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.

    • 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?

        http://i.imgur.com/kdoZjRg.png

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

        http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
        https://s19.postimg.org/iv7reuodv/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif

        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
        https://s19.postimg.org/tw2wjvgmr/Captura_de_pantalla_1280.png

      • 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?

        https://s19.postimg.org/sv2nuqzn7/Captura_de_pantalla_1281.png

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

        https://s19.postimg.org/lt4q8jw1f/Captura_de_pantalla_1282.png

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

        https://s19.postimg.org/tadxnrlkj/Captura_de_pantalla_1283.png

      • 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:

        http://i.imgur.com/YDRAA4W.png

      • 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?

        https://s19.postimg.org/g7ib4hvcj/Captura_de_pantalla_1284.png

      • 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.”

        https://s19.postimg.org/m9pxuzjsj/Captura_de_pantalla_1285.png

      • > 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?

        http://i.imgur.com/XpFwKPE.jpg

        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:

        http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2009/09/FINCapitolOil_infographic_final_2-791×1024.jpg

        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

        https://s19.postimg.org/hlwwwidir/Captura_de_pantalla_1292.png

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

        https://s19.postimg.org/egcb6auwj/Captura_de_pantalla_1293.png

        • 1979: Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Energy Crisis

        Line at a gas station in Maryland, United States, June 15, 1979.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis#/media/File:Line_at_a_gas_station,_June_15,_1979.jpg

        • 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.

        http://i.imgur.com/YDRAA4W.png

        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

        http://i.imgur.com/poGSdi7.png

      • 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….”
        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/joemccarthylist.jpg

        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
        https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/fact-checking-that-trump-putin-thing-8ed9fd850d40#.f8e01qc8l

        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.

        https://s19.postimg.org/gm6m0sycz/Captura_de_pantalla_1294.png

      • 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

    • In the latest Pew Opinion Poll — In choosing between Trump or Clinton, 97% of American Voters say suicide would be preferable.

      • Citation Stephen? I heard it was only 95%

        Tonyb

      • Stephen and Tony: I expect that a Clinton presidency would lead the US Federal Government in the wrong direction with respect to the 15 most important Federal issues. From Trump I expect more of a random walk, without continuous (in mean square) sample paths.

        All the Conservatives and a majority of the Republicans already elected to Congress do not like or respect him.

      • matthewrmarler said:

        All the Conservatives and a majority of the Republicans already elected to Congress do not like or respect him.

        Yep.

        Republicans rip Trump over NATO plan
        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-nato-new-york-times-225942

      • Curious George

        Stephen only provides links he is not asked for.

      • David Springer

        matthewrmarler | July 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm |

        “All the Conservatives and a majority of the Republicans already elected to Congress do not like or respect him.”

        Demonstrably wrong. His phucking vice president is a conservative numbnuts and several other conservatives, like Senator Jeff Sessions, were vying for the job.

        Here’s a list of where notable republicans stand with regard to Trump. Lots of governors, senators, and representatives are behind him. Scores of former elected representatives. Flag officers from the military. Most of the Bush dynasty insiders including Rumsfeld and Cheney are behind him.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

        What planet are you actually living on, Marler?

  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?

      • 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
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA9H3HLB5H4

      • 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.

    • 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:

    https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/756252517021917184

    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.

    https://s19.postimg.org/e9u0pgwdv/Captura_de_pantalla_1288.png

    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.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo

    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. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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/

  38. Discovered Check Donald:

    https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/756968413973450752

    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.

  39. 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

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceQISThDYQ

    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?

  41. 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

  42. 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.

  43. Di Domenico Donald:

    https://youtu.be/XvNtU-jD-aw

    It’s all about cadence. An orange cadence.

    Works like clockwork. An orange clockwork.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

        https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/fact-checking-that-trump-putin-thing-8ed9fd850d40#.rvy40usy1

      • 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.

  46. Diehl diagnoses teh Donald:

    https://twitter.com/JacksonDiehl/status/756582601251512320

    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.

  47. Could the Donald be the Manchurian Candidate?

  48. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

  49. 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

  50. 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

  51. 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.

    • David Springer

      I think that should be she’s the beneficiary of the double standard, right?

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. Picture from pbs showing at Drudge. Wasserman-Schultz being booed at the convention:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoPwPLIVMAA80DH.jpg

  55. No Big Deal Donald:

  56. Allegedly Defrauding Donald:

    https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/757758003634245632

    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.

  57. 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!

  58. 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/

  59. David Springer

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

    Susan Sarandon Blasts ‘Disgusting’ DNC Plot to Undermine Bernie

  60. 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”.

  61. David Springer
  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.

      • 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.

    https://twitter.com/shikhadalmia/status/736211063604011009

    • 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.

    https://twitter.com/TopGeekNJ/status/757767431729258496

  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/
    https://s19.postimg.org/h0cje57ub/Captura_de_pantalla_1295.png

    • 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.

        https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/757538729170964481

        I’m not sure which part is supposed to be the joke …

        https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/655502231719006208

        … 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.

        http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-31-at-11.44.10-AM-704×1024.jpg

        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.

    https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/757767900799258624

  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

    • Willard face it, unlike the last blind date, this one can see.

    • David Springer

      What bugs me the most is loudmouth anonymous bloggers who don’t have the guts to attach their names to the opinions.

      Just sayin’.

      Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate who isn’t afraid to connect his name with his opinions.

      • Big Dave: conflates anonymity with pseudonimity, shows every day all the INTEGRITY ™ real names warrant, and doesn’t seem to have any problem with anonymous hacktivists. Speaking of whom:

  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/

    • 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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

  88. 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.

  89. 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/

  90. Welcome to the DNC: Death. Taxes. Hillary
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXdn6yeAdPM
    “The song — a sort of modern hippie parody of “Aquarius” from the musical Hair…”

  91. Strong leaders need strong followers:

  92. 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

  93. 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:

        https://s19.postimg.org/4eyqovjzn/Captura_de_pantalla_1297.png

        And that China is by far and away Australia’s largest source of imports:

        https://s19.postimg.org/cyi4mmsc3/Captura_de_pantalla_1296.png

        And Australia runs a large trade suplus with China, and Australia’s trade deficit would more than double without its trade with China:

        https://s19.postimg.org/5jssu96gj/Captura_de_pantalla_1298.png

        One wonders just how long Australia will be up for all this “help” from the “indispensable nation.”

  94. NEWSY: Dad behind the USA Freedom Kids is now suing Ditty Donald

    https://twitter.com/mashable/status/758178946705920001

  95. Who Should Bernie Voters Support Now? Robert Reich vs. Chris Hedges on Tackling the Neoliberal Order

  96. 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.

  97. 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?

        http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BTJN81/sen-joseph-mccarthy-before-senate-committee-1950s-pointing-to-us-map-BTJN81.jpg

      • 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.