

        “so the point is why did you attempt that lame form of an excuse for his creepiness? ”

        What excuse Josh? Nothing I said can be construed as an excuse. And we are talking about your assessment – i.e. that Donald is “creepy”. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one here who does not stay awake at night trying to formulate “excuses” for your biting analysis and commentary.

        “And yes, “They do it too” is yet another lame form of excuse.”

        Another fabrication on your part. Spinning a simple observation – that making personal attacks on one candidate regarding his relationship with women is not a good tactic for someone who has an entire cemetery worth of skeletons in their closet on that topic – into an excuse just reminds us of your lack of honesty. I don’t have to make excuses for Trump over anything he might have said about his daughter. Because I don’t care what he said. In fact the only person who really has any standing on the issue is his daughter.

  37. Apparently Trump is in bed financially with the Russians and deeply in debt with them.

    No doubt he will be working hard for them if he is elected.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-russia-connections

    • Messier’s Cook and Lewandowski want to talk to you.

    • David Springer

      Ha. I forced Creepy Willard to start adding text snippets so his spam isn’t invisible to people like me using Adblock Plus. I knew he couldn’t stand the thought of anyone not seeing the trash he continuously vomits up in front of them. There’s probably some clinical definition of the personality disorder that afflicts him. Maybe malignant narcissism? ;-)

      Get AdBlock Plus just to phuck with Creepy Willard if nothing else! LOL

      https://adblockplus.org/

      And don’t forget to vote Trump, the not extremely careless candidate.

    • David Springer

      Great. Bill and Hillary are deeply bed with the leaders of Muslim nations that treat women as chattel and support terrorism. Russians don’t discriminate against women, they don’t like Muslims or terrorists, and they aren’t hypocrites. We should be allies with them like we were in WWII. Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, has pretty much turned out to be (and really always was) an albatross hung about our necks. I am so pleased Britain has dropped out of the European Union. I feared they’d lost their way along with their minds.

  38. Distinguised Donald:

    Here in Moscow, I often hear [Distinguised Donald] being compared to Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the extremist nationalist politician whom people call Zhirik and who is known as the “palace jester” of Russian politics because of his calls to execute dissenting ministers, lawmakers and generals by shooting them in Red Square, or to reduce the birth rate in Russian Muslim republics by imposing a financial penalty for the birth of a third child. “I admire [Distinguised Donald], he is like our Zhirik, they both say what they think,” Aleksandr, a Nizhny Novgorod student and supporter of the Rodina party — originally a coalition of 30 nationalist and far-right groups — told me. ”See, the success of palace jesters like our Zhirinovsky or the American [Distinguised Donald] is easy to explain: They are not afraid of saying what other king’s courtiers are afraid of saying.”

    http://www.politico.eu/article/why-russia-is-rejoicing-over-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-kremlin/

  39. Discovered Check Donald:

    From the article (h/t MIA Jim):

    [Discovered Check Donald]’s dark and frightening speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday had pundits and historians making comparisons ranging from George Wallace in the 1960s to Benito Mussolini in the 1930s. As suitable as those comparisons may be, the chill that ran down my spine was not because of [Discovered Check Donald]’s echoes of old newsreel footage. Instead, I saw an Americanized version of the brutally effective propaganda of fear and hatred that Vladimir Putin blankets Russia with today.

    • “Instead of telling people what he will do if they elect him, he threatens them with what will happen if they don’t. The democratic leader needs the people. The tyrant, and the would-be tyrant, insists that the people need him.”

      This was completely what the Trump acceptance speech was all about.

      • The T word is Donald’s own brand, James.

        Render onto Caesars Palace &c.

      • David Springer

        If by “tyrant” you mean a strong leader who doesn’t bow and shuffle to foreign heads of state and offer milksop platitudes as the cure to all the world’s problems then I’ll agree that’s a reasonable description of Trump. We don’t call POTUS position “The Bully Pulpit” for no good reason. It’s designed to be occupied by a bully. The constitution is designed to prevent the bully from becoming a dictator. Buy a clue, Cross. You desperately need one.

  40. The Donald loves the Putin. They even exchange little tokens of their affection.

    From the article.

    Donald Trump was in his element, mingling with beauty pageant contestants and business tycoons as he brought his Miss Universe pageant to Russia for a much-anticipated Moscow debut. Nonetheless, Trump was especially eager for the presence of another honored guest: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Trump tweeted Putin a personal invitation to attend the pageant, and a one-on-one meeting between the New York businessman and the Russian leader was scheduled for the day before the show.

    Putin canceled at the last minute, but he sent a decorative lacquered box, a traditional Russian gift, and a warm note, according to Aras Agalarov, a Moscow billionaire who served as a liaison between Trump and the Russian leader.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

  41. Don’t Get Me Wrong Donald’s a lot of fun:

    From the sketch:

    If you’ve ever said this sentence: ‘I like [Don’t Get Me Wrong Donald] because he’s a straight talker,” you’re as dumb as [inaudible].

    • Somehow related:

      [A]t least [Don’t Get Me Wrong Donald] is sincere in what he says. His position is straight and clear.

      https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/faq/

      • It looks like you are getting paid for piece work, Willard.

      • David Wojick

        Arch, it is called blog clog.

      • Does the Jim & Glenn Show also looks to you as paid by piece work, Arch?

        The Jim & Glenn Show ain’t no blog clog, Big Dave. Even when you’re one of their guests. No siree.

      • Not sure which Jim willard is referring to, but he’s dead on about Glenn belonging in the lead on the blog clog thing. Difference being at least a fair amount of Glenn’s clogging posts contain information. An increasing percentage of Willard’s are references to pop culture. Not exactly a sign of deep thinking, but at least he scores higher on entertainment value.

      • tim56,

        You just don’t like anyone challenging your neocon fairytales.

      • Glenn,

        Don’t know what fairy tales you are referring to Glenn. What does this have to do with the amount of large posts and links you put up? One suggestion – is it necessary to repeatedly post the same thing? As I said above, you do provide a lot of information. But the volume is so great that at some point people start scrolling past it. The there is the regular quoting. I’m starting to feel Reinhold and I grew up together, you’ve quoted him so often.

      • timg56,

        Your complaint doesn’t have anything to do with my comments.

        It has to do with the fact I call you out on your neoconservatism, or liberal internationalism, or belief that the U.S. is “the indispensible nation.” Call it what you want, but it’s obvioius you’re a true believer.

      • David Springer

        This scores higher than Stehle on the entertainment scale. It’s a yip dog who can say “Obama”. Just like Willard. You can lead him around on a leash and modify his behavior by offering cheap little treats just like Willard too!

      • Glenn,

        Reading tea leaves or poking around in chicken entrails?

        “It has to do with the fact I call you out on your neoconservatism, or liberal internationalism, or belief that the U.S. is “the indispensible nation.” Call it what you want, but it’s obvioius you’re a true believer.”

        Cause that’s about the only way you could have come up with the above drivel. Unless your just making it up as you go. Nice job.

    • That is perfect.

      What kind of mindset leads to the conclusion that because he says absurd, stupid, and offensive things, that means that he is a “straight talker?”

      Trump: “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to post for it.”

      Trump toady: “Oh, he is a straight talker.”

      • Joshua,

        What kind of mindset leads to the conclusion that because he says absurd, stupid, and offensive things, that means that he is a “straight talker?”

        Living vicariously.

    • David Springer

      Good boy, Willard. You are packaging your drivel in a way that gives me a good synopsis of it in the three seconds of my time that I spare for it. Unfortunately I don’t know Jim Jeffries from Adam and I’m not about to spend any time to find out. Why don’t you tell me, in three seconds, who he is and why I should care who he is?

  42. It could get mighty interesting this afternoon at 4:00 p.m. when Debbie Wasserman Schultz is set to gabble the convention to order.

    Andrea Mitchell: Wasserman Schultz “Booed Off The Stage” At DNC Breakfast; “Escorted Out By Security”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/andrea_mitchell_wasserman_schultz_was_booed_off_the_stage_at_dnc_breakfast_escorted_out_by_security.html

  43. Nancy Pelosi (after being shouted down at a breakfast this morning by Sanders supporters): “Some People Are New And Are Not Familiar With How Things Work”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/california_sanders_delegates_interrupt_nancy_pelosi_speech_when_she_mentions_hillary_clinton.html

    Bernie Sanders supporters booed and jeered at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi during a California delegation breakfast meeting on Monday. They chanted, “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” while she spoke about Hillary Clinton.

    An opposing chant of, “Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!” briefly returned fire before being overwhelmed by Sanders supporters.

  44. Di Domenico Donald:

    It’s all about cadence. An orange cadence.

    Works like clockwork. An orange clockwork.

  45. I would how much money it take to buy out Trump and make him go away. If everything’s deal Trump ought to be able to put a price tag on it.

    Would have to be enough to get him off the hook with the Russians.

    My guess is probably about $500 million.

    Wonder if Bill Gates and some others would be willing to put up the money?

    • David Springer

      You’re such an imbecile. You really do take the cake. Did you write to any billionaires with your brilliant idea to buy Trump? I’m sure they’ll recognize the idea for what it’s worth and respond accordingly.

  46. Does Putin have what it takes to blackmail Clinton?

    VIDEO: Dick Morris on Clinton email scandals
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/dick_morris_if_russians_hacked_dnc_emails_did_they_also_hack_hillarys_private_server.html

    Effectively, the ability to kill her candidacy resides in the hands of Vladimir Putin

    • The Donald is the one actually in hock to the Russians to the tune of millions of dollars.

      “After his bankruptcy and business failures roughly a decade ago Trump has had an increasingly difficult time finding sources of capital for new investments. As I noted above, Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.”

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

      • As is usually the case, Hillarymongers play fast and loose with the truth:

        Fact-Checking Josh Marshall

        As background, Josh Marshall published the above mentioned post.

        I disagreed w/ Josh and gave a few reasons why. Josh asked me for specifics.

        What follows are seven statements from the TPM article which Josh has claimed are facts. He only got two out of seven correct.

        View story at Medium.com

      • Thanks.

        He writes: “Trump Soho took investment money from Russian criminals. Fact.”

        But this leaves out the best part:

        “Mr. Lauria brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians “in favor with” President Vladimir V. Putin, according to a lawsuit against Bayrock by one of its former executives. The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a “strategic partner,” along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.”

        He writes: “Trump’s campaign manager used to work for Viktor Yanukovych when he was running for Prime Minister of Ukraine. Fact.”

        What he cites as “open to interpretation” is supported by Donald Jr.

        “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

        He writes: Trump’s debt load was a Bloomberg estimate, not a fact.

        Yes, but what else do we have since Trump won’t release his returns?

        Why won’t he release his returns?

      • Glenn,

        Why doesn’t Trump just release his returns and financial we can all agree on how deeply Putin and the Russians are into him?

        Winning the Presidency may be the only way he can bail himself out. Maybe he can trade the Ukraine and the Baltic States to get off the hook for the debts.

      • James,

        And what debts to the Russians might those be? Any actual evidence of those debts?

      • Check this detailed response from Josh Marshall:

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-trump-and-putin-thing-a-detailed-response

        There is at least $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians “in favor with” President Vladimir V. Putin. And another lawsuit alleging the project “occasionally received unexplained infusions of cash from accounts in Kazakhstan and Russia.”

        But right how knows how much? Trump won’t release the details of his taxes and dealings.

      • James Cross said:

        But right how knows how much? Trump won’t release the details of his taxes and dealings.

        So in other words, the only “evidence” that exists is speculation and Josh Marshall’s rather active imagination.

        That’s what I thought.

      • The Bayrock investments are well-documented from lawsuits and federal records. This is also a time Trump settled a lawsuit and required those suing him drop their criminal complaints that resulted in a criminal investigation. He bought them off.

        “http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html

      • James Cross,

        So Bayrock, “an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians ‘in favor with’ President Vladimir V. Putin,” is as close as you can get to Trump being in hock to the Russians? And then for a measley $50 million?

        It looks like you will believe anything, as far fetched as it might be, as long as it convicts Donald Trump.

      • David Springer

        So Trump might owe someone in Russia $50 million? He just loaned that much to his campaign and then forgave the debt. $50 million evidently doesn’t mean much to Trump.

        In the meantime the Clintons, to whom $50 million means a whole lot, took in much more than that in bribes from Arab leaders of states that treat women like chattel, execute homos, and support terrorism. Yet that’s not a concern to you, Cross? Amazing.

  47. Diehl diagnoses teh Donald:

    EDITORIAL: BECAUSE STRONG, EMPHASIZED CAPS LOCK ROCKS!

    DONALD [DENIGRATION DIVISION], until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. [DONALD DENIGRATION DIVISION]’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

  48. Could the Donald be the Manchurian Candidate?

  49. Priebus Predicts More DNC Email Leaks; Andrea Mitchell: “Why Weren’t You Hacked,” “Do You Know Something?”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/priebus_predicts_more_dnc_email_leaks_andrea_mitchell_why_werent_you_hacked_do_you_know_something.html

    PRIEBUS: I mean, it’s great spin, you know, but the fact is the Russians didn’t write the e-mails. The DNC wrote the e-mails, and they were the ones committing the fraud against Bernie Sanders.

    But even if it was done by Russians, the issue that we’re talking about is that the DNC was committing a fraud upon it’s own base and it’s own grassroots and it’s own delegates for an entire year. And so that’s the issue they need to contend with this week. It’s not who hacked, why you were hacked, but why were your employees perpetrating the fraud against it’s candidates?

    • The Democratic Party establishment was against Sanders. What’s new?

      This is just typical MSM making a mountain out of a molehill.

      • Lordy! Lordy!

        Now you’re sounding just like Nancy Pelosi. “This is nothing new,” she said. “Some people are new and are not familiar with how things work.”

        Lying. Cheating. Fraud. Nothing to see here. It’s all in an honest day’s work at the DNC

      • Sanders was making complaints about favoritism and bias last year. there is no great new revelation in these leaks.

      • Right, James.

        Tell that to those thousands of people marching in the streets of Philadelphia.

      • Apparently Sanders doesn’t see things that way. And who knows how many of the marchers are Russian, i.e. Trump plants.

        From the article:

        Asked Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press” if the emails gave him “any pause” in his support for Clinton, who he endorsed in June, Sanders said, “no, no, no.”

        “We’re going to do everything we can to protect working families in this country,” Sanders said, saying the election was not about Clinton or Trump but about “the people.”

        He treated the email hack as a distraction, saying it was important for Democrats to remain unified in their opposition to Trump, who he called “the worst Republican candidate” he’d ever seen.

        “Donald Trump would be a disaster for this country,” Sanders said, pointing to Trump’s rejection of man-made climate change and proposal to lower taxes for America’s wealthiest. “He must be defeated.”

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-dnc-emails-dont-change-clinton-support

      • James Cross,

        And apparently many Sanders’ voters don’t see things the same way Sanders does. They believe they were supporting a movement, not a messiah.

        This poll was taken before Clinton took a hard turn to the right with Tim Kaine, and before the email scandal:

        • 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for a third-party option.

        • Another 39 percent said they would support Clinton

        • 13 percent said they may support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump

        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287708-poll-nearly-half-of-sanders-millennial-supporters-would

      • …according to data and local discussion on Yik Yak, a location-based social network..

        What’s a Yik Yak? LOL

        How about Pew?

        “Pew asked those consistent Sanders supporters whom they support in the general election. Ninety percent said they back Hillary Clinton”

        Last week, as the Republican convention was going on, Pew offered similar research about the Republicans. Of the 44 percent of the party that never supported Donald Trump, 79 percent were planning on backing him in the general election — lower than the percentage of Sanders supporters backing Clinton”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

      • And how about Bloomberg?

        Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Won’t Support Clinton: Poll
        http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-22/nearly-half-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton

        We’ll see what happens this week with the demonstrations at the convention, and in the next few weeks in the general polls.

        But so far, there has been no uptick whatsoever in Clinton support coinciding with Sander’s endorsement. For Clinton, it’s just been down, down, down.

        This from Huffington Post:

      • Trump got a bump. Hillary will get a bump later this week and next week. What happens after that we’ll see.

        Most of the real Sanders supporters will either not vote or vote for Hillary. The millennials, with many individual exceptions, are fickle anyway which is why I never thought Sanders chances were realistic despite the fact I sent him money and attended a rally. I also felt Sanders would not be able to govern or deliver. Sanders would have been a great candidate if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate and were ready for the next step in creating a progressive United States. Maintaining the gains and making small advances is more in Hillary’s capabilities and more realistic to accomplish.

        We haven’t seen yet what happens when Obama jumps in and gets out his coalition. If he mobilizes it significantly, that will likely swing the election barring any other issues.

        We could probably go back and forth on polls but they are all pretty meaningless at this point.

        If you look at this, based on prior history, about the best we are going to get is about 60-65 days out and even then they will be about 4 points off. That about 50 days from now. That’s a pretty big margin in itself and could still result in a surprise on election night in either the winner or the magnitude of the win.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/upshot/were-about-to-enter-a-period-of-polling-volatility.html?action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront&smid=tw-upshotnyt&smtyp=cur

      • James Cross,

        Let me repeat what I said:

        But so far, there has been no uptick whatsoever in Clinton support coinciding with Sander’s endorsement. For Clinton, it’s just been down, down, down.

        I’m talking about facts — what has happened — not what you or anyone else predicts what will happen in the future.

      • So they are mountain building on the DNC email hack, but doing hard hitting journalistic investigation on the Trump Putin storyline?

        Well at least you don’t have to spend money on the orange wig, rubber red nose and big floppy shoes now Mr Cross.

      • David Springer

        Trump +2 in the five Huff Pollster polls ending July 22 or later.

        http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

        The hacked DNC email reaction isn’t in those polls yet. LOL

      • Sources: US officials warned DNC of hack months before the party acted

        Old saying: don’t put anything in an email you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the NYTimes the next day (or whenever).

    • David Springer

      Someone needs to educate author Ian Schwartz about when to use each of “it’s” and “its”. This is what has become of journalism. Very sad.

  50. Don Juan Donald:

    • David Springer

      All it says is Don Juan Donald then nothing more. WTF?

      Oh wait. Adblock Plus thinks it’s spam and disappeared it.

      Nevermind.

      Get Adblock Plus it’s free! https://adblockplus.org/

      Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

      • David Springer

        There’s a statement from Ivana in the front of the book about that passage. It states:

        “I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape,” but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

        “Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest.

        This statement can only be released and used in its entirety.

        Approved: Ivana M. Trump
        Date: April 6, 1993

        I’ve never been more glad that your crap is getting cut by Adblock. At any rate it’s pretty tame stuff compared to interns, cuban cigars in the vaj, semen stains on dresses, dead law partners in public parks, insider trading, etc etc etc.

      • David Springer

        There’s a statement from Ivana in the front of the book about that passage. It states:

        “I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape,” but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or crimina1 sense.

        “Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest.

        This statement can only be released and used in its entirety.

        Approved: Ivana M. Trump
        Date: April 6, 1993

      • > in the front of the book

      • David Springer

        Ivana Trump carefully instructs readers to not interpret her description of events to mean anything more than Trump not being romantic on one occasion and one occasion only.

        So what was Creepy Willard doing when he reproduced the hyperbolic account absent the clarification from the eyewitness/complainant not to read it literally? The point was, as usual for Creepy Willard, to deceive. Creepy Willard is a 1iar. No wonder he likes Clinton. Two peas in a pod.

      • “Not being romantic” is what we’re calling rape these days? Good to know that your creative definitions aren’t limited to the word “creepy”, Springer.

  51. VIDEO: Top Clinton Surrogate Claire McCaskill: “No Question” The Russians Want Trump To Win
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/claire_mccaskill_no_question_the_russians_want_trump_to_win.html

  52. Thousands of protesters march in the streets of Philadelphia against Clinton:

    VIDEO: Pro-Sanders Protester: “I Prefer Donald Trump” To Hillary Clinton, “Trump Is Less Dangerous”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/pro-sanders_protester_i_prefer_donald_trump_to_hillary_clinton_trump_is_less_dangerous.html

  53. Clinton claims that she is the victim of a double standard.

    VIDEO: Hillary Clinton: “I Feel Like There’s The ‘Hillary Standard’ And Then There’s The Standard For Everybody Else”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/hillary_clinton_i_feel_like_theres_the_hillary_standard_and_then_theres_the_standard_for_everybody_else.html

    CLINTON: I often feel like there’s the Hillary standard and then there’s the standard for everybody else.

  54. From the article:

    MIAMI—In their first official meeting Saturday as Democratic running mates, Hillary Clinton reportedly pulled aside her vice presidential pick, Virginia senator Tim Kaine, and quietly assured him that in the event of her death while in office, she would continue serving as commander-in-chief. “If something unfortunate happens to me in the next four years, I want you to know that not a single thing changes, and I will still carry out all duties of the presidency,” said Clinton, explaining that should she as president succumb to an illness or accident, all national security, economic, foreign affairs, and social policy decisions would continue to go through her as usual.

    http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-assures-tim-kaine-shell-continue-serving-p-53309

  55. From the article:

    Facebook has admitted it blocked links to WikiLeaks’ DNC email dump, but the company has yet to explain why. WikiLeaks has responded to the censorship via Twitter, writing: “For those facing censorship on Facebook etc when trying to post links directly to WikiLeaks #DNCLeak try using archive.is.” When SwiftOnSecurity tweeted, “Facebook has an automated system for detecting spam/malicious links, that sometimes have false positives. /cc,” Facebook’s Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos replied with, “It’s been fixed.” As for why there was a problem in the first place, we don’t know.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/25/1949238/facebook-admits-blocking-wikileaks-dnc-email-links-but-wont-say-why

  56. Picture from pbs showing at Drudge. Wasserman-Schultz being booed at the convention:

  57. Allegedly Defrauding Donald:

    From the article (h/t Jim):

    Before [Allegedly Defrauding Donald] was the Republican nomination for president, he charged thousands of dollars for an education at “[Allegedly Defrauding Donald] University,” promising to share the secrets of his real estate investing success.

    The only problem: [Allegedly Defrauding Donald] University wasn’t anything close to a university. It was a multilevel marketing scheme.

  58. David Springer

    Hillary booed at convention. Too funny.

    SANDERS SUPPORTERS START BOOING INVOCATION WHEN HILLARY CLINTON IS MENTIONED

    • Yep. It looks like there’s trouble in paradise.

      Sexton: A rocky start for the Democrats
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/26/opinions/democratic-national-convention-sexton/index.html

      On the topic of terrible optics, however, there were plenty of moments on the Democratic convention’s first day from which to choose. During actual DNC speeches, there were repeated disruptions as boos rose up at the mere mention of Hillary Clinton’s name. Even cries of “Lock her up,” a chant made popular last week during the Republican National Convention, spewed forth from the Democratic faithful.

      That an outraged “Sandernista” minority within an auditorium full of fellow Democrats would borrow the most hostile anti-Hillary chant from the most fierce Trump supporters speaks volumes about the progressive-establishment rupture playing out within the DNC….

      Sen. Bernie Sanders, served his purpose with gusto….

      All that remains to be seen from the Sanders camp is whether his supporters will heed his call to unify behind a highly imperfect, ethically challenged, but progressive enough Hillary Clinton….

      Given the recent polls showing a big pro-Trump bounce after last week, we won’t know for a few more days whether the Democrats in Philly have the counterpunch they want.

      • David Springer

        I wonder Vonderlin and Swarthout will interpret that too as supportive and agreeable? Booing is the new cheering. ROFL

      • David Springer

        DNC delegates chanting “Lock Her Up” at the Democratic national convention.

        Too funny!

  59. David Springer

    Leaked DNC Memo Complains Gay Donor Is ‘Extremely High Maintenance’

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/25/leaked-dnc-memo-complains-gay-donor-is-extremely-high-maintenance/

  60. David Springer

    http://heatst.com/politics/susan-sarandon-dnc-bernie-sanders/

    Susan Sarandon Blasts ‘Disgusting’ DNC Plot to Undermine Bernie

  61. David Springer

    Julian Assange of wikileaks fame slams Cr00ked Hillary

    • Wow!

      I just got around to watching that.

      Unbleivable.

    • How can Sanders supporters even think about supporting Cr00ked Billary after this? Sore bung holes all around.

    • David Springer

      I’m watching it for the first time just now based on the reaction you two had to it. Thanks for the heads up. But I didn’t need any more dirt on the Clinton political machine to conclude that they’re the most cr00ked unscrupulous people to ever occupy the white house or that their network is not wide and deep. I’m not saying they don’t believe in some of the more noble causes it’s just that they have absolutely no restraint in using any means to achieve an end. Worse they seem to believe that the accumulation of huge personal wealth by selling access and influence in US government is a necessary means. They’re as cr00ked as cr00ked gets and that’s just not acceptable in a representative democracy which at a minimum requires transparency and public trust. Transparency is mostly gone and public trust shattered. Hence Trump who doesn’t appear to have any qualms about not blurting out whatever thoughts are racing through his pointy little head. He has no filter. He’s like me in that regard. I know the type. There’s actually a lot of us and the general term for us is “real men”.

  62. David Springer

    Pelosi taking heat.

    California Delegates Boo Speakers at Convention Breakfast
    Jeers for Pelosi, cheers for Sanders in ominous opening for DNC

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/california-delegates-boo-speakers-convention-breakfast

  63. Wikileaks (of Julian Assange fame) put women in Turkey in danger for no reason:

    Yes — this “leak” actually contains spreadsheets of private, sensitive information of what appears to be every female voter in 79 out of 81 provinces in Turkey, including their home addresses and other private information, sometimes including their cellphone numbers. If these women are members of Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (known as the AKP), the dumped files also contain their Turkish citizenship ID, which increases the risk to them as the ID is used in practicing a range of basic rights and accessing services. I’ve gone through the files myself. The Istanbul file alone contains more than a million women’s private information, and there are 79 files, with most including information of many hundreds of thousands of women.

    That’s right.

    • David Springer

      Creepy Willard shoots the messenger. What a shock.

      • If you could think once in a while, Big Dave, that’d be greater than bragging about your IQ.

      • David Springer

        I think Weirdo Willard is jealous of Assange. That’s what I think.

      • Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks

        Though I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider the source. Also, would any nation’s intelligence service really be so naive WRT metadata? Come to think of it, yes, but…

        This could be some sort of false-flag operation intended to smear Putin, Trump, etc. Or it could be actual incompetence on the part of formal, or informal, representatives of Russian policy.

        But unless it’s outright prevarication on the source’s part, it deserves looking into.

      • Better he hang out here than down at the schoolyard.

      • Meanwhile, in Turkey:

      • AK,

        Also, would any nation’s intelligence service really be so naive WRT metadata?

        As the cited NPR article suggests, and you allude, Russian intelligence may have only “encouraged” the hacks.

        This could be some sort of false-flag operation intended to smear Putin, Trump, etc.

        Nothing so elaborate as that is required; their public statements on record really should suffice.

      • Nothing so elaborate as that is required; […]

        An explanation is needed for the metadata issues. Napoleon once said (paraphrasing) “never attribute to human malice what can be explained by human incompetence”, but once you get into the “wilderness of mirrors”, it’s almost the other way around: any “innocent” explanation for an odd event has to be treated as a potential cover for some malign action.

        Incompetence on the part of Russian intelligence services (or amateur helpers) can’t be ruled out. However, there are plenty of very sharp computer people in Russia, so I’m skeptical that the government would recruit somebody who didn’t take the metadata into account.

        If it was a simple “inside job” from some DNC staffer to Wikileaks, how did the Russian metadata get into it?

        The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named “Феликс Эдмундович,” a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times.

        I doubt an actual intelligence agent would do this, unless it was somebody from, say, the Ukraine running a false-flag op. Perhaps an enthusiastic amateur “helping” Russian intelligence.

      • Here’s the original article from Motherboard: All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack

      • I like the part where according to Skriptwriterfornova, reports that the operatives who hacked another server or two, were dumb enough to use their cheap Russian keyboard.

      • But I suspect the notion that the Russians are supporting Trump is misdirection by Clinton. The real reason the Russians don’t want her to be president is likely Hillary’s Chinese Espionage Problem.

        Gotta say I agree with them.

  64. Degeneration Donald:

    America may survive the [Degeneration Donald] presidency without degenerating into barbarism and bloodshed in this time of heightened worldwide religious tension. It has an established liberal democracy with firmly entrenched protections and norms of civilized behavior. But Hindu Sena’s exultations suggest that it’s an open question whether the developing world, especially a young and fractious democracy like India, can.

    • David Springer

      *Should* India survive? What has India done for the world beside breed uncontrollably and overpopulate it?

  65. David Springer

    4 brutal poll numbers that greet Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/4-brutal-poll-numbers-that-greet-hillary-clinton-at-the-democratic-national-convention/

    Worst numbers ever. 68% say she isn’t honest or trustworthy, Trump has double digit lead in trustworthiness. 31% view her as favorable while 38% view Trump as favorable.

  66. Unsealed Donald:

    [Unsealed Donald] served as the frontman for this dishonest and predatory scheme. He lent it his name.

    The testimonies of [Unsealed Donald] University’s former employees do not reveal [Unsealed Donald]’s character so much as confirm what we already knew.

    After all, this is the same presidential candidate who delivered a victory speech on national television in which he claimed that [Unsealed Donald] Steaks, which were discontinued shortly after their introduction in 2007, were still a going concern. The same person who put his name on [Unsealed Donald] Ocean Resort, a beach condominium project that cost investors some $30 million when it failed to complete. The same candidate whose businesses have been involved in an unprecedented 3,500 legal actions during the last 30 years, according to a USA Today analysis.

  67. Remarkable.

    Sanders is now using the same rhetoric against his own supporters that Clinton used against him on the campaign trail.

    Controversy surrounds DNC’s first day
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/controversy-surrounds-dncs-first-day/

    We heard Bernie Sanders address his delegates earlier today and when he arrived and said the words Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine he was almost booed off his own stage. And he said interestingly in response, “Brothers and sisters, this is the real world we live in.”

    That was the message that HIllary Clinton used against Bernie Sanders in the primaries, that “we have to operate in the real world.”

    Just as a point of comparison, at the Republican convention it was Ted Cruz that was booed, not the party’s nominee. There were obviously a lot of hiccups at the Republican convention, but that is an important distinction.

    One other thing that stikes me is at the Republican convention, when they mentioned Hillary Clinton’s name, instant unity. Here when Donald Trump’s name gets mentioned, there’s some mutterings, but there is not a unified anger at the opposition. So quick unity is rather illusive at the moment.

    • I saw just enough of the Sanders speech to hear him say “…85% of the increase in income went to the top 1%”..

      This morning given the pervasive economic illiteracy among Democrats, millions will be saying the 1% get 85% of income. It was no accident that the much higher “increase in income” percentage was used.

      The IRS shows 1.1 million taxpayers out of 125 million households get 17.4 % of Adjusted Gross Income.

    • Clinton makes history, wins Democratic presidential nomination:

      “I move that Hillary Clinton be selected as the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States,” Sanders said, as the crowd erupted in cheers and waved Clinton signs.

      The nomination was affirmed by acclamation moments later; the final delegate tally was 2,842-1,865.

      The high-profile show of unity on the floor, at a convention marked from the start by discord, followed speculation about what role Sanders might play in formally anointing Clinton the nominee.

      Which is not to say that discord has vanished

      There are a lot more empty seats in the arena now that Hillary Clinton has won the nomination. Some of that may be because delegates have decided to get up and stretch their legs after waiting through the lengthy roll-call vote. But it’s also because a number of Sanders delegates have walked out in protest. Sue Spicer is a Bernie delegate from Indiana who took part in the protest. She said that “Bernie delegations from across the nation coordinated it” by communicating with one another “over the course of the last two days.”

      The walk-out, Spicer explained, is a way of sending a message that Clinton can’t take Sanders’s supporters for granted—they may not be there for her. “Most of the delegations agreed that we needed to show that it was incumbent upon them [not us] to get this woman into the White House,” Spicer said. When I asked which state delegations were most active in coordinating the protest, she said: “California. They’re really pissed.” Spicer added, though, that she does intend to go back in shortly. “I want to do what Senator Sanders wants me to do, so my intention is to walk back in, but I’d like them to see an empty hall for a minute.”

      … more that Bernie supporters show signs of having some class.

      • We shall see.

        The real acid test will be what kind of bump, if any, Clinton gets in the polls next week.

      • I for one fail to see how positioning the Democratic Party as the war party, with Trump being the one suing for peace, helps Clinton win over Sanders supporters. It’s pretty clear who her target audience is — Republicans disaffected with Trump’s peacemaking. Clinton has made the decision to throw Sander’s supporters under the bus, and I don’t think they’re so stupid that they can’t figure that out.

        All this is part and parcel of the realignment of the parties that is now taking place.

      • Glenn Stehle,

        It’s pretty clear who her target audience is — Republicans disaffected with Trump’s peacemaking.

        It’s a good thing I didn’t have any liquids in my mouth when I read that. Your grasp of reality is tenuous as ever.

  68. It was definitely the Russians who hacked into the DNC server, according to a a group of experts who work for a consulting firm hired by the DNC.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/clinton-campaign-blames-email-hack-on-russians/

    • David Springer

      From the video – FBI promises to hold accountable those responsible for the email breach.

      Unless of course it’s someone high up in the Obama administration then of course no reasonable prosecutor would hold anyone accountable.

      Buh-bye Comey. You’re fired!

    • Playing up “the Russian menace” is throwing red meat to the neocons, luring them to come on in, letting them know that the water’s fine in the Democratic Party.

      The neocons began the drumbeat — peddling the narrative that Trump is a Russian sympathizer — some time ago. The New York Carlos Slim Times, Washington Jeff Bozos Post, and of course Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard were all on board. Here’s another recent example from The Atlantic:

      It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin

      The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a KGB-trained dictator who seeks to rebuild the Soviet empire by undermining the free nations of Europe, marginalizing NATO, and ending America’s reign as the world’s sole superpower.

      The article was written by Jeffrey Goldberg.

      But who is Jeffrey Goldberg?

      Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about him:

      In 2002, Goldberg’s “The Great Terror” published in The New Yorker argued that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was significant, discussing the possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as well as the Iraqi nuclear program, averring that there was “some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon…There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”[57]

      In a late 2002 debate in Slate on the question “Should the U.S. invade Iraq, Goldberg argued in favor of an invasion on a moral basis, writing, “So: Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today—and the first one since Hitler—to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if “never again” is in fact actually to mean “never again.”[72]

      Glenn Greenwald called Goldberg “one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq”, claiming Goldberg had “compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller’s both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact.”[73] However, in 2008, Goldberg published an article in Slate entitled, “How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?”, in which he explains the reasons behind his initial support of the Iraq War, but that he “didn’t realize how incompetent the Bush administration could be.”[74]

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

      And here’s what S.H.A.M.E. (Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics) has to say about him:

      Jeffrey Goldberg
      NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT FOR THE ATLANTIC

      For the past decade, Jeffrey Goldberg has peddled blatantly false war propaganda with disastrous consequences, fronted for the military-industrial machine, played a key PR role pushing America into war with Iraq, and advanced the agenda of the Israeli military-intel establishment—but he has never had to account for his failures and his lies. Put another way: If Judith Miller was a dweeby Ivy League graduate who worked as a detention camp guard holding Palestinian prisoners, and she never had to answer for her journalistic fraud after being exposed, she would be Jeffrey Goldberg.

      http://shameproject.com/profile/jeffrey-goldberg/

      There’s much more research on Goldberg on the S.H.A.M.E. webpage.

      It’s important to know and to keep in mind where these attacks branding Trump as a Russian sympathizer are coming from.

      • It’s important to know and to keep in mind where these attacks branding Trump as a Russian sympathizer are coming from.

        That’s quite the stunning reversal given you were the one to broach the subject in the first place, Glenn.

        I’m not sure which part is supposed to be the joke …

        … but I think it’s NOT the part about Putin liking him.

      • brandonrgates said:

        That’s quite the stunning reversal given you were the one to broach the subject in the first place, Glenn.

        Nah. It was Jim D who first broached the “Putin wants Trump to win” subject, as one can see here:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/22/week-in-review-politics-edition-3/#comment-798547

        Care to try to get your facts straight and try again?

      • Glenn Stehle,

        It was Jim D who first broached the “Putin wants Trump to win” subject, as one can see here:

        lol, ok … Jim D did indeed ask that question in response to Wagathon quoting this headline: Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton’s Intercepted Emails … My mistake.

        Care to try to get your facts straight and try again?

        I don’t see that my attribution error materially refutes the ever emerging coziness between Trump and Putin. We don’t even need to read the words of warmongering Jewish journalists to figure that one out … it’s all right there in the Real Donald’s own Twitter feed.

      • Brandon

        There is also ever increasing cosiness between the puppet state of Cuba and the US but I don’t see you condemning that.

        Surely it would be better to have a cosiness direct with the puppet master rather than the puppet, especially in light of the great threat currently being posed to humanity. AGW. No, just joking, I meant Islam**t terrorism of course, of which Russia has its fair share and could be a useful ally.

        tonyb

      • brandonrgates said:

        I don’t see that my attribution error materially refutes the ever emerging coziness between Trump and Putin. We don’t even need to read the words of warmongering Jewish journalists to figure that one out … it’s all right there in the Real Donald’s own Twitter feed.

        Sure it refutes your accusation, which was “That’s quite the stunning reversal given you were the one to broach the subject in the first place, Glenn.”

        And the reason it refutes your swatty, fact-free little ‘gotcha’ accusation is because I wasn’t “the one to broach the subject in the first place.”

        The factual reality is this: The “Donald Trump loves Vladamir Putin” line of attack was opened up against Trump quite some time ago.

        The defenders of neoconservatism, or liberal internationalism, or the United States being “the indispensible nation” — call it what you want — began beating the “Donald Trump loves Vadamir Putin” drum back in December. Here’s an example:

        Why Donald Trump Loves Vladimir Putin
        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/donald-trump-putin-narcissism

        This particular attack comes from a left-wing magazine. But the attacks at that time came from both sides of the aisle, as this was well before Trump locked up the Republican nomination in April.

        So what you are doing amounts to nothing more than faithfully and uncritically parroting the talking points emanating from the Clinton campaign, and from the neocons.

        The Hillarymongers and their neocon allies from the Republican Party have now decided to mash the peddle to the metal with this particular line of attack. If one Googles “Trump Putin conncection” one will see dozens of articles written over the past few days, furiously beating the “Donald Trump loves Vladamir Puting” drum. Heck, even Obama has jumped on the bandwagon:

        Obama says it’s ‘possible’ Putin is trying to sway vote for Trump
        http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/26/politics/obama-possible-putin-trying-to-sway-vote-for-trump/index.html

        But this line of attack is hardly risk free for the Hillarymongers.

        First, it is not based on evidence, but on pure speculation. Once the emotion and hysteria dissipate, reality might set in. The leaders of the lynch mob could find themselves under attack.

        Second, it runs the risk of unmasking Clinton. People may see Clinton for what she really is, which is an unabshed neocon warmonger. This could end up hurting Clinton with her own base, which is undoubtedly more anti-war than the Republican base, and is as sick and tired of permanent war as anybody.

        All this is part of the realignment the parties are currently undergoing.

      • climatereason,

        There is also ever increasing cosiness between the puppet state of Cuba and the US but I don’t see you condemning that.

        Cuba ceased being a Soviet client state when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. It’s worth pointing out that even during the height of the Cold War, the US had normalized diplomatic relations with the USSR. I wouldn’t call that a particularly cozy arrangement.

        No, just joking, I meant Islam**t terrorism of course, of which Russia has its fair share and could be a useful ally.

        Let’s not have tunnel vision: I think our NATO allies have the same terrorism problem AND Putin in their backyard. Whose side are you on here, TonyB?

      • Glenn Stehle,

        Sure it refutes your accusation, which was “That’s quite the stunning reversal given you were the one to broach the subject in the first place, Glenn.”

        I got that the first time and acknowledged it, Glenn. I understand that admitting fault is a foreign concept to you, and that it may not also occur to you that other people aren’t so slow as you that they need things ‘splained to them multiple times before seeing their own error.

        So what you are doing amounts to nothing more than faithfully and uncritically parroting the talking points emanating from the Clinton campaign, and from the neocons.

        So long as we’re shooting messengers, you may wish to read Trump’s own fawning words about Putin … he’s serving those talking points up on a silver platter.

  69. David Springer

    Suddenly Secretary Clinton becomes concerned about our enemies reading her email.

    Kind of sad that I have to rely on Russia to keep American leaders honest. I miss the Soviet Union. Worthy enemies are hard to find. Go Putin!

  70. Live Isil knifemen who ‘slit 84-year-old priest’s throat’ and took nuns hostage shot dead as second victim fights for life
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/two-men-with-knifes-take-hostages-in-normandy-church/

  71. Backlash builds pressure on Merkel’s migrants policy
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/attacks-backlash-builds-pressure-on-merkels-migrants-policy-7kgwzfntj

    The four attacks in Germany in the past week, three of them committed by refugees, have deeply unsettled the public and are causing a backlash against Chancellor Merkel’s open-door migrant policy.

    Joachim Herrmann, the Bavarian interior minister and a member of the conservative Christian Social Union which is in coalition with Mrs Merkel’s party, joined calls for more rigorous monitoring of refugees and warned that the attacks were casting doubt on Germany’s asylum law.

  72. Well we’ve heard of Dutch disease. Could we call this American disease, something the US suffered from after Richard Nixon in 1971 proclaimed “We’re all Keynesians now”?

    China’s growth sucks in more debt bucks for less bang
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-debt-idUSKCN10400K

    As China’s economy notches up another quarter of steady growth, the pace of credit creation grows ever more frantic for every extra unit of production, as inefficient state firms swallow an increasing share of lending.

    The world’s second-largest economy grew 6.7 percent in the first half of the year, unchanged from the first quarter, testament to policymakers’ determination to regulate the pace of slowdown after 25 years of breakneck expansion.

    Analysts say that determination has come at the cost of a damngerous rise in debt, which is six times less effective at generating growth than a few years ago.

    While Beijing can take comfort that loose money and more deficit spending are averting a more painful slowdown, the rapidly diminishing returns from such stimulus policies, coupled with rising defaults and non-performing loans, are creating what Sharma calls “fertile (ground) for some accident to happen”.

    From 2003 to 2008, when annual growth averaged more than 11 percent, it took just one yuan of extra credit to generate one yuan of GDP growth, according to Morgan Stanley calculations.

    It took two for one from 2009-2010, when Beijing embarked on a massive stimulus program to ward off the effects of the global financial crisis.

    The ratio had doubled again to four for one in 2015, and this year it has taken six yuan for every yuan of growth, Morgan Stanley said, twice even the level in the United States during the debt-fueled housing bubble that triggered the global crisis.

  73. VIDEO: Bernie’s Booers: Some Sanders Fans Sound-Off on Clinton
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/25/bernie-sanders-says-elect-hillary-gets-heavily-booed/

    The Wall Street Journal interviews some of those who, in a remarkable display of resistance, vigorously booed Sen. Bernie Sanders Monday as he urged them to rally around Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump for president.

  74. Dayton Donald:

    Midway through President Nixon’s first term, [pro-right conservative congressman Charles] had been hooked by the 1970 book The Real Majority, which argued that the classic swing voter was the “47-year-old machinist’s wife from Dayton.” This voter tilted Democratic on economic issues, but Nixon and his adviser Pat Buchanan concluded that she could be won over by Republicans who stoked fears about welfare, school desegregation and crime. The irony was that the district with exactly the demographic being targeted by Nixon was being represented throughout the 1970s by a Republican — one with an entirely different sort of politics than what Nixon envisioned.

  75. Bernie Sanders himself robbed his own delegates of having any voice at the convention.

    Bernie Sanders Left Delegates With No Way to Fight but Boo
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/bernie-sanders-left-delegates-with-no-way-to-fight-but-boo/

    Sanders [could have] called a “minority plank.” That would have allowed his campaign to submit platform proposals to the floor for a vote among all delegates.

    This is a process that has been used before, with some success. In 1948, Hubert Humphrey forced the Democratic Party leadership to add support for civil rights to the platform by using the minority plank procedure, which ended up boosting black turnout for the Democrats in the following election. In 1984 and 1988, the insurgent Jesse Jackson campaign mobilized its delegates to stage floor fights on a whole host of issues.

    Fighting over the platform on the floor would have offered Bernie delegates the chance to continue doing what they do best — organize and make change. They would have had an opportunity to argue over issues the movement cared deeply about and possibly even move the Democratic Party in ways that Bernie’s inside negotiations with the DNC failed to.

    But on July 10, Sanders’s campaign released a triumphant statement, calling the platform the “most progressive” in the Democratic Party’s history. On July 12, the Sanders campaign then abruptly ended its talk of a convention fight over the issues. “As a result of our success and the realization that further platform fights would be portrayed in the corporate media as obstructionist and divisive, the senator made the very difficult decision not to file minority reports,” Sanders policy chief Warren Gunnels wrote to key supporters.

    But fighting those fights might well have been less “obstructionist and divisive” than the booing — and the unresolved frustrations the booing represented.

  76. David Springer

    Kremlin dismisses US Democratic email hack claims as ‘absurd’

    Laughs at US political circus

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-dismisses-us-democratic-email-hack-claims-absurd-102703243.html?ref=gs

    Weak leaders do not command respect. Write that down.

    • Kremlin dismisses US Democratic email hack claims as ‘absurd’

      Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

      How many times during the Cold War did the Kremlin deny stuff everybody knew was going on?

      Let’s see: what was Putin doing during the Cold War?

      • David Springer

        “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”

        If it was true they most certainly would. If it was false the smart move is to not issue a statement so they can’t get caught in the lie.

        You’re smart enough to realize this is an inside job, right? It almost always is. Every email system is encrypted and password protected. You don’t get sh*t without a legitimate credential. This has whistle blower written all over it. Buy yourself a clue, dopey.

      • David Springer

        “How many times during the Cold War did the Kremlin deny stuff everybody knew was going on?”

        Probably more times than Hillary lied to the American people in the past 6 months about things everybody knew was going on. But probably not many more times.

      • You’re smart enough to realize this is an inside job, right?

        Nonsense. It’s possible, but unlikely.

        Russian metadata?

        Every email system is encrypted and password protected. You don’t get sh*t without a legitimate credential.

        Bullsh1t!

    • Second Grade Donald:

      He reveled in the attention of thousands when he decked World Wrestling Entertainment chief executive Vince McMahon as he played his role in a mock “Battle of the Billionaires.” In “The Art of the Deal,” his 1987 autobiography, he wrote about an altercation in second grade.

      “I actually gave a teacher a black eye,” he wrote. “I punched my music teacher because I didn’t think he knew anything about music and I almost got expelled.”

      [Second Grade Donald], while saying he wasn’t proud of his action, excused it by saying it showed he has always been willing to “stand up and make my opinions known in a very forceful way.”

      That’s how you earn respect.

      Punch that down.

      • David Springer

        Good for him. Most grade school teachers are undereducated petty tyrants who deserve a smackdown.

  77. David Springer

    My wife watched the Dem convention last night. I was working on an unrelated project so didn’t. She hates politics but two observations she made this morning were “Michelle Obama’s speech was the best one and Bernie Sanders went over to the dark side and just totally caved in.” She thinks Hillary is a contemptible pig who let our ambassador and staff get murdered in Benghazi. So much for Hillary getting the women’s vote. Big surprise coming in November. I haven’t asked my socially liberal older daughter what she thinks but I suspect Trump’s getting her vote because she’s sympathetic to LGBT, says they’re treated unfairly, and is disappointed in Obama because he campaigned on fixing things for them. Trump of course is bucking the Republican establishment and sticking up for LGBT concerns. I have no problem with that. The social conservatives on the right are a too concerned about what happens in bedrooms and not concerned enough about what happens in boardrooms.

    Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.

    .

  78. It looks like measuring global oil inventories is as an inexact of a science as measuring global temperatures:

    Faulty Data? Why The Oil Glut Could Be Much Smaller Than Believed
    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Faulty-Data-Why-The-Oil-Glut-Could-Be-Much-Smaller-Than-Believed.html

    • Core Labs is predicting a rapid recovery of oil prices beginning in the second half of 2016.

      IEA has bumped its projections for growth in world oil demand up to 1.4 million BOPD in 2016 and 1.3 million in 2017. We live in a world where demand for oil increases “relentlessly” by 1.0 to 1.5 million barrels per day year after year after year, said David Demshur, Core Labs CEO in their 2nd quarter conference call.

      Demshur believes U.S. onshore prodcution will fall by 1.1 million BOPD in 2016, offest partially by a gain of 160,000 BOPD from deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico, for a net decline in U.S. produciton of 940,000 BOPD.

      In addition to declining production in the U.S., Core expects 2016 production declines in Angola, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela, among others, for a net worldwide annual crude oil production decline rate of approximately 3.3%.

      West Texas Intermediate (WTI) must move firmly over $60/bbl before we will see the increase in capital expenditures necessary to stabilize U.S. oil production, Demshur said.

      http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Forget-The-Glut-This-Is-Why-Oil-Prices-Will-Rise.html

      The $60/bbl price level needed to restart U.S. shale oil drilling again is the same price that Pioneer chairman Scott Sheffield came up with:

      Pioneer CEO: $60 Oil Needed for US Shale Industry to Grow Production
      http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/145084/Pioneer_CEO_60_Oil_Needed_for_US_Shale_Industry_to_Grow_Production

      • From the article:

        The crude oil sentiment weakened in the last week amid high crude oil inventory levels. Speculations of increased crude oil exports by Iraq also dented the sentiment and triggered concerns about the supply glut. According to the weekly inventory data released by the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), crude oil inventories reached 519.5 MMbbls (million barrels)—high for this time of the year. Also, the recently released oil rig count data by Baker Hughes intensified the supply glut concerns. According to the data released by Baker Hughes on July 22, the oil rig count moved up by 14 to 371. It increased for the seventh time in the last eight weeks. This is the fourth consecutive rise in the oil rig count. It triggered concerns about the chances of an increase in domestic crude oil production amid the supply glut.

        http://marketrealist.com/2016/07/crude-oil-continues-decline-amid-supply-glut-worries/

  79. David Springer

    Politifact: Democrats never mentioned terrorism on Day One of DNC

    61 speeches, not a single mention of ISIS or terrorism.

    They know where they’re weak and are avoiding the topic despite it ranking as a top concern among all voters. Go figure.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/did-democrats-mention-islamic-state-convention-226202

  80. David Springer

    Politifact: Democrats never mentioned terr0rism on Day One of DNC

    61 speeches, not a single mention of ISIS or terr0rism.

    They know where they’re weak and are avoiding the topic despite it ranking as a top concern among all voters. Go figure.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/did-democrats-mention-islamic-state-convention-226202

  81. David Springer

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/poll-trump-republican-convention-226198

    Cruz crashes in popularity to 28% favorable rating behind Clinton at 31% and Trump at 43%. Republican support for Trump increased from 70% to 79%. Green and liberal candidates got the bump from the RNC with Hillary taking the hit. Trump leads by 2 points in a four-way race wherein he trails by 1 point in a head-to-head matchup. The rats are leaving the sinking Clinton/Kaine ship. Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

    ———————————————————————————-

    New poll: No convention bounce for Trump

    A fresh poll released Tuesday shows Donald Trump remaining exactly where he was pre-Cleveland Republican convention: right behind Hillary Clinton.

    The Manhattan billionaire trails the former secretary of state by just a single point, 45 percent to 46 percent, according to an NBC News/Survey Monkey online poll released Tuesday morning. Those numbers are unchanged from last week’s data.

    A CNN poll released yesterday showed Trump gaining a bump from the convention, leading Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent in a two-way matchup.

    The good news for Trump is that his lead over Clinton grew to two points when Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson were included. The GOP nominee holds a 41-39 edge over Clinton in the four-way race, while Johnson earned 10 percent and Stein earned five.

    The convention, intended to unify still-skeptical Republicans behind their party’s nominee, seems to have done just that. His approval rating among Republicans climbed to 79 percent in the wake of the convention, up from 70 percent two weeks ago.

    While Trump’s esteem seems to have grown within the GOP as a result of the convention, Sen. Ted Cruz’s took a hit. The runner up in the Republican primary saw his favorability within his own party drop to 28 percent, while 68 percent view him unfavorably. Those numbers seem to reflect the negative reaction to Cruz’s convention speech, in which he refused to endorse Trump and instead urged Republicans to “vote your conscience.”

    The NBC News/Survey Monkey poll was conducted online from July 18-24, surveying 12,931 adults nationwide aged 18 or older who say they are registered to vote. The margin of error was plus-or-minus 1.2 points

    • Who actually SUPPORTS Hillary anyway?

      The top echelons of the Democrat Establishment and Lobbying Groups, the MSM, some Billionaires and Celebrities and … not much else. The rest is Astroturf, paid for publicity with no roots. Just an illusion.

  82. The traditional ideological paleoconservatives like George Will, in addition to the neoconservatives and evangelicals, don’t like Trump and are parrotting the Trump-Russia talking point:

    George Will: Trump Doesn’t Want to Release Tax Returns “Because He’s Deeply Involved In Dealing With Russia”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/george_will_trump_doesnt_want_to_release_tax_returns_because_he_is_deeply_involved_in_dealing_with_russia.html

  83. From the article:

    Gasoline prices — at $2.16 per gallon nationally — could fall another 10 percent or more, and while that’s good for consumers, it may not be so for stock market investors.

    That’s because there’s now a glut of gasoline, and that is pressuring oil prices. The oversupply of crude in world markets turned into a product glut this summer, with refiners producing more gasoline and diesel than is needed, even with near-record high demand. Oil prices have been falling, and on Monday, the shares of energy companies dropped too.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/25/the-double-edge-of-cheap-gasoline-and-its-getting-even-cheaper.html

  84. From the article:

    More risks ahead for the oil market?
    12 Hours Ago
    JPMorgan’s Scott Darling explains that the oil supply glut is expected to remain an issue due to moderating global growth

    http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000537627

  85. From the article:

    The EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) reported that weekly US crude oil production rose slightly by 9,000 bpd (barrels per day) to 8.49 MMbpd (million barrels per day) from July 8, 2016, to July 15, 2016. Production rose by 0.10% week-over-week. However, production has declined 11% year-over-year. US crude oil production rose for the second time in the last six weeks.

    http://marketrealist.com/2016/07/us-crude-oil-production-rose-second-week/

  86. Uneducating Donald:

    • You must have missed that clip on TV, Willard, where the President pointed out to all of us that it is always smarter to bring a gun to your next knife fight.

    • That’s ok.

      Looking at averages, my multiple degrees help balance out all those white rednecks (the one group it is still ok to disparage) without one.

      And utilizing data analysis techniques from climate science, I can show that white men with degrees are overwhelmingly in favor of trump.

      • David Springer

        It’s okay to disparage any group, Timmy. The bill of rights guarantees it. Sometimes it takes a bit of courage to exercise those rights. I’m sorry you’re too weak kneed for it.

      • Phuck off Springer, or learn to read. I was referring to the Lords of PC (or is it the PC Czar, can’t remember) and whom they are ok with being disparaged.

    • There’s a lot of work that gets done by white men and women without college degrees: truckers, auto mechanics, construction workers, electricians, road crews, cafeteria workers, farmers, etc. They are the people hit the hardest by the Obama non-recovery. They are not all “uneducated”, and not all people with college degrees are “educated”.

    • I love the poorly educated. Reminds me of all the progress made on improving the student loans situation.

  87. Democratic convention: Bernie Sanders booed again at surprise appearance
    http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_30170660/democratic-convention-bernie-sanders-booed-again-at-surprise

    Bernie Sanders made a surprise visit this morning to the restless California Democratic delegation….

    After having little luck suppressing the heckling from his passionate supporters at the opening of the Democratic National Convention on Monday, Sanders made a second appeal during the California delegation’s breakfast.

    Yet again, however, Sanders’ appeal had little effect on a forceful group of about a dozen or so supporters among the California delegation who booed down U.S. Rep Xavier Becerra, a Clinton superdelegate, and tussled with fellow Sanders delegates during the breakfast meeting.

  88. The second video down with interviews of some of the protesters outside the convention hall is very good.

    Bernie Sanders Delegates: We Remain “Unconvinced”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/26/bernie_sanders_delegates_we_remain_unconvinced.html

  89. http://www.vocativ.com/343010/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack/

    Because some words need to be in bold before a very long quote:

    The “hacker” who distributed a host of Democratic Party files insists he both speaks no Russian and is not Russian. Yet, he used a Russian-language VPN when speaking with journalists, according to expert analysis of the emails. In those emails, he urged Vocativ to write about the files.

    […]

    Though Guccifer 2.0 has claimed to be, like Lazar, a Romanian anti-government elite hacktivist, there are a number of reasons to doubt that claim. Among them is that, when interviewed by Motherboard, Guccifer struggled to speak Romanian, and linguists found his sentence construction instead resembled a native speaker of Russian or a similar Slavic language. Romanian, by contrast, is a Romance language, descended from Latin. Documents posted on Guccifer 2.0’s blog often are marked as last modified by a user called “Феликс Эдмундович,” the name of early Soviet hero Felix Dzerzhinsky.

    […]

    Strong evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is both Russian and not really a hacker comes from the hacked DNC document he sent Vocativ via encrypted email—because he sent it from a French AOL account.

    “To the layman, this is not a big deal. But to somebody in the security industry, who thinks like a hacker, this is a big red flag,” Rich Barger, Director of Threat Intelligence at cybersecurity company ThreatConnect, told Vocativ. “No self-respecting hacker uses a free webmail service provider that imprints emails with X-originating-IPs. This is basic stuff you know.”

    A user’s X-originating-IP address reveals where a user’s coming from, though users often mask it with a VPN, a tool to reroute their traffic through a third party. Unlike many email services, AOL includes a user’s X-originating-IP address in its email header information, meaning it reveals the IP address to an email’s recipient.

  90. From the article:

    Patriotic Veterans Yell “Lock Her Up!” During Trump Speech at VFW Convention

    Jim Hoft Jul 26th, 2016 1:39 pm 25 Comments

    US military veterans screamed, “Lock her up!” during Donald Trump’s speech today at the annual VFW Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/patriotic-veterans-yell-lock-trump-speech-vfw-convention/

  91. Welcome to the DNC: Death. Taxes. Hillary

    “The song — a sort of modern hippie parody of “Aquarius” from the musical Hair…”

  92. Strong leaders need strong followers:

  93. VIDEO: Obama on Russian Involvement in DNC Hack: “Anything’s Possible,” “Trump’s Gotten Favorable Coverage”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/26/obama_on_russian_involvement_in_dnc_hack_anythings_possible_trumps_gotten_favorable_coverage.html

  94. VIDEO: Madeleine Albright — Donald Trump Victory Would Be a Gift to Vladimir Putin
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-07-27/albright-trump-victory-would-be-a-gift-to-putin

    • A little history is helpful in understanding the Democratic Party’s end run around the right end of the Republican Party:

      In 1996, political journalist Sidney Blumenthal and foreign policy historian James Chace struggled to come up with a memorable phrase to describe America’s post-Cold War role in the world. “Finally, together, we hit on it: ‘indispensable nation.’ Eureka! I passed it on first to Madeleine Albright,” Blumenthal recalled.

      In his memoir of the Clinton presidency, The Clinton Wars, Blumenthal elaborated on what the phrase was intended to represent: “Only the United States had the power to guarantee global security: without our presence or support, multilateral endeavors would fail.”

      Albright, then secretary of state, began using the phrase often, and most prominently in February 1998, while defending the policy of coercive diplomacy against Iraq over its limited cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors when, during an interview on the “Today Show,” she said: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.”

      Over the last six months, the notion of American indispensability has resurfaced in a big way. U.S. President Barack Obama has emphasized this point repeatedly, and most expansively in May while giving a commencement address to West Point cadets: “When a typhoon hits the Philippines or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come.”

      Beyond the White House, this assertion has recently been made by Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Michelle Bachman. This bipartisan group may not agree on much, but they are all proudly “Indispensables.”

      http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/06/the-myth-of-the-indispensable-nation/

      Now, with the benefit of hindsight, most of us, with the exception of our estalbishment elites, are able to recognize just how disastrous Albright’s “little basis in reality” neocon warmongering has been.

      Being, or at least attempting to be, the “indispensable nation” comes with an exorbitantly high price tag, both in treasure and in blood. Are the American people willing to continue to pay the price for pursuing this impossible dream of one world government?

      • In Australia, we saw Joe Biden invoking the “indispensable nation” myth last week:

        Joe Biden promises ‘secure sea lanes and open skies’ in pointed riposte to China
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/20/joe-biden-promises-secure-sea-lanes-and-open-skies-in-pointed-riposte-to-china

        America will “ensure the sea lanes are secure, and the skies remain open” in the Pacific, the US vice-president, Joe Biden, has vowed in a pointed riposte to Chinese territorial ambitions in the South China Sea.

        In a wide-ranging foreign policy speech in Sydney on Wednesday, Biden paid tribute to the US-Australian alliance, describing it as “a partnership that reminds us what is best in ourselves”.

        Biden told his Australian audience the US was, and would remain, a committed power and presence in the Pacific.

        Quoting Barack Obama, he said of US involvement in the Pacific region: “we are all in”.

        “We are not going anywhere. And that is vital because our presence in the region … is essential to maintaining peace and stability, without which the economic growth and prosperity I believe would falter.

        “America is the linchpin and we want to ensure the sea lanes are secure, the skies remain open. That is how to maintain the free flow of commerce that is the life-blood of this region. This the only way our nations will be able to grow and succeed together.”

        Biden cited statistics on the size of the US military, saying America spent more on defence than the next eight largest militaries combined.

        The vice-president said the US and Australian militaries, intimately allied since the end of the second world war, would continue to cooperate closely, and discussed preserving security in the Pacific in the same sentence as he did the fight against Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

        He said the US would maintain its “enduring commitment to ensure there is no daylight, no daylight between our fighting forces, whether we’re taking the fight to al-Qaeda, or Isil or Daesh, as they say in the Arab countries, or … any people who threaten the safety of our people; whether it’s standing together to maintain peace in Asia; or whether we’re working side by side to provide humanitarian assistance in the Pacific islands. Australia and the United States have each other’s backs”.

        Biden took to the podium just minutes after Donald Trump was confirmed as the Republican party nominee for president of the United States, and issued an assurance-cum-warning about November’s forthcoming poll.

        “Don’t worry about our election. Don’t worry about our election. The better angels in America will prevail.”

        “At a time like this, when the forces of xenophobia and demagoguery are being trumpeted around the world and seek to erode what we hold most dear, we have to remember who we are as Australians and Americans and reflect our best selves back to the world.”

      • And considering that China is by far and away Australia’s largest export market:

        And that China is by far and away Australia’s largest source of imports:

        And Australia runs a large trade suplus with China, and Australia’s trade deficit would more than double without its trade with China:

        One wonders just how long Australia will be up for all this “help” from the “indispensable nation.”

  95. NEWSY: Dad behind the USA Freedom Kids is now suing Ditty Donald

  96. Who Should Bernie Voters Support Now? Robert Reich vs. Chris Hedges on Tackling the Neoliberal Order

  97. See if this shoe fits… AGW is no longer a global threat so now we all will get to see just what the true TV meaning of Isis, is.

  98. Bernie Sanders delegate at the DNC

  99. With DNC Leaks, Former ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Is Now True––and No Big Deal
    http://fair.org/home/with-dnc-leaks-former-conspiracy-theory-is-now-true-and-no-big-deal/

    Pro-Clinton pundits were quick to dismiss what was literally a conspiracy to railroad the Sanders campaign as nothing more than a yawn.

    So what was once dismissed out of hand—that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign—is now obviously true, but not a big deal. This is a textbook PR spin pattern seen time and time again, what might be called the Snowden Cycle: X is a flaky conspiracy theory → X is revealed to be true → X is totally obvious and not newsworthy.

    Instead, Clinton partisans decided to focus on the alleged Russian links behind the DNC hack. Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall (7/23/16) released a rather paranoid rundown the day of the leaks on how Putin was conspiring with Trump (a fairly good debunking of which can be found here), soon after dismissing the substance of the leaks as Russian propaganda white noise. Many soon followed suit: The DNC leaks as Russian spy operation was the preferred talking point of the day, omitting or glossing over what the leaks actually entailed.

    The actual culpability of Russia for those leaks, it’s worth noting, is still unproven.

    The DNC’s interest in painting this as a Russian plot also bears mentioning…. [T]he DNC itself [from internal correspondence from June] was looking to play up the Russian espionage angle as a means of obfuscating what they knew would be “embarrassing revelations”:

    If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party’s thinking said.

    This strategy, as explained by a DNC insider a month ago, is now playing out exactly as predicted: The “outrage” over Russia’s “hidden hand” is being used to outweigh the damning substance of the leak itself. Parlay this with the recent uptick in “Trump as Putin puppet” conspiracy takes, and what you have is a clear picture of a partisan media that would rather float pitches for a Manchurian Candidate reboot than confront the repeated attempts by an ostensibly neutral DNC to undermine one candidate in favor of another.

    • The actual culpability of Russia for those leaks, it’s worth noting, is still unproven.

      Perhaps. But it’s been effectively proven that two different Russian Intelligence Operations were present on the DNC network.

      From the “there’s always somebody better” dept., an idea: perhaps there was a third actor, let’s call them Actor-C, also involved.

      They may have already been lurking on the DNC network (but why?), or they may have entered shortly before the incident that triggered the DNC to go to CrowdStrike Services Inc. (but, again, why?), or they may have been lurking in the GRU system (or have humint penetration there).

      Unlike “COZY BEAR” or “FANCY BEAR”, Actor-C was aware (or became aware) of other penetrators on the system. They may have been responsible for the “unusual network activity” noticed in April. Or that could have simply been two Russian state actors blundering around not even knowing about each other (per CrowdStrike).

      Apparently there was no response by the DNC to the notification from their IT department, as it wasn’t until May 3, when “Democratic consultant Alexandra Chalupa wrote that she began receiving Yahoo security messages warning that her email had been “the target of state-sponsored actors”” that CrowdStrike was called in.

      Again, this could have been Russian blundering, but it also could have been a deliberate provocation by Actor-C, trying to force the DNC to take action.

      Once that action had been taken, Actor-C wiped out traces of their penetration, and left. Or, again, perhaps they wiped the traces after the first activity had gained the attention of the information technology team. That would explain why they took a roundabout approach to setting the alarm, one that did not require them to still be lurking on the DNC system.

      So who is Actor-C (assuming they exist at all)? Well, best guess is that they were tracking “FANCY BEAR” (probably GRU, per CrowdStrike), based on the timing of their actions. If they were responsible for the delivery of stolen emails to WikiLeaks, along with the (presumably deliberate) insertion of Russian metadata, this would suggest a strong interest in embarrassing Putin, along with getting his two intelligence services pointing fingers at each other.

      OTOH, intelligence services capable of blundering around a target system without knowing each other were there can’t be assumed to be competent enough to avoid leaving metadata behind.

      • AK said:

        Perhaps. But it’s been effectively proven that two different Russian Intelligence Operations were present on the DNC network.

        But does this prove that it was the Russians that leaked the informaiton to Wikileaks?

        According to William Binney, the former NSA computer “legend,” the DNC system looks to have had many “weaknesses,” and asks “why did the DNC not have software to stop it?” He suggests that the DNC system was likely to have been attacked numerous times, and from numerous quarters:

        I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I’m sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

        Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others),

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

      • AK,

        And this brings up another disturbing question.

        If the DNC server was hacked by two different Russian intelligence operations, and by an unknown number of others, then what are the chances that Clinton’s private server in her house was not hacked too?

        Are the people that the DNC and Clinton hired to set up their servers competent? It appears they were not.

      • But does this prove that it was the Russians that leaked the informaiton to Wikileaks?

        No, of course not. As I discussed in the same comment you took your quote from.

        I read the “naked capitalism” article, and agreed with parts of it. OTOH, I think, like climate “skeptics”, many of those talking about the DNC hacking are pretty ign0rant of both systems, and intelligence.

        Some quotes from the article, and my thoughts:

        The alleged Russia connection has also been debunked by FAIR.

        Not really. There were two actors there who are generally thought to be Russian. So there’s grounds for suspicion. No proof the didn’t (see below).

        From Binney:

        Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I’m sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

        The used their standard Falcon Host product, which presumably looks for all known threats.

        Why didn’t Binney know this before answering?

        Falcon Host is controversial, especially their approach, “one that focused less on the exploit and more on the attacker.” I dunno, it seems workable, but might have a blind spot WRT attackers they’ve never had a chance to profile.

        And I don’t suppose they’d notice a zero-day exploit. Although they might notice other activity by an actor who entered that way.

        Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks?

        Downloading, they don’t say, but probably not since at least one actor “engaged in a number of anti-forensic analysis measures, such as periodic event log clearing (via wevtutil cl System and wevtutil cl Security commands) and resetting timestamps of files.” Properly coordinated, this could probably have covered their tracks WRT downloading.

        As for “forward[ing] those emails to wikileaks?” What evidence? The metadata? We’re in the “wilderness of mirrors” here. IMO this works better as evidence that somebody was targeting “FANCY BEAR” (probably GRU, per CrowdStrike) or Putin than that the Russians done it.

        Of course, this brings up another question; if it’s a know attack, why did the DNC not have software to stop it? You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

        Not if the logs have been cleared. That may actually have been the “unusual network activity” their IT people noticed.

      • Are the people that the DNC and Clinton hired to set up their servers competent? It appears they were not.

        I’d say not. There are reasons for security rules such as forbidding people to use their home computer systems or private email accounts for classified business.

        As for the big political parties, if they would just assume that everything they do is in a glass house, they’d be fine.

      • Were I of the mind to make similarly dizzying leaps of logic, Glenn, I might suppose that your staunch apolgetics on behalf of the Kremlin indicate that you’re a Russian agent.

      • What, Brandon? That race-baiting lost its mojo, so now you’re resorting to this?

      • AK,

        I’d say not.

        I’d say not for the DNC. Extending that to Hillary’s private server while she was Secretary of State without evidence that its security was compromised is reaching. [1] Are we trying to argue that anyone doing email server configuration/hosting for Democrats is incompetent by definition?

        ———————

        [1] Which is not to say that her use of a private server for State Department business — or worse, inherently insecure Blackberry devices for remote email access — wasn’t seriously ill-advised and improper. Additionally, it does rather bother me that Hillary never obtaining a state.gov email address didn’t send up a huge red flag, and that it took the release of emails from Sidney Blumenthal’s hacked email account to reveal Hillary’s use of personal clintonemail.com account for State Department business.

      • Glenn Stehle,

        That race-baiting lost its mojo, so now you’re resorting to this?

        The irony that my arguments could be construed as Red Scare tactics isn’t lost on me, but that’s not so amusing as your “misunderstanding” that calling a spade a spade is race baiting.

        Someone on this thread has already invoked “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” with respect to Putin and Hillary’s mutual animus. It tickles me pinko that Trump and his supporters would favor the Russian Federation over our NATO allies all in the name of keeping Hillary out of the White House. It’s an astounding failure to set appropriate priorities.

      • Are we trying to argue that anyone doing email server configuration/hosting for Democrats is incompetent by definition?

        Not really. What do you mean by “incompetent”? Refusing to do the job at all unless provided the money to do it right?

        If Clinton’s tech guy knew his business and did it right, he’d have spent enough money on it that he’d have had to justify it to her. Probably.

        If she’d listened to that justification, she would have realized the threat the DNC server represented. Probably.

        If she’d understood that threat, would she have allowed the kind of emails that were going through that server, without insisting it get locked down?

        I’d say the answer is probably no, unless she was setting up (or letting the DNC set up) a honey-trap, for the purpose of exactly what happened. Which I wouldn’t completely rule out, but I consider highly unlikely.

        There’s another issue, which is the charge of “extreme carelessness” by the FBI director. In none of the discussion of this issue has anybody tried to defend her by saying she’d taken steps to protect her system. AFAIK.

        It’s worth noting, when it comes to email, that such messages normally travel through, and reside on (usually temporarily) a number of unsecured servers.

        Unless appropriate encryption is undertaken at both ends, any email that actually goes through the open Internet is unsecure.

        I don’t know the details, perhaps she was signing in to a secure VPN, rather than sending stuff over the Internet. But that would have made her machine even more of a risk, unless it was properly locked down.

        Bottom line, locking down her machine against cracking efforts by state actors (who could probably have gained physical access) would have been a big, expensive, effort. But, AFAIK, nobody has mentioned that effort in trying to defend her. That seems pretty certain to me.

      • David Springer

        bransomRgrates writes:

        “Someone on this thread has already invoked “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” with respect to Putin and Hillary’s mutual animus. It tickles me pinko that Trump and his supporters would favor the Russian Federation over our NATO allies all in the name of keeping Hillary out of the White House.”

        One person on an obscure blog writes something and lying imbecile brandonrgates generalizes it to something held by “Trump and his supporters”.

        Hey sh*t for brains. I don’t speak for anyone but myself. Write that down phucking m0r0n.

      • I’d say not for the DNC. Extending that to Hillary’s private server while she was Secretary of State without evidence that its security was compromised is reaching. [1] Are we trying to argue that anyone doing email server configuration/hosting for Democrats is incompetent by definition?

        ———————

        [1] Which is not to say that her use of a private server for State Department business — or worse, inherently insecure Blackberry devices for remote email access — wasn’t seriously ill-advised and improper. Additionally, it does rather bother me that Hillary never obtaining a state.gov email address didn’t send up a huge red flag, and that it took the release of emails from Sidney Blumenthal’s hacked email account to reveal Hillary’s use of personal clintonemail.com account for State Department business.

        The security of the server itself isn’t even the main insecurity, it’s that all of the email was transferred over the internet in the clear, and as even Comey mentioned, she did it in hostile nations, who surely have the equal of NSA’s internet logging capability, so of course they collected it, that was why Comey said they were assuming they had been breached.
        And assuredly the Hillster had been briefed on what the NSA was doing on the matter.
        When I had my clearance, if I’d done what she did I’d have lost my clearance, my job and likely my freedom.

      • David Springer

        Gimme a frickin’ break, AK. DNC data probably backed up on a blade server they don’t own. There won’t be any tracks if someone pulls a redundant blade for maintenance and ghosts the disk while it’s out. These are almost always inside jobs by an ideologue who objects on principle or a tech person making $45K/year gets bribed. Usually it’s the ideologue and they’re protected by whistle blower laws in case they get caught. There’s serious repercussions for someone taking a bribe.

      • DNC data probably backed up on a blade server they don’t own.

        What makes you so sure they backed it up at all?

        Anyway, if they had human management, they could hack the backup job to leave out their tracks.

        These are almost always inside jobs by an ideologue who objects on principle or a tech person making $45K/year gets bribed.

        And what about the attack on Alexandra Chalupa’s personal email?

        “Important action required,” read a pop-up box from a Yahoo security team that is informally known as “the Paranoids.” “We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors.”

      • AK,

        What do you mean by “incompetent”? Refusing to do the job at all unless provided the money to do it right?

        Failing to make it as secure as possible due to lack of knowledge, which appears to have been the case at least at the point that the server was physically housed in her basement.

        More what I was driving at is Glenn’s extension of the DNC’s server ills to Hillary by association, but without demonstrating factual basis for the linkage.

        If she’d understood that threat, would she have allowed the kind of emails that were going through that server, without insisting it get locked down?

        One would hope not.

        I’d say the answer is probably no, unless she was setting up (or letting the DNC set up) a honey-trap, for the purpose of exactly what happened. Which I wouldn’t completely rule out, but I consider highly unlikely.

        As do I, especially because the contents of the emails served to further divide the Berners from the DNC establishment. Hillary has many negative qualities, but stupid isn’t one of them.

        I say this in the midst of trying to figure out what the hell she’s thinking naming Debbie Wasserman Schultz to even an honorary position. Spin is it’s Hillary’s way of being diplomatic. [shrug]

        There’s another issue, which is the charge of “extreme carelessness” by the FBI director. In none of the discussion of this issue has anybody tried to defend her by saying she’d taken steps to protect her system. AFAIK.

        I haven’t seen such a defense either. Indications are that it would be a vacuous attempt from the standpoint that the server itself wasn’t up to gummint security standards. Her use of Blackberry devices was clearly not a good idea. I think the FBI assessment is correct.

        Unless appropriate encryption is undertaken at both ends, any email that actually goes through the open Internet is unsecure.

        Yup. It’s further worth noting that a number of prominent Dems have been against use of end-to-end encryption by non-gummint entities. So it’s not like the entire DNC is completely oblivious to standard means of securing email communications. Screwy. I wouldn’t have minded the lid being blown on their impartiality were the timing not so awful, and perhaps at the hand of a foreign power attempting to influence a major election outcome to their own benefit.

        But hey, all’s fair in love and politics, eh? Could have been worse; night before the election. Mebbe those sneaky Russkies are holding back the really juicy stuff?

        Bottom line, locking down her machine against cracking efforts by state actors (who could probably have gained physical access) would have been a big, expensive, effort. But, AFAIK, nobody has mentioned that effort in trying to defend her. That seems pretty certain to me.

        I can’t speak for others, but for myself her lapse was inexcusable. Further, the kind of money we’re talking about really shouldn’t be an object when it comes to securing sensitive information. Hopefully she’s not the only one who has learned a valuable IT lesson from both debacles.

        ROFL, this just in: Donald Trump encourages Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.

        Dear Lord, I must be dreaming. Please let me wake up from this tragic comedy. I’m grudgingly beginning to appreciate the genius of Trump holding himself out as an unapologetic, boorish demagogue and dirty trickster. Perhaps there really is no better way of dispelling rumors than to lean into them. Slick Willie might do well to take some notes.

      • micro6500,

        The security of the server itself isn’t even the main insecurity, it’s that all of the email was transferred over the internet in the clear, and as even Comey mentioned, she did it in hostile nations, who surely have the equal of NSA’s internet logging capability, so of course they collected it, that was why Comey said they were assuming they had been breached.

        Indeed. No two ways about it, the entire practice was a fail. As I’ve said previously, I hope she’s not the only one who’s learned a lesson from it.

        When I had my clearance, if I’d done what she did I’d have lost my clearance, my job and likely my freedom.

        I don’t mean this unkindly, but unless you were also a powerful and connected political figure, you would have been seen as a more expendable individual to be made an example of.

      • I don’t mean this unkindly, but unless you were also a powerful and connected political figure, you would have been seen as a more expendable individual to be made an example of.

        I would have been cannon fodder.

      • David Springer,

        Hey sh*t for brains. I don’t speak for anyone but myself. Write that down phucking m0r0n.

        I can appreciate that, especially since I feel — and have voiced — similar sentiments about myself … albeit in the context of “don’t associate me with anti-nuclear morons who also happen to be CO2-mitigation advocates such as myself,” etc. But only to a point … your rhetoric is not too far removed from Trumps own widely self-published bilge. The connection I’m making is easy, and apparently valid. Hopefully not as sweeping as I’ve made it out to be, but some days I wonder. This is one of those days.

        Now if only Islamic extremist jihadis made it just as clear that they don’t speak for the vast majority of far more peaceful Muslims (both inside and outside the US), we might collectively get some place resembling an intelligent conversation about ideologically-motivated hatred and terrorism.

      • h/t for Firesign Theater, AK. My soundcard is b0rked so I can’t listen to it, but the title says it all.

      • Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs:

    • James Cross,

      You don’t believe that internal DNC documents from a month ago, acknowledging that the DNC knew this was coming back then, and addressing how it was going to spin the story in order to do damage control, is not “anything new”?

    • Glenn,

      I am just saying there no great new revelation in any of the emails.

      Everybody knew the establishment was for Hillary including Sanders, but it didn’t have any significant effect on the outcome of the primaries.Hillary won because Sanders could not win anything in the South. Hillary swept almost all of it and that was the difference. Sanders won in New England, the Northwest, and in a lot of states with caucuses.

      Check the map here. The DNC didn’t rig the votes.

      http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map

  100. NSA Whistleblower: Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind DNC Email Hack
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

    It’s remarkable to see the way the claim that the DNC hack was the doing of America’s Enemy Number One is being flogged on thin to non-existance evidence. This is reminiscent of the Sony hack, which was attributed to North Korea, a claim that was widely debunked on tech sites.

    The alleged Russia connection has also been debunked by FAIR. Here’s another debunking of the post that kicked this story off…

    I have to add that there’s no evidence that Trump has trouble borrowing (particularly now when Manhattan residential and commercial real estate is trading at high values; he presumably could refi to tap equity appreciation if he needed to).

    I joked early on that in the Obama administration that its solution to every problem was better propaganda. It’s now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. And as a skeptical consumer of media, I find it uncomfortable to be living in an informational hall of mirrors.

    The mainstream media alleges that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC’s emails.

    The media is parading out the usual suspects alleged experts to back up this claim.

    Washington’s Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – what he thinks of such claims…

    The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo.

  101. Are Italy’s Banks A ‘Doom-Loop’ Risk That Could Bury The Eurozone?
    http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/07/italy-banks-doom-collapse/?all=1

    Eight years after the global financial crisis, Italy’s economy remains weak and the country’s banks have a very high rate of shaky – or under-performing — loans at about 18%. That compares with rates of 5% in France and 1.5% in the United Kingdom. Since Italy is the third-largest economy in the European Union, a breakout of loan defaults or a run on bank deposits could quickly spread eurozone-wide….

    Italy is so big in terms of the amount of debt that it has. It’s a couple of trillion Euros… [T]hey are too big for the Germans or the Dutch or the strong countries to pay off the problem, that’s the real issue.

  102. Italy Bank Crisis Looming With Rush to Rescue #3 Bank, Monte dei Paschi
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/italy-bank-crisis-looming-with-rush-to-rescue-3-bank-monte-dei-paschi.html

    The death watch over Monte dei Paschi has a Lehman-esqe feel. The powers that be were hoping they could hold off a financial crisis until after a key election, yet they were also deeply committed to not doing any bailouts. The Europeans may be about to learn that their “kick the can down the road” strategy has taken them to the brink of a precipice.

  103. US does 1/2 of all World’s Arms Sales, then Surprised by Global Violence
    http://www.juancole.com/2016/07/worlds-surprised-violence.html

    The United States continues to hold onto the number one role in the global arms trade, the White House does its part, the Pentagon greases the wheels, and the dollars roll in to profit-hungry U.S. weapons contractors.

  104. The DNC’s email scandal shows democracy is rotten and Hillary may be a crook, China’s state media says
    http://qz.com/743000/the-dncs-email-scandal-shows-democracy-is-rotten-and-hillary-may-be-a-crook-chinas-state-media-says/

    The emails, which showed Democratic party officials were hostile to Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign and gave high-level White House access to Clinton donors, are being held up by China’s state-back media as proof that something is very rotten in the US.

    “The batch of bombshell e-mails reveals that the Clinton campaign colluded with high-ranking Democratic officials in the nominating process, participated in ‘money laundering’ and manipulated media coverage,” the Global Times wrote on July 27. “This almost proves Clinton is really a ‘crook,’ as Donald Trump calls her.”

    It goes on: “This ‘e-mail gate’ exposes the dirty side of US democracy under a glossy cover. The minority at the top of the pyramidal system willfully manipulate resources, playing with the support of the public and fans.”

  105. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing…”

    ““This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” said Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

  106. VIDEO showing empty sections of areana after walkout following Clinton nomination.

    The MSM, of course, did a complete blackout of this.

    RT sci_solar: 1000+ Berners walked out ‼️California is GONE‼️ UTah Gone‼️Oregon Gone‼️..& more😝 #DNCWalkOut 1/2 …

  107. Thrivability:

    How does Capitalism, Socialism and Populism fit in this matrix?

    How do Clinton and Trump fit?

  108. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtfzY2bG1foWsRUeeLopotYoVkVKkIHekT7o7JaPGTT6MkpJ0rag

    I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us!

    What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television… I want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us!

  109. David Springer

    Shock poll

    USC/LA Times general election: Trump +7

  110. David Springer

    Company DNC hired to say DNC leak was Russian hackers.

    Crowdstrike, Inc.

    It’s a joke. Tiny 5-yr old company renting a small office in Irvine, CA with annual revenue of $2.5M and that’s mostly from security software sales and services not private investigation.

    http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/company-search.html?term=crowdstrike

    Ding!

    Next!

    • A year ago, Google Capital invested $100 Million in the company.

      Which doesn’t mean it’s all that good at coming into already compromised machines.

    • David Springer

      Did Crowdstrike satisfy the requirements to get any installments on that $100M in round C funding? Unlikely with $2.5M in revenue a year later IMO but I’m just speculating. Unless you have the details of the funding you’d be speculating too. So far as either of us know they didn’t get a single dollar of it. Let me know when you have some hard facts. Thanks in advance.

  111. Leadership or Lack Thereof Donald:

  112. David Springer

    $500,000 is pocket change to Trump and it will easily purchase an insider’s cooperation in ghosting a disk with an email server backup on it. Just sayin’.

    I’d bet though it was a young IT person who happened to be a Bernie supporter and he did it out of principled concern for what happened.

  113. David Springer

    Attendance at Republican Convention

    I see habitual lying POS James Cross thinks there were lots of empty seats.

    Who ya gonna believe, Cross or your lying eyes?

    Below is a video of Ivanka Trump introducing her father. Lots of good shots of the entire auditorium starting with the first few seconds. Standing room only. Cross is a lying asshat.

  114. I certainly hope Trump is considering doing deals with Russia, if he isn’t doing so already. (Though not the kind of deals the Clintons did over Uranium One.)

    We are suddenly in a turbulent migration period without global cooling (the usual cause); world debt is maybe 230 trillion while world GDP is a third of that; and now NATO would rather have a war with Russia than a hot dinner.

    This could get grim. Let me repeat what I was just saying elsewhere.

    Hold-your-nose collaboration with Russia, like the grudging collaboration between France and England since 1815, is the key to the third-rate world peace which is the best we can expect.
    The US collaborated with Russia in the War of Independence, the Civil War (Union), WW1 and WW 2. It was always tangled, self-interested collaboration full of distrust…and it always worked.

    Even Australia was a remote part of England’s Great Game with Russia as far back as the 18th century. We have been conditioned to see Russia as perpetual danger, and there is nothing unreasonable in that. But the Bear has always seemed to prefer bullying and buffers to far-flung conquest. Some proportion called for.

    At a time when collaboration between the Bear and Anglosphere (ignoring the ridiculous German hegemony called the EU, an arrogant, expansionist empire without means) is the only solution, we find ourselves rattling sabres in defense of Ukrainian kleptocrats. (Seems the Kurds are entitled to a country, Donbas not so much!)

    People, we survived WW 2 by American wealth, British resolve and Russian blood.

    If Putin is a crazed expansionist all is lost and war is on. If Putin is a tactical expansionist with impatient oligarchs at his back who can be bought with commercial dominance of Europe’s energy market, the war is off and we have some real means to deal with terror and the mass displacement of populations.

    An erratic, corrupt, violent and diseased taker of naps and nips – supported by that technocracy and military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned against – is the last thing the world needs in view of the already rotten quality of leadership in the West. Of course Hillary is going to unleash the hardware! Think she’s been taking all that dough from arms makers and Gulf States to be President Flower Power?

    And who will fill the ranks of a German Imperial (sorry, I meant EU) army? Farm boys? Farm girls? Now, I wonder if there might be some other vast source of unemployed youth to draw on…

  115. David Springer

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-wont-ask-chelsea-clinton-about-her-fathers-treatment-of-women/article/2597906

    PHILADELPHIA — Ivanka Trump, daughter of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, is constantly asked about her father’s treatment of and statements about women. The same cannot be said of Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

    Ivanka has been grilled by CBS, criticized by the Atlantic and asked by many more outlets to defend her father. On Wednesday, CBS published an article about Chelsea calling on Ivanka to ask her father about equal pay.

    Here’s an article you won’t see from the mainstream media: Chelsea Clinton being asked to defend her father’s treatment of women, including accusations against him of rape.

    The closest anyone came was Comospolitan, who framed the question to Chelsea as an attack from Donald Trump. “Donald Trump has called your dad an abuser of women, and your mom his enabler. What do you think of his attacks on your parents?”

    The phrasing of the question allowed Cosmo to pretend they asked a tough question, while really allowing Chelsea to criticize Donald Trump. And that’s exactly what she did.

    The obvious reason behind this is that political journalists tend to be extremely liberal. They love Bill Clinton so much, they overlook the serious allegations against him (and his settlement with one of his accusers). So while Chelsea Clinton is allowed to attack Ivanka’s father without consequence, she herself is given a pass on her own father’s actions.

    Bill Clinton simply receives special treatment because he has a “D” next to his name. He continues to enjoy broad support from Democrats and is invited to speak at numerous high-profile events and paid lavish speaking fees. No other man accused of rape and sexual assault would be allowed anywhere near a Democratic event.

  116. David Springer

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-media-bombs-dnc-convention/article/2597914

    PHILADELPHIA — There was plenty of news to discuss on the third morning of the Democratic convention at the Wells Fargo Arena here in Philadelphia. There was Bill Clinton’s speech on behalf of his wife. A controversy over Hillary and TPP. The Democrats’ continued downplaying of terrorism as a threat facing America.

    It was all in the daily mix — until about 11:00 a.m., when Donald Trump walked to a microphone for a news conference at Doral, his resort in Miami.

    Trump made news right and left. Questioned about fallout from the DNC email hack, he denied any ties to Russia. He said he would be “firm” with Vladimir Putin, but he wanted Russia’s cooperation in the fight against ISIS and other international matters. He attacked Hillary Clinton over her own email scandal, suggesting the Russians might well have broken in to her system.

    And then Trump said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Clinton] emails that are missing.’

    It was an extraordinary moment. Whatever one’s reaction to what he said, the fact is that in one brief appearance, Trump dominated the news cycle at a time when coverage is supposed to belong to the party holding its convention.

    There used to be an informal agreement among presidential campaigns that a candidate would mostly “go dark” during his opponents’ convention. It wasn’t a matter of courtesy as much as recognition that it would be very hard for an opponent to break through the wall of news coverage devoted to the convention.

    Donald Trump has demolished that conventional convention strategy.

    “Trump has blown up that precedent and inserted himself on an hourly basis into the news cycle during Hillary Clinton’s convention,” said Ryan Williams, an aide to Mitt Romney in 2012, in a phone conversation. “I think that’s a good idea for [Trump]. Why cede any ground at this point in the race? The Trump campaign has successfully utilized free media for the last year and a half to drive his campaign message. Why stop now?”

    In addition to coverage of the Democratic convention, Clinton is also running tens of millions of dollars in ads in key states. Trump is not. Grabbing attention — wresting control of the debate — is key for Trump to stay in front of voters’ eyes.

  117. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-minimum-wage-stance_us_5798d90de4b01180b5311f61?

    One reason the minimum wage plays so well as a political issue is that it’s a pretty simple policy. The federal government mandates a minimum wage that serves as a baseline wage floor for the entire country. Either you want to raise it, or you don’t.

    But good luck figuring out where [Standing Donald] stands on the issue.

    First, some background. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, meaning all U.S. workers covered under the law are entitled to at least that much. But states can set their own wage floors higher than the federal level if they want to, and a majority of them already have. In the states that haven’t, the federal rate of $7.25 prevails.

    The most pertinent question for a presidential candidate is whether he or she thinks the federal minimum wage should be raised. [Standing Donald] has staked out conflicting positions on the minimum wage throughout his campaign.

    Last year, he said in a television interview that a low wage floor isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And in a primary debate, he infamously said that American wages were already “too high,” suggesting hiking the minimum wage would be bad for the economy.

    After those words were used against him to great effect, [Standing Donald] later said that U.S. wages were in fact “too low.” Once he was close to locking up the necessary delegates for the GOP nomination and was presumably shifting his focus to the general election, he said he was “very different” from other Republicans and was “looking at” the idea of raising the minimum wage. “I mean, you have to have something that you can live on,” he said.

    Then, in May, [Standing Donald] said the question of the minimum wage is best left to the states. “I’d rather the states go out and do what they have to do,” he said.

    In case [Standing Donald] hadn’t confused you enough, he managed to muddy the issue even more in the past 24 hours, thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In his Democratic National Convention speech, Sanders said that [Standing Donald] wanted to give states the leeway to set minimum wages even lower than the federal level. As PolitiFact noted, this line appears to be a reference to [Standing Donald]’s statement in May that the issue should be left to the states.

    The logic of Sanders’ statement was sound ― after all, [Standing Donald] said he wants to leave this whole mess to the states. But the Vermont senator took some liberties with the implications. So long as there is a federal minimum wage of $7.25, workers are entitled to earn at least that much, regardless of where a state sets its own wage floor. [Standing Donald] has not called for abolishing the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

    Regardless, the GOP nominee took the bait in an interview on Tuesday night.

    Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly directly asked [Standing Donald] the question that needed to be asked ― not what [Standing Donald] would do with the minimum wage in general, but what he would do with the federal minimum wage in particular.

    [Standing Donald]’s answer spoke volumes. “I would leave it and raise it somewhat,” he responded, managing to pack a whopping policy contradiction into a mere eight words. “You need to help people. I know it’s not very Republican to say. But you need to help people.”

    [Standing Donald] then named a specific number: “I would say $10.”

    But then, seconds later, he was back to foisting this decision onto the states, rather than the federal government.

    “The thing is, Bill, let the states make the deal.”

    The vacillation wasn’t over. In a press conference Wednesday morning, [Standing Donald] seemed to suggest once again that the feds should be boosting the wage floor. He called Sanders “a liar” for his remarks.

    “It has to go up,” [Standing Donald] said. “I would like to raise it to at least $10.”

    There, [Standing Donald] appeared to be saying he would like to raise the federal minimum wage to $10. After all, a president has no say over state minimum wages ― he or she can only raise the federal one, by signing a bill sent from the Congress.

    So, to recap: [Standing Donald] thinks wages are already too high, and maybe a low minimum wage is okay. But he also thinks wages are too low, and perhaps the federal minimum wage needs to go up. Except this is really a question that’s best left to the states, not the federal government. But if [Standing Donald] wins federal office, he would like to see the minimum wage be $10.

    Got all that?

  118. David Springer

    Trump steals the limelight. Again.

  119. Goldwater Donald:

    “Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

    Conservative intellectuals, for the most part, are horrified by racism. When they talk about believing in individual rights and equality, they really mean it. Because the Republican Party is the vehicle through which their ideas can be implemented, they need to believe that the party isn’t racist.

    So they deny the party’s racist history, that its post-1964 success was a direct result of attracting whites disillusioned by the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. And they deny that to this day, Republican voters are driven more by white resentment than by a principled commitment to the free market and individual liberty.

    “It’s the power of wishful thinking. None of us want to accept that opposition to civil rights is the legacy that we’ve inherited,” Roy says.

    He expands on this idea: “It’s a common observation on the left, but it’s an observation that a lot of us on the right genuinely believed wasn’t true — which is that conservatism has become, and has been for some time, much more about white identity politics than it has been about conservative political philosophy. I think today, even now, a lot of conservatives have not come to terms with that problem.”

    This, Roy believes, is where the conservative intellectual class went astray. By refusing to admit the truth about their own party, they were powerless to stop the forces that led to [Goldwater Donald]’s rise. They told themselves, over and over again, that Goldwater’s victory was a triumph.

    • What Donald Trump has done is change the narrative on politics such that current political thinkers have been flummoxed, not really having any sense of where Trump is or will land on any particular political issue.

      Chaos comes to mind. Events not predictable, even from what the past has been.

      More and more the Donald Trump phenomenon reflects the randomness of weather and its devilishly hard to predict two weeks out.

      I believe it is hard to support Donald Trump on the basis of some policy or outline for the future. As in any revolution to the status quo, the sheer unpredictability is both attractive to those who have been on the wrong side of same-old, same-old, and frightening to those who have lots of irons in the fire and certainly don’t want cold water to be poured on the inferno being stoked.

      My guess is that there is so much unknown that we are dealing with a situation of: unknown unknowns. The media has been wrong. Standard politicians have been wrong. There is no way one can travel a pathway that is currently an open, slick, hot tin roof.

      I observe, that people who are uncomfortable with the current array of political types vying for legitimacy, these voters will vote for the candidate who captures their imagination at the last second; i.e., as the voter enters the voting booth. There is not a good way to predict the future outcomes of the November 2016 election.

      Would I want to purchase a house in the Washington DC area, comfortable upon my own election outcome in November, in October, 2016? If I were Hillary or Donald, No Way.

      • What Trump is doing is quite predictable. He’s NOT playing by the rules they are used to and skilled at. Tump is brilliant and I like most of his broad proposals.

      • He may get his talking points for the day simply by brushing his own teeth. What a guy.

      • And BILLARY and her minions are scouring dog-eared copies of Rules for Radicalsfor their next move. So cliche, so predictable.

      • On the one hand, predictable and brilliant. On the other, cliché and predictable. Speaking of predictability:

      • Trump has gotten into the heads of the Democratic politicians, the left wing MSM and the dopes and dupes like Willard who are too naive and gullible to understand that Trump has greater insight into them than they have into him. Day after day he dominates the news cycle. On a day that should be Hillary’s, he makes a carefully calculated off hand remark that is guaranteed to have every left winger take the bait and run. All day they run with his strategy of dominating the news. They do the work for him. They carry his water. He needs no press staff because the Democrats are making more news for Trump than any press relations firm ever could. I saw several Congressmen yesterday say the most absurd things about Trump telling the Russians what to do. Really? They are going to take orders from the Donald? He gave them an idea they couldn’t thought of themselves? Give me a break you moroooons.

        Trump is taking advantage of the loons instincts and illustrating why they are so out of touch with reality. The dogs will be chasing their tails until the first Tuesday in November. The Donald will be sitting there taking it all in with a smug look on his face and smirking with a “I’ve done it again.”

        God, this is fun.

      • David Springer

        ceresco kid writes: “God, this is fun.”

        The most fun is watching the libtard panic because they can’t figure out how The Donald is running even or ahead of Hillary without spending any money and with seemingly everyone from both parties not liking him.

        The answer is simple enough. Both parties are hated by a majority of voters. Bernie Sanders, an independent socialist Jew fercrisakes, was polling far better against Trump than Hillary. Why? Because Bernie wasn’t in bed with either of the major parties and he’s more lovable than The Donald.

        Alas, the Hillary libtards have let her lead them over a cliff.

        They made their bed now they gotta lie in it. Meanwhile Trump can unleash the big guns now that he’s got the weakest Democrat locked down to run against. SO much fun!

      • willard

        Thank you for the link stating that American Presidential political polls are only accurate in the Spring and just before the November election.

        I seem to recall an election some time ago whereby a guy who hadn’t even been elected, yet was President and now was running for President on his own terms. The polls all predicted he would be defeated, and, even the Chicago Tribune gave him the election on the morning after the election.

        He presided over the end of WW II, making the decision to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. He integrated the military. He presided at the very beginning of the “containment” policy, a global strategy dealing with the threat of Soviet and Chinese expansion and ushering in the “Cold War.” His decisions while in his first term of office alienated many portions of the US public having ridden into the Presidency on the coat tails of the previous President. In many ways, he was a sacrificial lamb to the New York political machine, and yet, he won.

        You may say that today’s polling is much more sophisticated and accurate than way back when, and, that is mostly true. What I do recall though, is that polls tend to sample the same-old same-old population and everybody gets the same results.

        The Trump phenomenon has meant bringing into the electorate base groups of voters who, either hitherto have remained on the sidelines or voted in some random way. The Trump trick has been to galvanize and focus such groups.

        I don’t do popcorn as that means just sitting around and watching. I like to get out and exercise every once in a while.

  120. Now wikileaks has released VOICE mail. Lov it. Lov it. Lov it.

    • David Springer

      Not particularly interesting but will certainly have a chilling effect on donors who probably won’t be sending email or voice messages out of fear of them finding their way into the public domain.

      Too funny.

  121. VIDEO: Leon Panetta speech at the DNC
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/27/leon_panetta_today_donald_trump_took_russias_side.html

    LEON PANETTA: In some very dangerous corners of the world young Americans are standing guard. Our brave military…are on the front lines, far from home, risking their lives for us, for our freedom, for our way of life. The president, the comander in chief, has no greater resonsiblity than the decisión to send our troops into harms way…

    And I can tell you this, that in this election, there is only one candidate for president who has the experience, the temperment and the judgment to be comander in chief, and that is Hillary Clinton….

    We need a president…who enters the oval office with…the trust of our troops who know that she will always have their back. That president is Hillary Clinton….

    Only today Donald Trump, let me point out something that just happened today, today once again took Russia’s side. He asked the Russians to interfere in American politics… It is inconceivable to me that any presidential candidate could be that irresponsible.

    I say this out of a firm concern for my children and grand children, Donald Trump cannot become commander in chief… We cannot afford someone who believes America should withdraw from the world….

    The American dream that we’ve all been a part of has been defended in every generation by the brave men and women willing to fight and die for America. They are our greatest national treasure, and they deserve a serious comander in chief. If we care about them, if we care about our security, if we care about our freedoms, if we care about the American dream, there is only one choice, Hillary Clinton for president of the United States.

    There is a huge, glaring hole in Panetta’s narrative, however. And that is that our “brave military,” “the brave men and women willing to fight and die for America,” “our greatest national treasure,” very much disagree with Panetta. By a margin of well over a 2-to-1, they favor Donald Trump for president:


    Poll conducted July 5-8, 2016

    • David Springer

      Yeah every man in the military dreams of being commanded by his grandmother.

      What the phuck is wrong with people like Panetta? He can’t possibly be that stupid so he must be a L I A R. Who exactly does he think is going to believe that horseshi.t issuing from his pie hole?

  122. There is no reason to ban guns, trucks, or kitchen knives, What we have to ban is terrorists!!! From the article:

    Recent terrorist attacks have been low-tech, and that’s a problem

    New rash of attacks are less professional than huge assaults in Paris, Brussels

    Key Islamic State operatives have been either killed or captured

    Trend toward low-tech attacks may mean heading them off will be harder

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article92169982.html

  123. The Grandest Old Donald:

  124. VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi: Hillary Clinton Struggles With White Men Because Of “Guns, Gays, And God”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/27/nancy_pelosi_hillary_clinton_struggles_with_white_men_because_of_guns_gays_and_god.html

    And I think that, so many times, white — non-college-education — educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.

    What a seething hatred for white, working-class men Pelosi harbors.

    Can you imagine what the reaction to such sweeping racist and classist generalizatons by a promient politican would be if they were made against black men?

    And Pelosi’s stigmatization and vilification of working-class white men is based on lies. It has no factual basis.

    Take abortion, for instance. Polls show that race has no effect whatsoever on one’s views on abortion.

    Nor does gender;

    And college education makes only a small difference:

    • When it comes to same-sex marriage, blacks are significantly less favorable to it than whites:

      And when it comes to gun control, college education makes little difference.

      How do promient politicians like Pelosi get away with remarks like this that are so blatantly racist, sexist and classist?

    • David Springer

      Pelosi doesn’t get it. Hillary is struggling because she’s a corrupt, incompetent, beltway establishment stooge. If it weren’t for a rigged primary and establishment super-delegates in the tank for Hillary, Bernie would have cleaned her clock and Bernie probably would have vanquished Trump too in the general. Hillary is the nominee for the simple stupid reason that it’s her turn. She’s the senior apparatchik on deck. This was the way the Republicans tried to do it too. It was Jeb Bush’s turn. It was supposed to be Jeb instead of George in 2000 but George bullied his way into a better position by becoming governor of Texas over his family’s objections.

      Get used to President Trump. If he doesn’t screw up too badly he’ll be leader of the free world for the next 8 years.

    • David Springer

      Standard libtard hate. Rewording of Obama’s description of flyover state residents “they cling to guns and religion”.

  125. David Springer

    Trump has 9% advantage among veterans and voting members of veteran households.

    https://morningconsult.com/2016/05/26/poll-veterans-much-prefer-trump-clinton/

    There’s 20 million of us veterans alone and we all phucking vote because we’re patriotic bastards if nothing else.

    I suspect the margin is far higher for just the vets alone exclusive of their wives. The margin for just the veterans is likely to mirror active duty IMO.

    Trump beats Hillary 54% to 25% among active duty military.

    http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05/09/military-times-survey-donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton/84132402/

    Remember what caused John Kerry to lose the race to George Bush?

    Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. We’re going to put Trump in office not some decrepit cr00ked old woman. Bank on it.

  126. David Springer

    Scott Adams’ thoughts on the libtard convention:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148050318231/selling-past-the-close

    Selling Past the Close
    Posted July 27th, 2016 @ 9:48am in #trump #Clinton

    I’ve been watching the Democratic National Convention and wondering if this will be the first time in history that we see a candidate’s poll numbers plunge after a convention.

    On the surface, the convention is going great. Michelle Obama made a speech for the ages. Bill Clinton was his masterful self. Bernie gave a full-throated endorsement of Clinton. The whole affair has been a festival of inclusiveness. The media is eating it like cake. All good, right?

    That’s how it looks on the surface. And if you’re already a Clinton supporter, it probably looks great all the way down.

    But if you’re an undecided voter, and male, you’re seeing something different. You’re seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished. And it’s happening in an impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men. Men get to watch it all at home, in homes designed and built mostly by men, thanks to the technology that was designed and built mostly by men. I mention that as context, not opinion.

    I agree with Michelle Obama’s gratitude about Clinton’s success so far, and how the country now “takes it for granted that a woman can be president.” That’s a big, big deal, and an accomplishment that you can never take away from Clinton, no matter how it all ends. I would argue – as did Michelle Obama – that Clinton already removed the glass ceiling. Now it’s just a question of who the voters prefer.

    And that brings us to a concept called “Selling past the close.” That’s a persuasion mistake. Clinton has already sold the country on the idea that a woman can be president. Sales experts will tell you that once the sale is made, you need to stop selling, because you have no chance of making things better, but you might give the buyer a reason to change her mind.

    Obama understood how to avoid selling past the close. At some point during Obama’s first presidential election campaign the country mentally agreed that an African-American could be their next president. So Obama accepted the sale and talked about other stuff. If he had dwelled on race, and his place in history, he would have risked making things worse. So he stayed quiet on race (mostly) and won. Twice.

    Clinton is taking a different approach. As Michelle Obama said, we now take for granted that a woman can be president. That sale is made. But Clinton keeps selling. And that’s an enormous persuasion mistake.

    I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I’m fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that’s not even a little bit of an exaggeration. Science says men’s testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act.

    Let me say this again, so you know I’m not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country. Literally, not figuratively. And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the Democratic convention is making men feel less happy. They might not know why they feel less happy, but they will start to associate the low feeling with whatever they are looking at when it happens, i.e. Clinton.

    On the 2D playing field – where policies and facts matter – the Democratic National Convention is doing great. And when it comes to exciting women, it might be the best ever. But on an emotional level – where hormones rule – men have left the building…that they built.

    For the record, I endorse Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California where it is dangerous for people to think you are a Trump supporter. My political views don’t align with either candidate and I don’t vote, in order to protect my objectivity.

    • All I have to say is f**k the man-haters.

    • For the record, I endorse Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California where it is dangerous for people to think you are a Trump supporter.

      Democracy Mobocracy in action.

      Perhaps next, California will repeal the secret ballot.

  127. David Springer

    Biggest Lie of All. Listen carefully to the last few words.

  128. David Springer

    Refresher on who Hillary is chumming around with today:

    • Wow!

      What a clear-eyed and objective analysis. No wonder, Obama “banned” the video.” What a brave patriot you are, David, to risk your freedom to post it.

      Oh, and after watching that video, I may be as scared now as you are. Tell me, did you use poured concrete or cinder block for your shelter?

  129. David Springer

    A warning from decades ago. Still applies today.

  130. David Springer

    Donald Trump just got Hillary to admit the 30,000 emails she illegally deleted as “personal not government” actually were government matters. Trump yesterday (and now famously) asked Russia if they could locate those deleted emails because America sure would be interested in what’s in them.

    Well then the libtards all started yelling treason. That the Donald asked a foreign power to hack US government communications.

    Well, no. Hillary claimed those 30,000 emails were personal not government. So Trump asked Russia for personal email not government email. He laid a simple trap and they fell into it. Plus he stole the news cycle for a day (maybe more) during the Democratic National Convention and didn’t pay a dime for the all the media exposure.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/27/donald-trump-just-got-hillary-clinton-to-admit-her-e-mails-are-a-national-security-issue/

    • David Springer said:

      Well then the libtards all started yelling treason.

      Trump’s Republican opponents in the primary tried playing the PC (patriotically correct) card too. How did that work out for them? And if it didn’t work with the Republican base, just how do the Democrats believe it will work any better in the general?

      It just goes to highlight the great chasm that exists between ruling elite and the masses.

      • It just goes to highlight the great chasm that exists between ruling elite and the masses.

        The masses (that are the prize of this election) has evolved into 2 main groups, one group thinks peace, will get us peace. the second group things that peace, while the desired end state, will not be achieved with more peace, but has always required an iron fist.
        So far in human history there have always been barbarians willing to kill to become the king. About 2/3rds the planet rose above this, but it is not a natural state, entropy will tear it down, and in fact there are many in that 2/3rds who want to tear it down themselves, but most of those people live in the fantasy world of no barbarians, they fail to understand when it comes down, there isn’t going to be anything left to keep the barbarians out, but maybe more barbarians.

      • micro6500 said:

        The masses (that are the prize of this election) has evolved into 2 main groups, one group thinks peace, will get us peace. the second group things that peace, while the desired end state, will not be achieved with more peace, but has always required an iron fist.

        Maybe so. The masses may have succumbed to the bane of rationalism — polarizing a continuum. This, however, begs an interesting question: Do you believe the masses had any help from elites in coming to such an unrealistic conclusion?

        There do exist, however, and in spite of what our current crop of foreign policy “experts” tell us, other foreign policy options that fall somewhere between pacivism and _________ [fill in the blank with liberal internationalism, neoconservatism, or those who believe that the United States is “the indispensable nation.”]

        There is, for instance, the Christian or moral realism that guided U.S. foreign policy from soon after WWI up until the advent of the Vietnam War. Then there is the amoral realism, or realpolitik, that came to dominate U.S. foreign policy from the advent of the Vietnam War up until 1989, when the Soviet Union imploded.

        Maybe it would be advisable to return to realism in foreign policy, and put the quietus to the idealism of __________________ [fill in the blank with liberal internationalism, neoconservatism, or those who believe that the United States is “the indispensable nation.”]

        My preference would be for Christian, moral realism.

      • Do you believe the masses had any help from elites in coming to such an unrealistic conclusion?

        You mean the (well almost) entire post-secondary education system?

        We have bases around the world at places we defeated, that we provide additional national security for. We should have never left Iraq.

    • The masses have had their fill of permanent war. They’re sick and tired of it.

      Robert Kagan, the neocon ideologue whose wife Victoria Nuland engineered our intervention into Ukraine, bemoaned the “world wearniness” of Americans when we didn’t go into Syria. “Abdicating our obligation to lead the planet” is how Kagan described America’s “folly” when it opted out of another ground war in the Middle East.

      “That was the stiking moment,” Andrew Bacevich said, when “every day citizens,” who “would be more likely to view things realistically, pragmatically and would not be swayed by theological or ideological considerations,” began holding Obama accountable. And hold him to account they did.

      Somehow, however, Cinton Inc. didn’t get the message. She immediatley jumped on the band wagon of neocons attacking Obama for refusing to put boots on the ground in Syria. This incident serves to highlight just how tone deaf and disconnected from the great unwashed Clinton is.

      Bacevich is a veteran of 23 years in the US Army, including service in Vietnam. He graduated from West Point and teaches history and international relations at Boston University. In 2007, he lost his only son, who was 27 years old, in the Iraq War.

      He did a great interview a couple of years ago with Bill Moyers:

      VIDEO: Andrew Bacevich — Chaos in Iraq
      http://billmoyers.com/segment/web-extra-chaos-in-iraq/

      BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you that at a time when our country can’t stop the killing of children in Chicago or prevent homegrown terrorists from attacking schools with their own private arsenals or cope with the chaos on the border with Mexico or rebuild our broken bridges and highways that there is still this cadre, this body, this community of people who believe we can police the Middle East?

      ANDREW BACEVICH: They’re deluded. And I think the point implicit in your question is a very good one. Our power is limited. What are the priorities? And there are domestic priorities that are achingly ignored. And yet are arguably far more amenable to solutions than anything in the greater Middle East. So where you want to spend your money? I think we’d be better off spending some of that money in Muncie, Indiana than in Baghdad.

      BILL MOYERS: Back when you published “The Limits of Power” you had hope that the lessons we would learn from Iraq, the financial crash, the great recession that followed would lead to a wakeup call. That we would turn around, turn in a better direction. Things would take off in the right direction. What happened to that hope?

      ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, it was not fulfilled. There certainly were signs of political change on the left and on the right. The Occupy movement on the left, the Tea Party on the right. But both of those were marginalized I think by the political center, Republican and Democrat which is deeply invested in maintaining the status quo.

      Because the Republican party and the Democratic party are supported by, integrated with, a set of structures – whether we’re talking about the National Security bureaucracy or Wall Street – that views change as a threat to their own well-being. And thus far, those proponents of the status quo have succeeded. They’ve gotten their way.

      • They’re sick and tired of it.

        Be that as it may, that will not stop people from killing them, and it isn’t limited to the mideast.

    • Apparently, the libtard MSM have forgotten Obumbles whispering to Putin what he could do for Putin AFTER he was re-elected.

    • If you do the math, 30,000 emails, 1 minute to compose and send, 500 hours total time, forty hour weeks equals twelve and a half weeks of work. It was a big wedding however…

  131. Donald Trump got higher billing on CBS Evening News last night than the Democratic National Convention.

    The guy’s a political genius, the way he was able to steal the thunder of the Democrats on their big day.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/727-baltimore-drops-cases-against-freddie-gray-cops-als-ice-bucket-challenge-pays-off/

  132. David Springer

    Pretty shiitty what they did to Tim Kaine. I almost felt sorry for the little worm then remembered he’s a little worm and deserves to be treated like something icky stuck to the bottom of one’s shoe.

    • Image making as the one and only holy grail of politics.

      It’s looking like it’s going to take a little bit more than that, however, to save Killary.

  133. QUOTE: 16 Years Ago, William F. Buckley said the following about Depths of Self-Enchantment Donald:

    Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Depths of Self-Enchantment Donald. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Depths of Self-Enchantment Donald were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Depths of Self-Enchantment Donald say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

    http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/07/24/16-years-ago-william-f.-buckley-wrote-donald-trump-eerily-accurate/

  134. QUOTE: 16 Years Ago, William F. Buckley said this on Cynical Demagogy Donald

    In the final analysis, just as the king might look down with terminal disdain upon a courtier whose hypocrisy repelled him, so we have no substitute for relying on the voter to exercise a quiet veto when it becomes more necessary to discourage cynical demagogy, than to advance free health for the kids. That can come later, in another venue; the resistance to a corrupting demagogy should take first priority.

    http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/07/24/16-years-ago-william-f.-buckley-wrote-donald-trump-eerily-accurate/

  135. 50 YEARS LATE NEWSIE: The racist Southern Strategy has guided Republican electoral politics for decades — Denying Donald’s rise has exposed it

    It took four days of unrepentant hate, bigotry, and fear mongering that culminated with [Denying Donald]’s noxious coronation speech in Cleveland for some in the American news media to finally concede that the Republican Party in 2016 is the United States’ largest white identity organization. They are surprised by what is obvious; the American news media is 50 years late in acknowledging what has been clear for decades.

    Why is this?

  136. David Springer

    Trump at 47.4% in LA Times daily tracking poll yesterday. He’s heading towards a majority. This is significant as he has never in the past been able to rise above 44% in general electorate. Meanwhile Cr00ked Hillary Rotten Clinton has plummeted to 40.1% which is a new low for her in general election matchup against Trump.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html

    Dems are in a panic. Spending upwards of 40 times more than the Trump campaign and they can’t even stay even with him. Amazing.

  137. David Springer

    Nate Silver’s NOW cast gives Trump 55% chance of winning if election were held today.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

    Just 3 weeks ago it gave Clinton an 80% chance of winning.

    July has been very, very good for The Donald. He’s got the momentum in his favor. Personally I believe it’s his kids taking over the campaign organization. Dad, we love you but… as far as being your own campaign manager… you’re fired. LOL

    • Hey Big Dave, not sure why you’d preach the use of AdBlocker not to see my stuff while suggesting that teh Donald would have to invent me, but hey, you’re the IQ here. Here’s what you’ve been missing:

      The double bind between “but libtard panic” and “what’s up with poll” is kinda neat, however. In an uncanny way, but still.

      • David Springer

        He wouldn’t need to invent you, per se. I was careful to qualify that it was “people like you, only important people not picayune anonymous blog cowards”. You’re insignficant but people who are out of the closet in positions of authority who hold similar views are significant.

        Given your insignificance, and mine too for that matter, it’s more fun to observe how I can change your behavior through your vanity.

        Now use your words or you don’t get to hear what I think about your drivel. Hop to it, boy.

      • > Now use your words or you don’t get to hear what I think about your drivel.

        That’s just so brilliant, Big Dave, that even the logic escapes me. Think about it: I’ll hear about your drivel, but only if I use words so that you can read me. You should sell IQ injections, perfume, something.

        I could grok your “I only mean people like you but not really like you because them are significant,” however. It’s incoherent, but at least I can understand that you’re proposing some kind of hand bag fight.

        How interesting, Big Dave. Please do continue.

        Here, have some Decomposing Jack-O-Lantern Donald:

      • Donald Trump’s appeal to Russia shocks foreign policy experts

        This just points out the really, really stupid people.
        Or they are completely biased, I think most are stupid, but will accept some exceptions.

        Here, let me explain why.

        FBI Directory Comey testified to Congress that these 33,000 emails were irretrievable, to the FBI’s best ability they are gone forever.

        Now, those among us that know what the NSA does (which does BTW include Hillary) monitoring internet traffic, and saving a copy of it on their big hard drive. Every bit of clear data coming across both oceans, in or out of the US is saved. They likely also have other places they do this.remember them complaining about ISIS using encryption, and that they can’t read it, that is data that they collect, but since it’s not in clear text it takes them time to open it up, if they want to see the contents.
        So Hillary was sending all those emails all over the internet, while in Russia, China, wherever, her phone used the open internet to send clear text email, all of that mail went through the entry points the NSA records. Any that didn’t happen to go through there, all it had to do is touch any internet router that is being monitored. Now, we’d be fools to think the NSA only has those few points we know about, so they have more of them, and those likely recorded the rest of her emails. But for security purposes they won’t tell the public any of this. And in fact one of the classified Hillary emails was about her acknowledgement of some such government program actually existing as described and was made classified because of it. So anyway, it’s likely the NSA has most of these deleted emails.

        But isn’t it also likely that the Russians, Chinese, many nation states don’t do the same, both here and in spots around the world. We probably do.

        The deleted emails aren’t any where they can be hacked from, yet we know as a minimum the NSA has a copy of most of them, and there are any number of copies else where. But they can’t tell us, that’s what Snowden decided to do.

        So how can Donald incite espionage for data that was completed deleted off the only hard drive the data was said to exist on, gone, not even enough bits on the disk to put humpty dumpty together again. What would Russia hack?

  138. David Springer

    Hey Creepy Willard, what’s up with Trump’s rising poll numbers and Hillary cratering? You incessantly post the reasons why he shouldn’t be successful yet he is hugely successful when taking into account he has the lead, his campaign is being outspent 40:1, and a vast array of political fixtures from both sides of the aisle are enthusiastically berating him at every opportunity.

    Let me know when you need the reasons explained to you. In the meantime keep up the bad work. It’s actually people like you, only important people who aren’t picayune anonymous blog cowards, who are behind Trump’s meteoric unexpected rise to the top. If you didn’t exist Trump would invent you.

  139. I’m watching Leon Penetta claim Trump was asking Russia to commit espionage, he isn’t an idiot, so he must be a disingenuous liar. Because it should be obvious that there is no place to hack, or so we have been told, but these emails have been deleted.

    The only way Russia would have them in the first place is because our Secretary of State violated multiple security violations and made all of the missing “personal” emails, as well as all of the State Dept secrets put at risk on her server.

    If I’d done any of this when I had my clearance I would have lost my clearance, my job, and likely my freedom, and been ruined for life.
    Hillary is trying to become President. She should be in jail. And we have a long list of supposedly the brightest politicians standing up cheering her on! What does that tell you about those people?

    You know, I truly didn’t think they were this corrupt, I mean yeah, I knew they played the gray area, but I never expected this, I really didn’t.

  140. mosomoso said:

    Even Australia was a remote part of England’s Great Game with Russia as far back as the 18th century.

    Maybe not so “remote” any more. Straight from RT:

    Is war inevitable in the South China Sea?
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/353532-war-south-china-sea-us/

    The strategic geopolitical centrality of the South China Sea is well known: A naval crossroads of roughly $5 trillion in annual trade; transit sea lanes to roughly half of global daily merchant shipping, a third of global oil trade and two-thirds of all liquid natural gas (LNG) trade.

    It’s also the key hub of China’s global supply chain. The South China Sea protects China’s access to the India Ocean, which happens to be Beijing’s crucial energy lifeline. Woody Island in the Paracels, southeast of Hainan island, also happens to be a key bridgehead in One Belt, One Road (OBOR) – the New Silk Roads. The South China Sea is strictly linked to the Maritime Silk Road….

    [H]ardcore action will keep everyone’s juices flowing. The Pentagon, predictably, won’t refrain from its FON (Freedom of Navigation) program, which has recently featured several B-52 overflights in the South China Sea along with the usual US Navy patrols.

    But now Beijing is counter punching in style – showing off one of its H-6K long-range nuclear-capable bombers overflying Scarborough Shoal, near the Philippines. That only increased Pentagon paranoia, because the real game in the South China Sea revolves to a large extent over China’s aerial and underwater military strategy….

    From the start, the whole Chinese miracle always depended upon China’s eastern seaboard’s fabulous capacity to engage in global trade. More than half of China’s GDP depends on global trade.

    But, strategically, China has no direct access to the open seas. Geophysics is implacable: there are islands all around. And geopolitics followed; many of these are and can become a problem.

    [A]ll of Beijing’s actions boil down to securing strategic access to the opens seas. This may be construed in the West as aiming for a “Chinese lake”. But it’s in fact about securing its own naval backyard. And that implies, predictably, deep suspicion about what the US Navy may come up with. The Defense Ministry loses sleep about it 24/7.

    For Beijing, it’s crystal clear; the eastern seaboard must be protected at all costs – because they are the entry and exit point of China’s global supply chains. Yet as Beijing improves its military sophistication, the hegemon – or exceptionalist – machine gets itchier and itchier. Because the whole ingrained exceptionalist worldview can only conceive it as a “threat” by a peer competitor.

    From Exceptionalistan’s point of view, it’s all about the myth of “access”. The US must have full, unrestricted “access” to the seven seas, the base of its Empire of Bases, post-Rule Britannia system: the “indispensable nation” ruling the waves….

    China now can not only protect, but also project power, aiming ultimately at unrestricted access to the Pacific.

    The US counter punch to all this is “Anti-Access”, or A2, plus Area Denial, which in Pentagonese turns out as A2/AD. Yet China has evolved very sophisticated A2/AD tactics, which include cyber warfare; submarines equipped with cruise missiles; and most of all anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the Dongfeng 21-D, an absolute nightmare for those sitting duck billion-dollar US aircraft carriers.

    A program called Pacific Vision, funded by the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessments, eventually came up with the Air-Sea Battle concept. Virtually everything about Air-Sea Battle is classified. As the concept was being elaborated, China has mastered the art of very long range ballistic missiles – a lethal threat to the Empire of Bases, fixed and/or floating….

    So these are the stakes. The indispensable nation’s military hegemony over the whole South China Sea must always be undisputed. Always. But already it is not. China is positioning itself as a cunning, asymmetrical aspirant to “peer competitor”. For the moment Beijing ranks second in the Pentagon’s list of “existential threats” to the US. Were not for Russia’s formidable nuclear power, China would already be number one.

    At the same time China does not need to launch any military offensive against an ASEAN member; it’s bad for business. The environment after The Hague’s ruling – as the Laos summit proved – points toward long-term diplomatic solutions. But make no mistake; at some point in the future, there will be a serious confrontation between the US and China over “access” to the South China Sea.

    • Most of the article you copied is crap. There has been a group in the Navy arguing that the Dongfeng 21-D is a game changer. It isn’t. Nor is it the “nightmare” described. What it is is the latest in a long line of boogymen the services trot out to get funding.

      The Chinese still lack the ability to stop US subs from roaming wherever they please. The latest version of the Ageis / Standard weapons system has proven capability to intercept ballistic missiles. And that would be the backup defense. In a conflict with China the US would target and take out command & control facilities, then launch sites, rendering the supposed nightmare a toothless dragon.

      • David Springer

        +1

        For a squid, you’re okay. You can be my bus driver anytime.

      • timg56 said:

        Most of the article you copied is crap.

        There’s that “fiercely combative neoconservative style” that Norman Podhoretz “did much to create and define,” as Andrew Bacevich explains in The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War.

        That style emphasized not balance (viewed as evidence of timidity) or the careful sifting of evidence (suggesting scholasticism) but the ruthless demolition of any point of view inconsistent with the neoconservative version of truth, typically portrayed as self-evident and beyond dispute.

      • Thanks.

        I’ll refrain from reminding you that Marines don’t ride submarines. But I’ll drive for a jarhead any day.

      • Glenn,

        Besides letting us know what Andrew Bacevich’s views are, what is your point?

        Care to show where I am advocating for a particular policy or strategy? Unable to tell the difference between that and a description of capabilities? You posted an article, apparently relying on the knowledge of the author. I simply pointed out most of it was bogus and why. Understanding what our armed forces are capable of does not imply that they should be actively exercising those capabilities. I am well versed in what a US submarine can (and cannot) do. Whether or not I think we should have a half dozen parked off the coast of China is something I have not commented on. I am somewhat informed on the capabilities of an Airborne Infantry battalion, since a nephew deployed in commanded of a paratroop company. An admiration of those capabilities and the men they reside in says nothing towards what my opinion may be about when, where or how often they should be deployed.

      • timg56,

        So according to you, China cannot project power regionally. That means that China cannot project power across the Pacific Ocean to the shores of the United States.

        China threatening the American homeland is therefore completley out of the question. And if that’s so, what’s the strategic interest of US intervention in the region?

        And for that matter, what’s the strategic interest of US intervention in Europe? In Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq?

        The U.S. commitment to global domination since the Cold War ended — turning the world into one big battlefield — has had huge costs and brought few benefits for the American people.

        The various wars America has fought since 2001 will probably end up costing a staggering $4–6 trillion.

        The enormous amount of money spent on defense since September 11 has contributed significantly to America’s huge national debt, which is now approaching $20 trillion. That debt has been a major drag on the American economy and promises to be so for a long time to come.

        There are also major opportunity costs associated with all the money spent pursuing global dominance. Some of the trillions of dollars wasted on preparing for and fighting unnecessary wars could have been spent instead on education, public health and transportation infrastructure,
        just to name a few areas on the home front where additional resources would have made the United States a more prosperous and livable country

        It’s time for the United States to give up on the idea of world domination, and get its own house in order.

      • Glenn,

        You are starting to get tiresome and Josh like at the same time. You continuously put words in my mouth. For example”

        “So according to you, China cannot project power regionally. That means that China cannot project power across the Pacific Ocean to the shores of the United States. ”

        Show me where I said that. I was addressing specifically the argument of China’s capability to deny the ability of the US to operate freely within a certain area. That is the position of some in the Navy. A position I clearly said was overblown in my opinion. Instead of reading into others motives you tried listening, you might notice I could be in agreement with some of your positions. It is obvious you are passionate against the US playing world cop and involving itself all over the globe, at a high cost. I’ll admit to being ambivalent to it. But it is also obvious that having a discussion about it with you is a waste of time, since you have convinced yourself you already know what my thoughts are and that I’m wrong.

      • timg56,

        Phew, it’s hard to pin you down.

        So what’s the US’s strategic interest in the South China Sea?

        Why should the US intervene in this region? Or should it intervene in this region?

  141. I love it, the way Trump upstaged the Democratic National convention yesterday.

    And he knows exactly what he’s doing:

    Trump walks back dare for Russia to hack Clinton email
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/donald-trump-walks-back-dare-for-russia-to-hack-hillary-clinton-email/

    “And by the way, that’s a lot of cameras going on considering we have a Democratic convention,” Trump said yesterday as he overlooked a sea of televsision cameras in Toledo at one of his two swing-state rallies.

    Clinton is out of her league. For Trump, it’s Ali’s famous rope-a-dope all the way.

    • David Springer

      Trump barely managed to keep a straight face when he said if Russia was listening the FBI could use a copy of the 33,000 deleted emails.

      He also laid a land mine with reference to Putin using the “N word” and not Putin not having any respect for Obama. The press itself has associated “nuclear” as the “N-word” when it comes to Putin. But in the best master of persuasion form Trump left it up to the audience to associate the wrong word – “you know the one, right?”. If they fell for it, which some did, then he gets to take the moral high ground in telling them to get their minds out of the gutter of identity politics and onto the real business of why Russia is a serious existential threat.

      Good analogy to Rumble in the Jungle by the way. Trump dances like a butterfly and stings like a bee for sure. Combine that with an iron chin and he can just let opponents punch themselves out then he steps in for the knockout punch against a spent opponent. I love George Foreman but he isn’t exactly a smart man and Ali was brilliant. Rope-A-Dope indeed. Perfect analogy.

  142. Danny Thomas

    For those more conspiracy oriented. Indications are their may yet be more to come: ““What does make a difference is political accountability, a general deterrence set to stop political organizations behaving in a corrupt manner,””

    “Despite all the focus on the anti-Bernie activities and pro-Hillary sentiment in the DNC emails, Assange believes the real story lies in the financials of the party. “That has the real core, the financial core, of the power structure and the exercise of monetary influence over the DNC,” he said. “And that’s something that’s going to seed journalistic investigations for years.””

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/assange-trump-clinton-terrible/

  143. Just wanted to offer thanks to Glenn, David, jim, tim, et al.

    For showing their admiration of Trump:

    For supposedly not being a politician.

    While demonstrating what they consider to be remarkable political skill.

    In manipulating the press.

    Which they think is biased against Trump.

    And which they think is a tool used by “the elites” to manipulate the common folk.

    And which keeps the common folk distracted from important issues.

    Because politicians won’t focus on issues of substance.

    And instead focus on utilizing the biased media to distract the common folk.

    ————

    That kind of logic is truly a work of art and a thing of beauty, boyz.

    • David Springer

      Trump is an outsider. His political skills are unsurpassed, obviously, but since he has never held an elected office before he isn’t a politician in the strict sense of the word.

      The press is a tool in more than one sense of the word. Trump is taking advantage of their highest priority, which certainly isn’t good journalism but rather good Nielsen ratings.

      So Trump says or does something outrageous once every few days and never runs out of material. The press can’t help themselves and give him exactly what he wants in huge helpings – exposure. Then he makes them all look silly, insults them, and still they can’t help it.

      I call that the Howard Stern strategy. Trump didn’t invent it but another New York entertainer perfected the art. Whether you love him or hate him you can’t stop paying attention to him because you don’t want to miss what he’s going to say next.

      Everyone with two or more brain cells working in unison realizes what he’s doing yet his opponents remain helpless in the face of it. He vanquished a field of 16 professional politicians in the primary with ease, had fun doing it, and spent very little money to get it done. Hillary doesn’t stand a chance. Several of Trump’s defeated opponents were better than her on the podium and better connected to money and political power. Jeb Bush not the least among them and Jeb wilted like a cut flower in the hot sun.

      Trump might not be change you can believe in but if you don’t believe he’s an agent of change you’re asleep at the wheel.

      • David –

        He’s an elitist, cynically exploiting a sensationalist press for self-advantage and political expediency. As a matter of principle, that is what makes politicians unworthy of respect even if their ultimate policy goal is laudible.

        An “outsider” or an insurgent or a “non-elitist,” or a non-conformist, would be perfectly capable of eschewing such political strategies.

        There are many people who disagree with me about policy but who earn my respect…but I find it amusing when people willingly go along with a con because that’s the only way they can reconcile their support for a candidate.

        If you sorry support Trump’s policies, even though they are all over the map (and largely antithetical to Cruz’s, who you also supported), so be it. But I find ity amusing that you need to be a toady in the process.

      • David Springer

        How is Trump an elitist?

      • David Springer

        I acknowledge the possibility that Trump may be running a con. I discount that for the most part because I don’t see what he has to gain from it. He’s spending virtually every waking hour on this effort and he could be doing virtually anything else from playing golf to building a hotel on the moon. If he’s running a con then I’ve been duped.

        The crux is that I am certain Hillary is running a con. Hillary supporters are thus certain chumps. What choice does that leave me with?

        You may of course argue that I’m wrong about Hillary and I’ll just counter that I’m not and you’re probably wrong about Trump. Time will tell.

      • He is a publicity hound. Publicity helps his brand. Branding helps his business. It’s all about business, not really about America. He didn’t expect to get this far, and is still trying to lose as hard as he can by the look of it. At 70, he is an old dog and won’t be learning any new tricks, like how to be a President or even boning up on the necessary aspects of economics, foreign affairs or politics that the normal routes to the Presidency provide.

    • Dumba$$ can’t help himself.

      “For showing their admiration of Trump:” – ok, I may be guilty of this one. The guy is starting to row on me.

      “For supposedly not being a politician.” – must be thinking of someone else (or making it up), as I’ve never said anything about Trump not being a politician.

      “While demonstrating what they consider to be remarkable political skill. In manipulating the press.” – again another topic I haven’t weighed in on. I would point out that it could also be stated as a public relations skill, i.e. manipulating the press. Guess trump wouldn’t know anything about that.

      “Which they think is biased against Trump.” – I believe the only comments I’ve posted on this score was with relation to how the media portrayed the Nevada Democratic caucaus and the mini-riot in S Cal at a Trump rally. Both of which were pretty blatant in the spin they gave.

      “And which they think is a tool used by “the elites” to manipulate the common folk.” – right now the biggest tool is the one I’m responding to.

      “And which keeps the common folk distracted from important issues.” – note to Josh, most people, common or otherwise don’t need help being distracted.

      “Because politicians won’t focus on issues of substance.” – could be because said issues don’t get them elected. Of course that belief could be coming back to bite them this election cycle.

      Damn, I wish I had your penetrating intellect. Oop’s, my mistake. That’s just the sharp point on your head.

      • David Springer

        Depleted uranium skull with fluffy marshmallow filling.

      • Dave,

        That seems to be a description of Jim D. At least the depleted uranium skull part. Josh isn’t worth the effort to describe, at least not beyond the one word description of putz.

  144. From Stephen Colbert to Stephen Colbert, Wurd Donald:

    • David Springer

      He’s still on the air? Amazing. I lost track of the has-been when he stopped following Jon Stewart. For me he was kind of like “I’m already in front of the TV and have nothing better to do”. Will he try to repeat his Super-Pac schtick again do you think?

      It must be kind of grating to have John Oliver, who was created on The Colbert Report, be getting higher viewer ratings now.

  145. Cases tossed against cops in Freddie Gray death
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/cases-tossed-against-cops-in-freddie-gray-death/

    State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby assails police, pledges to pursue reforms
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-mosby-dropped-charges-20160727-story.html

    JEFF PEGUES: Four trials and no convictions. The cases against the officers did not hold up in court. On Wednesday, this city’s top prosecutor was unapologetic as she tried to explain why these trials aren’t going forward.

    TOP PROSECUTOR MARILYN MOSBY: The judge, who is within his right [and who also is black], has made it clear that he doesn’t agree with the state’s theory of the case.

    We do not believe that Freddie Gray killed himself….

    What we realized very early on in this case was that police investigating police, whether they’re friends or merely their colleagues, was problematic… A reluctance and obvious bias was consistently exemplified — not by the entire Police Department, but by individuals within the Police Department, at every stage of the investigation.

    Without real substantive reform to the criminal justice system we could try this case a hundred times, and cases just like it, and we would still end up with the same result….

    We’ve all borne witness to an inherent bias that is a direct result of when police investigate themselves….

    We still are grateful for the opportunity to show the world the reality of the justice system from start to finish….

    IVAN BATES (defense attorney): When you do not do an investigation, and run there, and you quickly want to automatically say that these officers are guilty because they’re the pólice, you perpetrate the fear that is already there and that is dividing our country.

    Police Commissioner Kevin Davis. Davis, who as a deputy commissioner last year oversaw the task force investigation, defended the police’s work in a statement, saying more than 30 “ethical, experienced and talented detectives worked tirelessly to uncover facts.”

    “Our police officers and detectives work with the state’s attorney’s office every day to bring solid cases against criminals who seek to harm others and attack our quality of life,” Davis said. “It’s an inherently strong relationship that can not and will not miss a single beat. We will continue to work together. That’s what we do.”

    The Baltimore police union called Mosby’s comments “outrageous, uncalled for and simply not true.” Former Police Commissioner Anthony Batts called Mosby “immature, incompetent and vindictive.” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said the prosecutions were “disgraceful” and Mosby “ought to prosecute herself.”

  146. Hoisted from Comments: Can We Even Know Who Hacked the DNC Emails?
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/hoisted-from-comments-can-we-even-know-who-hacked-the-dnc-email.html

    It is with relief that we turn from last week’s Democrat narrative — that Trump is a fascist — to this week’s narrative[1]: That the DNC email hack is proof that Trump is a Russian agent of influence.[2]…

    And it’s always useful to be able to convert one’s opponents to enemies by accusing them of treason, especially in an election year.

    However, in this short post I want to focus on a much narrower question: Can we ever know who hacked the DNC email? Because if we can’t, then clearly we can’t know the Russians did. And so I want to hoist this by alert reader JacobiteInTraining from comments:

    Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum)….

    Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point.

    So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!

    The whole episode reminds me of the Sony hack, for which Obama also blamed a demonized foreign power. Interestingly — to beg the question here — the blaming was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean). Look! A clue!….

    There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I’d bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they’d be stupid not to.

    Now, I’m not saying the Israelis did it. I’m saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.

  147. Virginia Governor Says He Trusts Hillary Clinton to Betray Voters, Sign the TPP
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/mcauliffe-clinton-doesnt-really-oppose-the-tpp.html

    [L]ast night, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe set a new standard for terrible spokespersonship. At a convention where a rogue faction of Bernie Sanders delegates refuses to believe in the authenticity of Hillary Clinton’s concessions to the left, where delegates for both candidates tend to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the chant “No TPP” is peppered through all proceedings, McAuliffe decided to reassure voters Tuesday night that Clinton secretly supports the trade agreement and will sign it with minor tweaks as soon as she gets this election thing over with.

  148. The best time for the hacker to release the 33,000 emails would be as Billary accepts the nomination.

  149. [Deport Donald] Trump Hates Immigrant Labor, Except When It Saves Him Money

    Now that [Deport Donald] has based a good deal of his presidential bid on hating illegal immigration and the labor force that comes with it, though, will that reliance on foreign labor change in 2016? No, no it will not.

    BuzzFeed reported on Wednesday that Mar-a-Lago Club and the nearby [Deport Donald] National Golf Club, Jupiter, are seeking to fill 78 server, housekeeper, and cook positions with foreign laborers under H-2 guest worker visa applications because [Deport Donald]’s organizations claim they couldn’t find Americans to do the work.

    Just since his presidential run began a little more than a year ago, in fact, BuzzFeed reports that [Deport Donald] has gotten permission from the Labor Department to hire 149 other foreign guest workers, again under the auspices that there aren’t enough qualified American workers available to do the jobs.

    Why is it so hard to find a qualified American cook, housekeeper, or server in southern Florida? [Deport Donald]’s businesses argue that these are temporary jobs and that American workers are looking for something more permanent.

    • David Springer

      How many hearts and minds do you think you’ve changed so far?

      I can’t speak for anyone else but you changed mine. I started out against Trump if you’ll recall. But America, which includes me, loves an underdog. So as more and more people started hating on The Donald he became more and more the underdog.

      That’s the secret sauce that libtards like you don’t understand. It’s why Hillary is spending buku dollars on negative advertising in battleground states and the result is that Trump is polling better the more she spends.

      Crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. ~Albert Einstein

      Hillary is crazy and so are you, Creepy Willard. ROFL

      • How many people have you convinced to use AdBlocker, Big Dave?

        Your change of heart is duly noted. My own interpretation of it is that you’re a contrarian at heart. Fess it – you’d vote for anything or anyone except Hillary.

        I’m not sure the exceptionally mightiest nation in the world likes an underdog as much as you say. In doubt, reread the last sentence slowly.

      • David Springer

        >How many people have you convinced to use AdBlocker, Big Dave?

        Dunno. At least one other here mentioned using it. AK I think.

        “Your change of heart is duly noted. My own interpretation of it is that you’re a contrarian at heart. Fess it – you’d vote for anything or anyone except Hillary.”

        If by that you mean that I’ve already made up my mind I’m not pulling the lever for Clinton then you’re right. Nothing she can do will erase what I know about her. In 2012 I voted libertarian because I couldn’t stand Romney and I made that decision early too because my unmistaken belief was he was a dull establishment tool in a cult religion who made a living as a vulture capitalist.

        “I’m not sure the exceptionally mightiest nation in the world likes an underdog as much as you say. In doubt, reread the last sentence slowly.”

        Review this list and get back to me:

        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underdogs%20in%20movies

        The reason you’re not sure is you’re so odd and creepy you can’t relate to normal humans nor communicate very well with them. And that’s a fact, Jack.

      • > At least one other here mentioned using it.

        Since I also was using memory hog way before it was cool, Big Dave, I doubt AK did not know about it. There’s very little tool that can do the same. Using it for Judy’s is just plain silly.

        ***

        > If by that you mean that I’ve already made up my mind I’m not pulling the lever for Clinton then you’re right.

        Finish that sentence, Big Dave – I’m right that your sudden change of heart is pure crap to cover for your unwavering contrarianism.

        Nobody but you is responsible for your contrarianism, and just about anything can fuel it.

        Whether you write using your real name or not, Big Dave, you’re still almost as phony as your new idol.

        ***

        > Review this list […]

        Films, Big Dave. Teh Donald’s not a movie.

        If you can’t understand that one does not simply play both the omnipotent winner who’s always right and the underdog at the same time, there’s no number of boxes of fake IQ certificates that will cover for it.

    • David Springer

      The Donald plays by the rules. Just because someone plays by rules doesn’t mean they approve of the rules or wouldn’t change the rules if they had the opportunity to change them. Duh.

      • > The Donald plays by the rules.

        Sure, Big Dave:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html

        Among his 3,5K court cases should emerge a pattern of behavior.

        Dodgy Donald plays by the rulz.

      • David Springer

        Let me know how many where he was found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants or breaking laws regarding the import of goods from foreign countries. Someone with an empire like Trump’s and pockets that deep has a target painted on their back for lawsuits. The number of them means nothing. The number of convictions of criminal behavior would mean something. How many of those, dummy?

      • David Springer

        Let me know how many where he was found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants or breaking laws regarding the import of goods from foreign countries. Someone with an empire like Trump’s and pockets that deep has a target painted on their back for lawsuits. The number of them means nothing. The number of convictions of crimina1 behavior would mean something. How many of those, dummy?

  150. Between 2009 and Last May, John Scalzi Donated More to Charity than [DonorSearch Donald] did. Admittedly that didn’t take much.

    By the early 2000s, [DonorSearch Donald] had recovered from his financial troubles, returning to the public eye as a different kind of mogul. More than ever, [DonorSearch Donald] himself was the product: He was selling his name on products from TV shows to steaks to high-rise condominiums throughout the country.

    Again, [DonorSearch Donald] needed an explanation for why he needed the money.

    “You’re getting paid over a million for your show,” radio host Howard Stern said to [DonorSearch Donald] in 2004, when [DonorSearch Donald] was first hosting “The Apprentice.”

    “Oh, a lot more than that,” [DonorSearch Donald] said.

    “You’re getting paid over $2 1/2 million!” Stern said.

    “Yeah, I don’t do it for that,” [DonorSearch Donald] said. “I’m giving the money to charity.” He named AIDS research and the Police Athletic League. That year, [DonorSearch Donald]’s foundation appears to have given $1,000 to AIDS research and $106,000 to the Police Athletic League.

    As the years passed, [DonorSearch Donald]’s promises tended to become less and less specific. He often said he was giving to “charity” without specifying a group or a broader cause.

    In at least one case, [DonorSearch Donald] didn’t say anything about donating the proceeds until two years after the transaction occurred.

    When Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi visited New York in 2009, [DonorSearch Donald] rented him space for a huge tent at an estate [DonorSearch Donald] owns north of the city. He said nothing about giving the proceeds to charity.

  151. With his speech last night, you could give the President his due. He hit at least a double.

    “For most of the rest of us, there was the shoulder shrug and the sense of awe that someone (the President) could walk through the most unwelcome vindictive job experience in history, on the largest stage, and still articulate a vision of what America could become with something like grace.”

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/obamas-dnc-speech-his-last-wink-out-the-door-w431430

  152. Search the DNC email databaseSearch the DNC email database

    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

  153. jonestownbreakdown

    Here’s another one, which calls for the blame to be placed on the Democrats for the Rise of Trump: https://jonestownbreakdown.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/orwell-strikes-again/

    • When Trump did his bit about the time being past for political correctness, the people made wild animal noises, celebrating Trump’s call for racism and bigotry to be socially acceptable again.

      It’s people who could say something like that who are really responsible for Trump’s success.

      • AK

        Do you have the same problem as me regarding access times? Revisiting this thread or refreshing now takes around 3 minutes on a relatively modern laptop. My Ipad refuses to connect to it. Consequently it is a bit of a pain to come and read new comments

        I guess the problem is the numerous graphics people keep posting.

        I think keeping Trump stuff on its own dedicated thread is a good idea and either ban pointless graphics or renew the thread every 300 comments or so.

        tonyb

      • I timed it.

        On my laptop, which uses a land-line internet connection, it takes 36 seconds for the page to load.

        On my Iphone 6s, which uses a 4G connecton, it takes 31 seconds.

        And I’m in backwards Mexico.

      • @tonyb…

        It certainly has loading problems. I’m running (many) multiple tabs on Firefox, Windows 7&8.1, and once I set it to reload I usually go to another tab.

        It doesn’t take all that long to load, but once it appears loaded, when I come back and actually look at the page it starts jumping around: there’s a bunch of stuff that doesn’t load till I look at it. Then, when I click on part of the text, it jumps around some more.

        I’m running adblocker on this machine (no, I haven’t blocked Wilbur), and I also set the flash plugin to ask before running (highly recommended for security reasons), and that reduces the problem somewhat. But not completely.

        I suspect it’s the Twitter imbeds that are causing the problem, although it might also be some of the Youtube imbeds.

      • David Springer

        It takes over 30 seconds on my machine which is a 2016 Dell desktop with lots of memory, quad core processor, etc. The internet connection is a 50 megabyte/second cable modem which is a bit faster than a good 4G mobile data link. Currently on a full page refresh Adblock Plus is refusing 141 spam posts which as far as I know all belong to Creepy Willard.

        I emailed Curry this morning asking her to please do something about Creepy Willard’s abuse of this blog and put up a new presidential thread. It’s the second or third time I’ve asked and I copied these complaints into the email. She’s usually pretty responsive about it. Willard should be on his way to moderation and a new presidential thread coming along very soon.

      • Tony,

        Yes. Not like your experience. It’s along the lines that Glenn mentions, about a half minute or more.

        Apparently Glenn is fine with us spending that amount of time each time we want to load a thread or comment on it. He must be retired.

      • AK,

        It’s people who could say something like that who are really responsible for Trump’s success.

        Some Americans need to learn from mistakes it seems, and we can be slow about it too: after all, we elected Dubya to a second term.

        Try to appreciate the double-bind you’re setting up — say nothing and let the thing happen uncontested, or say something and galvanize the base (dual meaning intended) by appealing to their feelings of persecution and overly developed sense of oppression. I see this strategy as rather contrary to the Brave New World the Real Donald is attempting to create for us — one that is bereft of cowering political correctness and plausibly deniable dog whistles. Blaming his popularity on the liberal MSM’s moral outrage is rather like telling one’s mother that the Playboy magazine she found under your mattress is the neighbor kid’s, and you were just keeping it for him. It doesn’t work.

        Either stand up and be counted, or better yet, listen to the buzzing noise you’re attempting to ignore by transferring the responsibility for Trump’s nomination onto his opposition.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I wouldn’t argue crime as the primary motivation for eliminating the huge influx of unskilled labor. I’d argue supply and demand. If we had less unskilled labor they would be more valuable and less likely to need assistance. The wall would pay for itself and the beneficiaries would be the lowest paid citizen employees.

    • Either stand up and be counted, or better yet, listen to the buzzing noise you’re attempting to ignore by transferring the responsibility for Trump’s nomination onto his opposition.

      That wasn’t my point.

      Talking “about the time being past for political correctness” is laudable; “political correctness” is an obscenity that needs to be ended as quickly as possible.

      Those people who equate a call for getting rid of this obscenity with a “call for racism and bigotry to be socially acceptable again” are exactly the sort of people who stimulate good, moral, Americans to vote for Trump over anybody with any tolerance for it.

      Most Americans know the difference: it’s a huge one. (Some don’t care, and will vote for the likes of Hillary.)

      • AK,

        Those people who equate a call for getting rid of this obscenity with a “call for racism and bigotry to be socially acceptable again” are exactly the sort of people who stimulate good, moral, Americans to vote for Trump over anybody with any tolerance for it.

        Good moral Americans who think racism and bigotry are obscene will hopefully recognize that Trump doesn’t share their values from all the times he hasn’t encoded it. OTOH, perhaps my liberal eyes are only reading what I want them to read:

        I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.

        The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.
        It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.

        I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.

        Perhaps you can explain to me how The Donald plans to abolish vulgar euphemism from the public lexicon because I’m not seeing it. Bonus points if you can tell me how he intends to make crime vanish on Inauguration Day.

      • David Springer

        brandonrgates is bigoted against bigots and racist about white racists.

        Got it. I suppose there’s some minimum amount of cognition required before cognitive dissonance can manifest itselt and our boy Brandon doesn’t rise above that bar.

      • brandonrgates is bigoted against bigots and racist about white racists.

        I don’t exactly love black racist bigots either. He’s Muslim to boot … it’s a two-fer! Another of my tolerance failings is that I’m not too keen on rapists and murderers. It vexes me, Springer, it really does.

      • Good moral Americans who think racism and bigotry are obscene will hopefully recognize that Trump doesn’t share their values from all the times he hasn’t encoded it.

        I can’t agree.

        I haven’t seen much evidence that Trump considers “racism and bigotry […] obscene”, but I’ve seen no evidence at all that he doesn’t.

        Like most of the speeches in this (and every) election, I regard almost all of it as boilerplate, intended to push the buttons the candidate(s) want(s) to push.

        Perhaps you can explain to me how The Donald plans to abolish vulgar euphemism from the public lexicon because I’m not seeing it.

        I doubt he’s talking about abolishing it from the lexicon. What he would appear to be talking about is the “politically correct” refusal on the part of “progressives” to recognize the true nature of Islamic fanatics (and Islam in general), crime and lawlessness in the inner cities, political corruption, etc.

        These are the sorts of things that the term “politically correct” encodes, along with the constant and disgusting bullying that goes on in the name of “liberalism”.

        Bonus points if you can tell me how he intends to make crime vanish on Inauguration Day.

        That seems clearly to me to be sheer metaphor.

      • ==> one that is bereft of cowering political correctness and plausibly deniable dog whistles. ==>

        Which is what’s so amusing about his political campaign, which is full if “political correctness” (i.e.- the hand wringing about “happy holidays”)and plausibly deniable dog whistles (i.e., re-tweeting white supremacists), yet is supported by so many who pearl clutch about political correctness.

      • Trump defines himself by who he praises instead of condemning. He praises authoritarians, alive and dead ones, instead of condemning their effect on their countries. He praises Is!s for their execution atrocities rather than condemning them and even says America should be more like them in that area. His version of “PC” is defined by the people he refuses to explicitly condemn, and what he therefore implicitly accepts that civilized people don’t. Words matter, and words not said also matter in these cases. It is his form of PC not to utter them. They say he speaks his mind. Pay attention to things like this that he doesn’t say too because that shows what he considers to be acceptable behavior.

      • Trump defines himself by who he praises instead of condemning. He praises authoritarians, alive and dead ones, instead of condemning their effect on their countries.

        I need to see a link to where Trump praises authoritarians. Not some ly1ng journalist saying he did, but show me the actual quote of his praise. Actual praise, not the sort of respect any sensible human would give even a tiger, or a plague bacillus.

        I’m from Missouri. Show Me!

      • AK,

        I haven’t seen much evidence that Trump considers “racism and bigotry […] obscene”, but I’ve seen no evidence at all that he doesn’t.

        Part of the dispute here may be that you and I hold differing definitions of what constitutes bigotry.

        Like most of the speeches in this (and every) election, I regard almost all of it as boilerplate, intended to push the buttons the candidate(s) want(s) to push.

        I don’t mind judging Trump by what he panders to.

        I doubt he’s talking about abolishing it from the lexicon.

        I didn’t think that’s what he was driving at either, which is why I provided the exact quote with context.

        What he would appear to be talking about is the “politically correct” refusal on the part of “progressives” to recognize the true nature of Islamic fanatics (and Islam in general), crime and lawlessness in the inner cities, political corruption, etc.

        My assessment is that Hillary has a pretty good handle on the nature of murderous jihadists. Apparently her sin is that, unlike Trump, she doesn’t extend her condemnation to the entire religion and all its adherents. It’s Trump’s sweeping extension which I consider to be the bigotry component.

        These are the sorts of things that the term “politically correct” encodes, along with the constant and disgusting bullying that goes on in the name of “liberalism”.

        You just implied that all Muslims are terrorists in embryo, if not there already. Perhaps that’s not really what you meant, but that’s how I’m reading “Islam in general”. As such, your bawwing about “constant and disgusting bullying” is pretty much falling on deaf eyes.

        That seems clearly to me to be sheer metaphor.

        One hopes. It follows a not uncommon theme; here’s another example:

        In December, on the campaign trail in Raleigh, North Carolina, Trump stoked fears in his audience by repeatedly saying that “something bad is happening” and “something really dangerous is going on.” He was asked by a 12-year-old girl from Virginia, “I’m scared—what are you going to do to protect this country?”

        Trump responded: “You know what, darling? You’re not going to be scared anymore. They’re going to be scared.”

        In essence, “Leave it to me, everything will be ok. Trust me, you’ll love it.”

      • Danny Thomas

        Daddy’s home. Everything will be just fine.

        So 1950’s.

      • I got into fracas at The Blackboard with Brandon and others that, simplified, Muslims are changing the culture and societies in Europe. I see he persists in his losing arguments WRT Islam.

        It is perfectly rational and Constitutional to severely limit immigration from Muslim countries. Our duty in fact, until we figure out how to assimilate them to USA culture and maintain our way of life.

        There is zero bigotry in that.

      • jim2,

        I see he persists in his losing arguments WRT Islam.

        Unilaterally declaring victory always inspires credibility.

        It is perfectly rational and Constitutional to severely limit immigration from Muslim countries.

        You raise an interesting Constitutional question. I cannot think of any Constitutional imperative to allow immigration from *any* country.

        Our duty in fact, until we figure out how to assimilate them to USA culture and maintain our way of life.

        If cultural assimilation involves abandoning Islam in favor of … something else … we have a First Amendment problem. Otherwise, it’s difficult to judge either the rationality or Constitutionality of your argument because you offer nothing but implicit assertion that Muslim immigrants have some special and wholesale difficulty figuring out for themselves how to peacefully coexist with their new American neighbors.

        There is zero bigotry in that.

        Like I was telling AK, there may be differing definitions of what constitutes bigotry going on here. While I could see the appeal of all my neighbors holding liberal political views, being agnostic as to the question of Supreme Beings and speaking white middle class American English, I’m more than content for them to not commit crimes against my property or person, not otherwise disturb the peace, and to pay their fair share of taxes.

        Except for the whole being here illegally technicality, by those metrics, undocumented Mexican immigrants make for pretty good neighbors. Yes, even on paying taxes. Unless one is also anti-Catholic, what’s not to love?

        I’m not sure at what point run of the mill xenophobia becomes bigotry, but vague “perfectly rational” appeals to cultural assimilation might be a good hint.

      • stevenreincarnated

        “A comparison of the 2000 census and government estimates shows how difficult it is to draw conclusions about immigrant criminality. Results from the 2000 census imply that only about 4 percent of prisoners in jails and prisons are immigrants (legal and illegal), but the new ICE estimates show it is 20 percent. What’s more, an audit by an outside firm of eight million inmate records paid for by ICE found that about 22 percent of inmates are immigrants. But questions remain regarding all of these numbers.”

        http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

        “In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.”

        http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

        I’d say the numbers are in dispute.

      • Part of the dispute here may be that you and I hold differing definitions of what constitutes bigotry.

        Bigotry is what “political correctness” is all about. Basically, anybody who doesn’t hew the socialist/”liberal” line is a “racist”, or a “bigot”, or a “denier”, or some other demonizing buzz-work that can let “politically correct” “social justice warriors” and their dupes out of having to actually think about issues.

        My assessment is that Hillary has a pretty good handle on the nature of murderous jihadists.

        Then you’re living in a dream world.

        Apparently her sin is that, unlike Trump, she doesn’t extend her condemnation to the entire religion and all its adherents.

        Her sin is that she refuses to recognize that murderous Islamic fanatics exist. Along with most of her “politically correct” establishment.

        You just implied that all Muslims are terrorists in embryo, if not there already. Perhaps that’s not really what you meant, but that’s how I’m reading “Islam in general”.

        A very large number of them are. Anybody who considers suicide bombing matter of conscience, who wouldn’t report a neighbor who became radicalized and was preparing.

        How would you feel about a Fundamentalist Christian neighborhood who failed to report somebody getting ready to bomb an ab0rtion clinic?

        Islam needs a reformation. The unreformed version(s) have no place in the modern world. Just as unreformed versions of Christianity have no place in the modern world.

        Christianity had its Reformation, and a violent and bloody business it was. Islam’s is likely to be similar, and there’s no reason civilized parts of the world should tolerate becoming involved.

        As such, your bawwing about “constant and disgusting bullying” is pretty much falling on deaf eyes.

        Nope.

        It’s falling on eager eyes, and ears, of Trump supporters. (Not mine, but the point is that as long as the “social justice warriors” and their fellow travelers continue their bullying, the Trumps will continue getting votes and other support.) You can go into denial as much as you want, but most Americans know the truth.

      • If Islamic governmental and societal laws violate our own, then they either have to obey our laws or not come here at all. Their laws are not compatible with ours.

        I would also suggest all immigrants be required to learn English within a year and study American History from our point of view for a year. Also, pledge allegiance to our country, memorize our founding documents, and to obey our laws and only our laws.

      • AK,

        Basically, anybody who doesn’t hew the socialist/”liberal” line is a “racist”, or a “bigot”, or a “denier”, or some other demonizing buzz-work that can let “politically correct” “social justice warriors” and their dupes out of having to actually think about issues.

        Basically, anybody who censures you for expressing opinions with which you don’t agree is a bigot. Yet you have no problem demonizing *entire groups* for holding opinions with which you do not agree. Perhaps we might more easily come to an agreement on the definition of “hypocrisy”.

        Her sin is that she refuses to recognize that murderous Islamic fanatics exist.

        Next time you lecture me on living in a fantasy world, I will remember this comment and chuckle. Witness her comments on Orlando:

        Hillary Clinton said Monday she’s not afraid to say “radical” Islam as she countered attacks from Donald Trump that she’s too politically correct to use the phrase.

        “From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say,” Clinton said on CNN’s “New Day.” “And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. I have clearly said we — whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing.”

        […]

        In her appearance, Clinton also was quick to link the attack to the terror organization.

        “This was a terrorist attack. ISIS appears to be claiming credit for it, whether it had anything to do with it or not — at a minimum, they seem to have inspired it,” Clinton told host Chris Cuomo.

        And Clinton took a veiled swipe at Trump, who has proposed temporary banning Muslims from entering the United States, for targeting Muslims in his campaign rhetoric.

        “What I won’t do, because I think it is dangerous for our efforts to defeat this threat, is to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion,” she said. “That plays right into ISIS’ hands.”

        For me — personally — a key component of the dividing line (which is fuzzy) between disapproval and bigotry is extending the sins of a few bad actors to an entire group. That’s not strictly necessary, however. I think it’s possible to exhibit bigotry by extending an individual’s alleged wrongness on a single issue to their entire person, e.g., “You’re a murderous and barbaric idiot because you support the death penalty.” If I must use such loaded language, better to depersonalize the message and instead say, “The death penalty is a barbaric practice which does more to punish the innocent living than the condemned transgressor.”

        A very large number of them are.

        Teh Goggle tells me that as of 2010 there were an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I could randomly toss out some small percentages and still argue that a “very large number” of that number are violent extremists and proto-terrorists.

        I could also point out that the number of people murdered by terrorists *world wide* in 2014 is on par with the number of people killed in automobile accidents in the US alone. The rate of growth is disconcerting, especially since there’s been an uptick in the death toll on US soil. But as a threat to US lives on US soil, it ranks well below simply driving to work every day — as does the risk of being murdered for any motive.

        Anybody who considers suicide bombing matter of conscience, who wouldn’t report a neighbor who became radicalized and was preparing.

        Providing definitions is appreciated; providing facts to go with them would be better.

        How would you feel about a Fundamentalist Christian neighborhood who failed to report somebody getting ready to bomb an ab0rtion clinic?

        Same as I would about an atheist neighborhood who failed to report somebody getting ready to bomb a megachurch. Not that any neighborhoods in any US city with which I’m familiar are so neatly segregated, mind.

        […] the point is that as long as the “social justice warriors” and their fellow travelers continue their bullying, the Trumps will continue getting votes and other support.

        No. You get to decide whether to plead victim status or own your opinions. Blaming others for Trump gives them power over you, and is a sign of weakness, not strength.

      • jim2,

        If Islamic governmental and societal laws violate our own, then they either have to obey our laws or not come here at all. Their laws are not compatible with ours.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “societal laws”, but I’ve already covered governmental laws: While I could see the appeal of all my neighbors holding liberal political views, being agnostic as to the question of Supreme Beings and speaking white middle class American English, I’m more than content for them to not commit crimes against my property or person, not otherwise disturb the peace, and to pay their fair share of taxes.

        I would also suggest all immigrants be required to learn English within a year and study American History from our point of view for a year. Also, pledge allegiance to our country, memorize our founding documents, and to obey our laws and only our laws.

        Except for memorizing our founding documents (something that not even natural born citizens are required to do), the current requirements are in line with what you suggest:

        The ability to read, write and speak ordinary English unless they are physically unable to do so due to a disability such as being blind or deaf, or suffer from a developmental disability or mental impairment. Those over 50 years old on the date of filing who have lived here for a total of at least 20 years after admission as a permanent resident and those who are over 55 and have been legal permanent residents for at least 15 years are also exempt from this requirement.

        A basic understanding of the fundamentals of US history and government. There is an oral test that covers fundamentals of US history and government and it is required for naturalization.

        Good moral character and an affinity for the principles of the US Constitution. Good moral character is reflected in the applicant’s behavior before applying for US citizenship. Good moral character is demonstrated by paying taxes and having a clean criminal record, for example, and is an important part of qualifying for naturalization.

        Aside from the English language exemptions, the requirement is actually stronger than the one you propose. Oh, and then there’s this:

        Responsibilities

        To become a U.S. citizen you must take the Oath of Allegiance. The oath includes several promises you make when you become a U.S. citizen, including promises to:

        • Give up all prior allegiance to any other nation or sovereignty;
        • Swear allegiance to the United States;
        • Support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States; and
        • Serve the country when required.

        U.S. citizens have many responsibilities other than the ones mentioned in the Oath. Citizens have a responsibility to participate in the political process by registering and voting in elections. Serving on a jury is another responsibility of citizenship. Finally, America becomes stronger when all of its citizens respect the different opinions, cultures, ethnic groups, and religions found in this country. Tolerance for differences is also a responsibility of citizenship.

      • stevenreincarnated,

        I’d say the numbers are in dispute.

        As demographic statistics often are. So we can either appeal to emotion and prejudice or use our noodles. I think it’s safe to assume that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are NOT here to deal drugs, but to peacefully (albeit not legally) participate in the legitimate labor market. There’s some basis in fact for this; there’s a good correlation between the estimated number of undocumented immigrants and the strength of our domestic economy. Thus, the average undocumented immigrant has a particular incentive to be otherwise law abiding, knowing that contact with law enforcement for even something as trivially illegal as a broken tail light could lead to deportation.

        There’s the interesting, and NOT isolated case, of children born on US soil to undocumented immigrant parents — they’re natural-born citizens by law. One might suppose that they lack the same incentive to avoid trouble with the law as their parents, and thus more likely to break them. And in this case, one is probably correct by the numbers I’ve seen; second- and third-generations of first-generation immigrants *are* less law-abiding than their (grand-)parents.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Brandon, I don’t know what numbers you’ve seen. I saw the link you supplied but since I don’t have a subscription it told me nothing other than the headline of the article. What study were they using?

      • stevenreincarnated,

        I saw the link you supplied but since I don’t have a subscription it told me nothing other than the headline of the article. What study were they using?

        In the WSJ article you mean? (I don’t have a subscription either, but I guess they give me few free reads per month). Here are the citations used in the WSJ article:

        http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/criminalization-immigration-united-states

        http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/myth-immigrant-criminality-and-paradox-assimilation

        http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_ImmigrantsCrimeJTF.pdf

        https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2005/2005-19

        I’ve not read all of them in their entirety.

        The figures I saw about second- and third-generation children of immigrants having a higher crime rate (other than the crime of being an undocumented immigrant) comes from research I read years ago and can’t now find. It’s consistent with what the first link says …

        Immigrants are Less Likely to be Criminals Than the Native-Born

        … which in terms of self-interest makes a lot more sense to me than the alternative.

      • stevenreincarnated

        My link addresses the census based studies. I’m surprised you don’t see the obvious problem with them. While at the same time you think they fear to commit crimes because they are here illegally, you would have to believe they have enough faith in our government to admit to strangers they are here illegally.

        The one study, which I didn’t read in its entirety because I saw what I was looking for, compares education level. The average education level in Mexico is 8th grade. I don’t think I need to explain the problems of this comparison.

        ICE estimates are probably closest to right and that indicates a much higher crime rate than native born citizens.

      • stevenreincarnated,

        While at the same time you think they fear to commit crimes because they are here illegally, you would have to believe they have enough faith in our government to admit to strangers they are here illegally.

        The Census only happens every ten years, and it’s easy to avoid being surveyed at all. When one is motivated to avoid gummint contact, well ….

        ICE estimates are probably closest to right and that indicates a much higher crime rate than native born citizens.

        This subthread began with you writing: I’d say the numbers are in dispute.

        Which I acknowledged. The concluding paragraph of the reference you cited says:

        In conclusion, we find that it would be a mistake to assume that immigrants as a group are more prone to crime than other groups, or that they should be viewed with more suspicion than others. Even though immigrant incarceration rates are high in some populations, there is no clear evidence that immigrants commit crimes at higher or lower rates than others. Nevertheless, it also would be a mistake to conclude that immigrant crime is insignificant or that offenders’ immigration status is irrelevant in local policing. The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime. This indicates that there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement agencies to determine the immigration status of offenders and to work with federal immigration authorities.

        I can agree with that (non-)conclusion based on the arguments presented. What I cannot agree with is the argument that we need an expensive wall across our southern border to solve a crime wave that does not demonstrably exist (other than the crime of being here illegally itself). I’d think that money would be better spent on local law enforcement against *all* classes of criminals.

        Fear-based policy-making can be disastrously expensive and ineffective when the factual basis is dubious. Or so I’ve been told more times than I can count.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I replied but it fell at the end of the string above.

      • stevenreincarnated,

        I wouldn’t argue crime as the primary motivation for eliminating the huge influx of unskilled labor.

        Me either … I think the crime angle is a non-starter. Makes a good campaign sound-bite, however.

        Looking at crime on a purely ethnic/racial basis, blacks clearly the issue in terms of per-capita rate … and the vast majority of blacks are native-born: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.png

        The article in which that graphic appears offers some cautions interpreting these data:

        Arrests and sentencing

        A 2011 study which examined violent crime trends between 1980 and 2008 found that racial imbalances between arrest and incarceration levels were both small and comparably sized across the study period. The authors argued that the prior studies had been confounded by not separating Hispanics from Whites.[29] Another recent study in 2012 raises a different concern, showing that Hispanics and blacks receive considerably longer sentences for the same or lesser offenses on average than white offenders with equal or greater criminal records.[30][31]

        […]

        Race and socioeconomic status

        While there is a correlation between blacks and Hispanics and crime, the data imply a much stronger tie between poverty and crime than crime and any racial group, when gender is taken into consideration.[55] The direct correlation between crime and class, when factoring for race alone, is relatively weak. When gender, and familial history are factored, class correlates more strongly with crime than race or ethnicity.[56][57] Studies indicate that areas with low socioeconomic status may have the greatest correlation of crime with young and adult males, regardless of racial composition, though its effect on females is negligible.[56][57] A 1996 study looking at data from Columbus, Ohio found that differences in disadvantage in city neighborhoods explained the vast majority of the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites,[58] and a 2003 study looking at violent offending among juveniles reached similar conclusions.[59]

        I’d argue supply and demand.

        Oh good because that’s where I was going next with this.

        If we had less unskilled labor they would be more valuable and less likely to need assistance. The wall would pay for itself and the beneficiaries would be the lowest paid citizen employees.

        Sensible argument on the face of it, but you’re a long way from demonstrating that the wall would pay for itself on that basis. For one thing, it’s not just building the wall that is costly, but maintaining it. Plus capturing and deporting those who still get through. (Note also: the canonical estimate is that 40% of undocumented immigrants are visa overstays.) Googling “number of illegal immigrants in US” spits out 11.4 million. The labor force is … call it 150 million. So even if all undocumented immigrants were working (they aren’t), we’re talking about taking away 7.6% of the labor force at the outside. Pew puts it at 5.1% as of 2015. That *is* a pretty sizable chunk, and would certainly be expected to create some upward wage pressure.

        How much? I haven’t a clue. How that would ripple through the entire economy is a very difficult question for me to answer. All the same arguments which apply to artificially raising the minimum wage by legislation would seem to apply here as well.

        Going back to your “huge influx of unskilled labor” argument, we should probably quantify what huge means. The Pew article I cited showed the percentage of population by time since from 2.9% in 1995 to a peak of 6.9% in 2007, followed by a steady decline to 5.6% through 2014.

        In keeping with supply and demand, one way to make illegals go away on their own is to simply make the economy suck.

        I kid of course, but for a purpose. The major problem with poverty and welfare in this country is not cheap labor inside our borders, but cheap labor *outside* our borders. This wall-building talk is a simple-sounding and quite incomplete (read: ineffective) solution to something that isn’t the main problem — which I think is a shrinking middle class due to manufacturing and professional jobs being outsourced overseas.

        That said, I’m all for public funds being used for building/repairing/maintaining *useful* infrastructure. Like roads, railways and bridges. I can kill two birds with one stone here: instead of getting an unemployment check as a reward for making the phone calls and doing the paper work, the able-bodied instead get a summons to report to a pothole repair crew for twenty hours per week. That’s not a dole, it’s a job.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Walls aren’t all that expensive. They are often just fences. Lots of countries have them.

        The difference between a natural increase in wages from supply and demand and an artificial one is that obviously you aren’t putting people out of work with one of them.

  154. Here’s a voice from the left, from a former Sanders supporter. He is not happy with Clinton’s red-baiting, nor with her extreme hard turn to the right to appeal to “Hillary Republicans.”

    Clinton’s cynical political calculation is that the number of “Hillary Republicans” she will gain by embracing the most extreme right-wing planks of the Republican platoform will outnumber the Sanders supporters she will lose by rejecting the causes he once championed. In addition, the “Hillary Republicans” have deep pockets, and Hillary is going for the money.

    Michael Hudson: Obama Said Hillary Will Continue his Legacy – and Indeed She Will!
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/michael-hudson-obama-said-hillary-will-continue-his-legacy-and-indeed-she-will.html

    Leading up to Monday’s Democratic Party convention, Hillary chose Blue Dog Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia as her VP. This was followed by the Wikileaks release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) e-mail files showing it acting as the Clinton Campaign Committee….

    The response across the Democratic neocon spectrum, from Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post [Jeff Bezos Post] to red-baiting Paul Krugman [New York Carlos Slim Times] and the Sunday talk shows it was suggested that behind the Wikileaks to release DNC e-mails was a Russian plot to help elect Trump as their agent….

    The attack on Trump was of course aimed at Sanders.

    At first it didn’t take off. Enough delegates threatened to boo DNC head (and payday-loan lobbyist) Debbie Wasserman Schultz off stage if she showed her face at the podium to gavel the convention to order. The down-note would have threatened the “United Together” theme, so she was forced to resign….

    The Democratic machine orchestrated a media campaign to distract attention by attributing the leaks were to a Russian plot to undermine American democracy (as if the e-mails did not show how undemocratic the DNC had operated in stacking the primaries).

    A vote against Hillary would be a vote for Trump – and a vote for Trump would really be for Putin. And as Hillary had explained earlier, Putin = Hitler. The media let it be known that attacking Wasserman Schultz – and by extension, Hillary’s neocon policies – makes one a Russian dupe. This theme colored the entire convention week.

    Endorsing Hillary’s presidential bid on Monday evening, Sanders joined in the chorus that this November will pit Good against Evil… Wall Street Senator Chuck Schumer went on TV to heave a sigh of relief that the party was indeed united together.

    Many Sanders’ supporters felt no obligation to follow his obeisance. Many walked out after he closed Tuesday’s state-by-state roll call by throwing his support behind Clinton. Others chanted “Lock Her Up”.

    The potential “Hillary Republicans” who are turning away from Trump – whose ranks include Mike Bloomberg, the neocon Kagan family (Robert and Victoria Nuland) and William Kristol – far outnumber the Sanders supporters who may stay home or vote for Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket. Hillary sees more votes (and certainly more campaign contributions and future “speaking fees”) from the Koch Brothers, George Soros, Wall Street, Saudi Arabia and the corporatist Chamber of Commerce….

    They are going after the money – whose chief providers are Wall Street, neoliberal corporatists and New Cold War neocons….

    Bernie’s campaign targeted Wall Street and corporate deregulation (the essence of TTP and TTIP) as the key to the One Percent’s monopolization of income and wealth since Obama’s post-2008 sacrifice of the economy on the altar of rescuing banks and their bondholders. That is why the Wall Street’s Donor Class that controls the Democratic Party machine want to discourage new voter enrollment and turnout. The last thing they want is an influx of new voters advocating real reform. Millennial newcomers are more progressive, born into a generation that has no opportunity to obtain jobs and housing as easily as their parents. So it’s best to keep out independents in favor of the old-time voters with brand loyalty to Democrats….

    Trump is right in saying that there has not really been a recovery for the Rust Belt or for the 99 Percent. Hillary brazens it out by claiming that Obama’s neoliberal economics have helped wage-earners… She promises to continue his policies (backed by his same campaign funders)….

    That’s what voting for the “lesser evil” means. Hillary’s message is: “Even though we support TPP and a New Cold War, at least you’ll have a woman at the helm. Anyway, you have nowhere else to go, because the other side is even more evil!” Her logic is that (1) if you criticize Hillary, you’re supporting Trump; (2) Trump is the Siberian candidate; hence (3) Criticism of Hillary, NATO’s New Cold War escalation or the TPP’s anti-labor treaty and financial deregulation is pro-Russian and hence anti-American….

    Hillary is acting as the Joe McCarthy of the 2010s, mobilizing a wave of commie bashing against her Republican opponent….

    On Monday leading up to the convention, the Democratic Party’s cable channel MSNBC kept juxtaposing pictures of Trump and Putin. Criticizing Hillary’s neocon stance supporting Ukraine’s military coup is depicted as support of Russia – while other commentators followed President Obama claiming that criticism of TPP means making China the new leader of Asia. The message is that criticizing NATO’s adventurism risks being called a Soviet – I mean, Russian – puppet….

    The party machine demonizes policies with which Hillary’s neocons disagree, and demand support of NATO escalation and Obama’s (and Hillary’s and Kaine’s) underlying support of the TPP on the pretense that this will help rather than hurt labor….

    • Have you ever considered posting just the link Glenn?

      Or are you trying for TSN – The Stehle News network?

      • timg56,

        So you don’t like the comments that challenge your deeply held neocon ideology, nor those that debunk your historical revisionism that justifies it?

        I must give you one thing, you’re not the typical neocon. Most neocons wear their neoconservatism on their sleeves, and are quite vocal about it. They’re not the least bit shy about it. But you’re different. You’re more of a stealth neocon. So instead of challenging the content of my comments, you challenge the form.

        In the end though, it’s all pretty transparent.

        One dead giveaway (there have been many) was how you zeroed in on Reinhold Niebuhr when you wrote:

        I’m starting to feel Reinhold and I grew up together, you’ve quoted him so often.

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/22/week-in-review-politics-edition-3/#comment-799233

        So why single out Niebuhr? Why does he grate on you so much? I certainly haven’t quoted him any more than numerous others.

        Niebuhr, of course, sits at the core of a great deal of neocon philosophizing. And because his Christian realism was so nuanced, the neocons don’t really know what to do with him. Some, like Matthew Berke and Michael Novak, employ a select reading of Niebuhr’s oeuvre to make him one of their own. “Neoconservative Niebuhrians” they call themselves:

        THE DISPUTED LEGACY OF REINHOLD NIEBUHR
        http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/11/004-the-disputed-legacy-of-reinhold-niebuhr

        Other neocons, however, prefer a wholesale rejection of Niebuhr’s philosophy on foreign policy. Here’s what Keith Pavlischek, for example, has to say about Niebuhr:

        Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Realism, and Just War Theory: A Critique
        http://eppc.org/docLib/20080205_palpatterson03.pdf

        Instead of all these oblique rejoinders, I just wish that you would come out of the closet, put some big boy pants on, and tell us what you think.

      • Glenn,

        I think Tim is just thinking of you. You could probably have your own GlennReport or something and make huge money from all of the Chumpsters who would visit your site.

  155. It looks like unintended consequences may bite the Greens in the butt:

    Tar Sands in the Atlantic Ocean: TransCanada’s Proposed Energy East Pipeline
    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38266-tar-sands-in-the-atlantic-ocean-transcanadas-proposed-energy-east-pipeline

    TransCanada—which was thwarted in its effort to drive Keystone XL through America’s heartland—is now pursuing a project that would effectively create a waterborne tar sands pipeline that would threaten the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This proposed Canadian pipeline, Energy East, would bring as much as 1.1 million barrels per day of mostly tar sands oil from Alberta to Canada’s eastern seaport of Saint John, New Brunswick. From there, nearly 300 supertankers per year would form a high-risk “pipeline” down the entire U.S. Eastern Seaboard, from the tip of Maine to the Florida Panhandle, around Florida’s peninsula, and on to refineries along the Gulf Coast.

    The tankers—representing a 300 percent increase in crude oil traffic in Nova Scotia’s ecologically critical Bay of Fundy—would pose a significant threat to endangered marine mammals and regionally critical fisheries in the form of deafening ocean noise and an increased risk of oil spills and ship strikes.

  156. Reposting here:

    If you are having slow loading problems, the links web browser loads the slow loading pages on CE in seconds.

    http://links.twibright.com/features.php

    • David Springer

      Google Chrome takes just a few seconds as well provided you don’t do a full page refresh which causes the cache to reload from the original sources. It’s definitely all of Creepy Willard’s spam. He’s doing it on purpose of course because he’s a creepy little passive-aggressive anonymous coward phuck wad.

      • David

        You have been assigned the honorary position of Master of the great clean up.

        In the event of Trump winning, your duties involve clearing up the bloody mess left when several people here explode.

        tonyb

      • > You have been assigned […]

        By whom, TonyB, you? I don’t recall when Judy made you King of Assignment.

        Even a full refresh costs less than 10 seconds on my side. Big Dave can’t even use his AdBlocker properly, and is now bogged down by his own memory hog.

        The way you formulate your smarmy assignment seems to be short of any criticism of the Jim & Glenn Show and of Big Dave’s abuses. Interesting.

      • Oh Dear Willard, you used too have a good sense of humour until you were Trumped. There are a lot of side shows going on here, most of which wash over me and I don’t read all the way through.

        It would be useful to keep US politics to small and frequent Presidential threads. But that is only my opinion you might feel differently

        Do you use Windows? Yours appears to be the quickest refresh.

        tonyb

      • Thank you for your concerns about my humour, TonyB. At least I make sense now. This is progress when we compared the last time I called you in.

        Most pages above 500 comments are a heavy load. Worse are pages featuring the Jim & Glenn Show. A quick test shows that 86% of the resources of this very page are consumed by images access.

        You can’t dispute that both Big Dave and the Glenn part of teh Jim & Glenn show are the image access hogs here.

        So here’s the deal. I’ll try to keep my tweets for Big Dave’s responses to me. He claims he doesn’t see them, and in that case it slows his computer down a bit, which may be a good thing, unless you enjoy his sense of humor, as you almost pretend to do right now.

        I’ll be gone next week anyway for the most part.

  157. Here’s a paean to free trade from the Financial Times:

    Brexit risks unravelling UK’s role in the web of trade
    https://next.ft.com/content/6a8a1755-498a-324b-acea-a0665ad3bfe4

    It is many years since the UK’s balance of payments statistics attracted much attention but, as Stephen King recently pointed out, that might change post-Brexit vote. The latest figures showed a current account deficit in the first quarter of 2016 of about 7 per cent of gross domestic product. The total for 2015 was just over 5 per cent of GDP, the biggest since postwar records began, and much worse than the 4 per cent of GDP that Healey faced.

    If the inward flow of capital starts to falter, as seems likely now, the deficit on goods and services will have to shrink. The benign way for the adjustment to come about would be a big improvement in UK exports. However, reduced access to important export markets, particularly for the services in which the UK is strong, was the biggest single factor behind the near-universal agreement among economists that leaving the EU will harm the British economy.

    What is conspicuously absent from “the near-universal agreement among economicsts” is the #1 weapon which countries like Germany, China and Mexico — with their mercantilist trade policies — have used to gain their advantage in export competiveness: by murdering their own domestic labor forces.

    Germany offers the perfect example with its Hartz labor “reforms”:

    Germany tops world for shrinking wages
    http://www.thelocal.de/jobs/article/31839

    The Global Wage Report by the International Labor Organization – a United Nations agency in which workers, employers and governments are represented – found that gross wages fell 4.5 percent when adjusted for inflation, according to news magazine Der Spiegel….

    No other industrialised country experienced such a backslide, the report said. Of all the industrialised nations, Norway, Cyprus and Finland enjoyed the strongest wage growth, with Norway posting an increase of 25.1 percent.

  158. New release of hacked emails reveal NATO’s chief military commander, Phiilip Breedlove, intentionally used the flimsiest of evidence in his drive to inflame tensions between the West and Russia

    DER SPIEGEL: Dangerous Propaganda: Network Close To NATO Military Leader Fueled Ukraine Conflict
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

    Working with dubious sourcing, a group close to NATO’s chief military commander Philip Breedlove sought to secure weapons deliveries for Ukraine, a trove of newly released emails revealed. The efforts served to intensify the conflict between the West and Russia….

    The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove’s alarmist public statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year, the general was assuring the world that US European Command was “deterring Russia now and preparing to fight and win if necessary.”

    The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev….

    General Breedlove’s departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.

    What’s more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election — she’s considered a potential candidate for secretary of state.

    Breedlove’s team NATO revived the domino theory that was used to justify the Vietnam War. It’s the politics of fear writ large:

    In order to build up pressure for the desired weapons aid, Clark and Karber began painting grim scenarios. If the West were to abandon Ukraine, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Clark prophesized, China would then be encouraged to expand its sphere of influence in the Pacific. It could also lead to NATO’s collapse. The situation could only be prevented with the help of military aid, they argued. On November 8, 2014 Clark sounded the alarm internally after talks with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, his advisers and senior military and intelligence officials. The Ukrainians were expecting an attack as early as the end of the month.

    Breedlove answered, “I will focus on this immediately.” He also wrote, “One of our biggest problems” is that one of the United States’ allies had been denying the findings of its intelligence. The remark was aimed at Germany’s BND foreign intelligence agency, which had been much more reserved in its assessment of the situation — a position that in retrospect would prove correct.

    Karber’s emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. “The front is now everywhere,” he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015….

  159. Desire Donald Wants to Hit So Hard

    “You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard,” Trump said. “I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor.”

    [Desire Donald] didn’t immediately clarify what he meant, but he said he was made particularly upset by an unspecified person he called a “little guy.”

    “I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” he said. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”

    • Must be referring to Bloomberg. The sawed off a$$wipe who travels with multiple armed bodyguards, intimidates reporters, all the while working hard to protect us from our guns.

      Probably the sort of hypocrite you embrace Willard.

      • Lots of theories, TimG. Lots of theories.

        So one shouldn’t intimidate reporters or travel with multiple armed bodyguards unless one also endorse gun nuttery. I like that, but it’s not general enough. How about: only Freedom Fighters aren’t hypocrite?

        Speaking of a$$wiping, I don’t always appreciate what Mark Cuban got to say, but when I do, it’s related to how to do biz:

        I rather like his first test to vet teh Donald: talk to people with whom he did biz with.

        Now, who among them spoke at the Convention, again?

      • David Springer

        Mark Cuban, like Creepy Willerd, is poorly informed and isn’t bright enough to know what he doesn’t know. Mark Thiel, the gay billionaire founder of PayPal, was a speaker at the Republican convention. The list of business people who have endorsed Trump c\o of wikipedia which is evidently beyond Cuban’s ken:

        Sheldon Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands[305]
        Thomas J. Barrack, Jr., Founder and Chairman of Colony Capital[306]
        Andrew Beal, Founder and Chairman of Beal Bank[306]
        Herman Cain, businessman and Tea Party politician, former candidate in the 2012 Republican primaries[307]
        Pete Coors, businessman and chairman of MillerCoors[308]
        Bernie Ecclestone, Chief Executive of Formula One Group[309]
        Marc Faber, Swiss investor[310]
        Steve Forbes, publishing executive, Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, and business magnate (former 1996 and 2000 presidential candidate)[311]
        Brian France, CEO and Chairman of NASCAR[312]
        Foster Friess, multi-millionaire businessman, conservative activist[313]
        Harold Hamm, billionaire, entrepreneur, and oil and gas industry pioneer[314]
        Stanley Hubbard, billionaire CEO of Hubbard Broadcasting[315]
        Carl Icahn, billionaire activist investor[316][317]
        Robert Kiyosaki, businessman and author (authored two business books with the candidate)[318]
        Robert Kraft, businessman, philanthropist, chairman and CEO of the Kraft Group and owner of the New England Patriots[319]
        Shalabh Kumar, Hindu-American industrialist, founder and head of the Republican Hindu Coalition[320]
        Charles Kushner, real estate developer and co-owner of Kushner Properties[321]
        Jared Kushner, co-owner of Kushner Properties, owner of The New York Observer, son-in-law of the candidate[321]
        Kenneth Langone, co-founder of The Home Depot[322]
        Erik Laykin, author, international cybersecurity expert and co-chair of LA Trump
        Nancy Mace, businesswoman and author[323]
        Bernard Marcus, businessman, philanthropist, co-founder and former CEO of The Home Depot[324]
        Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corporation[325]
        Carl Paladino, real estate mogul, Chairman of the Ellicott Development Co., Buffalo Public Schools board of education member, 2010 New York gubernatorial candidate[326]
        T. Boone Pickens, billionaire business magnate and financier.[327]
        Phil Robertson, Founder of Duck Commander[328]
        Wayne Allyn Root, businessman, politician, television and radio personality (and Libertarian Party nominee for Vice President in 2008)[329]
        Phil Ruffin, businessman and partner of Trump Hotel Las Vegas[330]
        Naguib Sawiris, Egyptian businessman and founder of the Free Egyptians Party[331]
        Anthony Scaramucci, financier, entrepreneur, author, and member of the Trump campaign[332]
        Paul Teutul, Sr. Co. founder of Orange County Choppers[333]
        Peter Thiel, billionaire entrepreneur, co-founder of PayPal, board member of Facebook, libertarian, and transhumanist[334]
        Donald Trump Jr., businessman, son of the candidate[335]
        Eric Trump, businessman and philanthropist, son of the candidate[336]
        Ivanka Trump, businesswoman, writer, and former model, daughter of the candidate[337]
        Dana White, president of Ultimate Fighting Championship[312]
        Steve Wynn, billionaire business magnate, CEO of Wynn Resorts Limited[338]
        Vladimir Yakunin, Russian businessman, public figure, former president of Russian Railways, and founder and president of World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilizations”[339]
        Wirt Yerger III, business leader[340]

      • > The list of business people who have endorsed […]

        It’s a list of business people with whom Dodgy Donald has done business with that you need, Big Dave.

        If you don’t provide one, I can do it for you.

        I’m not sure you’d like that.

  160. Anyone have an extra copy of the Constitution to lend Teh Donald?

    Oh, here we go: