Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week

A quick note.  I am non-partisan on this issue — in the sense of ‘none of the above, thank you.’  This collection of articles are ones that I found to be insightful and/or amusing.

The 2016 race is not over [link]

Its Hillary or Trump – what’s a conservative to do? [link]

Donald Trump’s opportunity cost [link]

The most flawed female President ever [link]

Understanding the Trump-Khan war [link]

Hillary’s crimes versus Trump’s mouth [link]

What’s going on in the brains of Trump supporters [link]

Trumpism in international context [link]

The Supreme Court isn’t sufficient reason to vote for Trump [link]

Trump has turned America into a one party state [link]

Politics out of joint [link]

Huge ratings uptick for CNN’s libertarian town hall [link]

And finally, what I bet will be the most discussed article in the comments:  Donald Trump’s hand size [link]




678 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – politics edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. From the article:

    Does anyone remember what the issue Khizr Khan attacked Donald Trump about at the Democratic Convention? Amidst all the outrage and attacks the substance seems to have slipped off the radar.
    It was about Trump’s plan to stop Jihadists from riding the refugee flow into this country. I think that topic is worthy of our attention, so let’s take a few minutes and look at it.

    ISIS has said on numerous occasions that they are sending Jihadists into the refugee population to infiltrate Europe and the United States. Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of Syrians we allow into the country as refugees by 550%. The FBI Director has said unequivocally that we cannot vet refugees from Syria because there are no records to check them against any more. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean Hillary supports importing any Jihadists who can get into that process?

    Of course it does, and Donald Trump was being attacked for the perfectly common sense idea that — if we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, maybe we should stop bringing them here until we can. I am absolutely gobsmacked this is even controversial. Trump’s current proposal is a pause on immigration from areas compromised by terrorism. If anyone can come up with a good reason why we need to allow people from those areas to come here please share it with us.


    • Thanks, Jim, I agree with your analysis. May Trump also have the courage to question the US National Academy of Science about the abuse of federal research funds to make false, “97% consensus scientific support” for polices of the UN’s IPCC.

    • And we believe what the government and MSM say ISIS is saying because ISIS are not; trying to hurt the people fleeing from them, trying to upset Western cultures, and desperate for anything newsworthy. Just how many jihadists does ISIS have to export? And how much real damage can they do? Just more political blah, blah, blah give us more so we can limit your liberty. We accept millions of casualties per year due to automobile abuse but cower over to possibility of a terrorist attack hoping the government will pull the blankets over our heads and tuck us in real secure like.

      • You’re comparing a ban on driving cars with a ban on Muslims from terrorist countries entering the United States.

        You’re an imbecile.

        And there aren’t “millions” of casualties due to automobile abuse, dummy. There aren’t millions due to any cause. I don’t what the phuck “abuse” is supposed to mean. Maybe you’d care to explain that particular bit of imbecility for us.

    • No, this is the typical changing of the subject due to having a blind spot. The subject was that there are patriotic Muslims, that Trump refuses to acknowledge because it goes against his message, who give their lives for this country and whose families have sacrificed even more for the country than Trump’s own, That was the message. Trump goes after the messenger and continues to spread fear and doubt about any and all Muslims trying to divide rather than unite. This was an attempt to play to his base that blew up because of the collateral damage to military families.

      • This guy is talking about the ORIGINAL subject, not the Dimowit talking point subject.

      • The original subject was the actual speech by Khan. That Muslims do serve and die for the country, that Muslim families sacrifice, that the Constitution says to make no distinction in laws based on religion.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I think he was reacting to the attacks on him rather than the idea that there could be a patriotic Muslim. Trump needs to get attack dogs like all the professional politicians do and stop playing in the mud himself.

      • You can see in Trump’s mind when he attacks the wife for just standing there. This was revealing of the candidate himself.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The constitution doesn’t say anything about not discriminating against foreigners based on religion that I can remember. Would you like to put the phrase you think does suggest that so that we might parse it? Discrimination in immigration quotas has a long history for our nation.

      • It says that religion should be separated from the law. The intent is that the state is secular. Maybe you are familiar with it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I didn’t hear an attack. I heard him questioning if she was allowed to speak. That is a reasonable question considering the status of females in most Muslim dominated nations.

      • That was what he was thinking first rather than about her grieving for her son. He showed ignorance and complete lack of empathy. He generalized according to his own mindset about Muslims. He has the trick of saying “you tell me” when he is just dogwhistling to his base.

      • stevenreincarnated

        That doesn’t speak to immigration quotas. Like I said, our nation has a long history of discrimination regarding immigration quotas.

      • There is no quota on religions.

      • stevenreincarnated

        He needs professional attack dogs. He should be above pointing out that Khan is an immigration lawyer that specializes in bringing over people from Muslim countries. Let someone else do the dirty work and accuse him of caring more about his wallet than he does our citizens.

      • Not only dirty work, but rather inaccurate work if that is what they have against him. Par for the course, though. Election season.

      • stevereincarnated said:

        He needs professional attack dogs.

        Clinton has plenty of these attack dogs. They’re called the MSM.

        If there was any one thing that the hacked DNC emails showed, it was the close working relationship that the DNC has with the MSM.

      • Yes, the media keep quoting experts, ex-Presidents, and Republicans on Trump, or quoting Trump himself. All this quoting by the MSM is very inconvenient for Trump. He would like to be the only one speaking, preferably on Faux News, where they can edit out the bad bits.

      • Stick to the subject Jm D. Trump has said we should not allow refugees or even immigrants from countries with a history of radical Islamic terrorism. Was the Dem’s use of the Khan’s good political theatre? Yes. Has Trump’s response been idiotic (or any other derogatory term you want to choose)? Yes again. But Trump’s original policy point has nothing to do with a young Army Captain giving his life in service to his country. It doesn’t have anything to do with Americans who ate Muslim. It has to do with non Americans who could represent a threat to American citizens.

      • The subject was the Khan speech, and the speech was not about terrorism. If Khan mentioned terrorists it was only because innocent Muslims are its biggest victims.

      • stevenreincarnated

        There are no quotas on free speech either, Jim. Yet we have laws that exclude the immigration of people that hold views we don’t like such as card carrying communists and Nazis. Even if refusing immigration based on religion wasn’t constitutional, and I have yet to see anything that shows it wouldn’t be, the belief in Sharia law could be another perfectly reasonable fallback position. In case you aren’t aware, the rights granted to us by our constitution are meant for us, not for everyone else in the world.

      • Sure, put that on an immigration questionnaire and see how many “yes” responses you get. Then what? A$$ covered? Job done? Think it through? Can Muslims come on vacation or business? What about sports? It’s just a complete piece of claptrap, an applause line for the poorly educated.

      • stevenreincarnated

        If it is inaccurate you will have to state how it is inaccurate and not just that it is.

      • Not sure what you mean. It is very hard to be inaccurate when you are just quoting people which is what the MSM does mostly plus getting responses to quotes.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You said it was inaccurate. I assumed you actually had a reason. Silly of me to think that. My other response is still in moderation. I guess due to the reference of a political party that was once popular in Germany.

      • Yes, the attack on Khan is inaccurate and just a smear attempt.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t see where the idea that he is an immigration attorney specializing in immigration from Muslim countries is disputed in that article. Perhaps I didn’t look close enough. Can you quote the text that shows where my comment is wrong?

      • Explain that conspiracy theory. Do they think he goes to talk about his dead son and the existence of patriotic Muslims to drum up the immigration business for his firm?

      • Do they think he goes to talk about his dead son and the existence of patriotic Muslims to drum up the immigration business for his firm?

        No, they think he’s doing his part to defeat Trump because if Trump gets elected his immigration business will slump to almost nothing.

        Which is certainly a sensible motive.

      • How does his discussion with the DNC go?
        Khan: I am worried my business will suffer if Trump gets elected.
        DNC: That doesn’t seem like many people will be interested. Do you have anything else?
        Khan: Well, my son died in Iraq in 2004.
        DNC: OK, let’s go with that one.

      • Pretty much.

        Probably the other way around, though: Who has something we can use against Trump?

        Well, my son was a hero…

        OK, here’s the script…

      • Yes, Muslim American heroes give Trump supporters the willies. Compete cognitive dissonance for them. Does not compute.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “Yes, Muslim American heroes give Trump supporters the willies.”

        But Islamic human rights lawyers who advocate Sharia law and are affiliated to the Moslem Brotherhood certainly don’t.

        I don’t believe they’re that popular with Billary supporters either, funnily enough…

      • Trump said he looks like a nice person. It was his wife that he had issues with for just standing there looking like a Muslim.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I didn’t say we should do it but that wasn’t the question. The question was is it constitutional and I say it is.

      • He could do it (such as it is) as an executive order anyway, regardless of the constitution. Look at how much power NJ Governor Christie had to control the immigration of people from Ebola countries to his state. It is the same kind of deal. They just ignored him, but that is beside the point.

      • Yes, Muslim American heroes give Trump supporters the willies.

        Some of them, I guess. The ones who can’t think except in categories.

        But for the more realistic ones, we have to wonder: how would the son feel about his heroic death being used for such selfish political purposes?

        Remember the father’s a lawyer. American style.

        There’s an old joke about laywers: this undertaker came into the sheriff’s office, and said: “I got in an accident with a car full of lawyers. They were dead, so I buried them all.”

        The sheriff asked: “they were all dead? Are you sure? How did you know?”

        “Well, they said they wasn’t, but you know how them fellers l1e.”

      • Trump is one of those who thinks in categories, which is why this bait worked so well. Others think it is a conspiracy related to money-making because that is where they themselves come from in looking at this war-hero issue. It’s called projection. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was simply bait. That’s what conventions are for. The Republican one didn’t work as well in this area. Maybe they should have used Clint Eastwood again. That worked and got some people to attack the old fella.

      • Trump is one of those who thinks in categories, which is why this bait worked so well. […] It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was simply bait.

        Perhaps, at first. Like most voters.

        I find it hard to believe, though, that he lacks the ability to go back and think it through. He’s been too successful in business for that.

        But by publishing his first reaction he attracts all the voters who think the same way.

      • His prejudices are ingrained in him. He won’t change, or see the light, at age 70. It’s tough to do without therapy. He needs a serious intervention. Maybe they can get him to just read their speeches from now on, but he doesn’t look very convincing when he does that. It’s like “they told me to say Ryan is a nice guy”. It makes him look like a puppet. Not a good look.

      • He needs a serious intervention.

        Just like the old Soviets: take anybody who disagrees with you and throw them in a mental institution.

      • It’s not so bad. They say talk therapy works for his particular condition, so no need to worry about the people in white coats taking him away, yet.

      • They say talk therapy works for his particular condition, […]

        He doesn’t have a “condition,” and only despicable scum think he does.

      • I have heard qualified people say that his is a classic case of NPD, believe me.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “I have heard qualified people say that his is a classic case of NPD, believe me.”

        Anyone who ends a statement with “believe me” is lying.

      • Trump uses that a lot, trust me. Is he lying? You tell me.

      • [… B]elieve me.

        Of course not. Both you and your “qualified people” are totally unworthy of belief. You may be sane, but your morals are far beyond beneath any acceptable limit.

      • It’s all over the internet and “the shows” if you want to look for it, trust me.

      • catweazle666

        “It’s all over the internet and “the shows” if you want to look for it, trust me.”

        Silly boy, I wouldn’t trust you if you told me water was wet.

      • These are common Trumpisms. Don’t you listen to his speeches? He ends nearly all his assertions in “believe me” or “trust me”, and as you say, when he does that it is a sure sign not to.

      • catweazle666

        Oh dear me, the Puffington Host! Oh dear oh dear!

        You’ll be quoting from Wikipedia next!


      • They nailed Trump on some of his recent lies. For fun, you can find other sites with 101 of his biggest lies since the campaign started, and here they say these are not actually lies, because that implies he knows the truth, but they suspect he really believes them at the time he says them, living in his own reality, even after being confronted with the actual truth. A very curious person. Believe me.

      • I’ve seen it. Despicable. Our society appears to have become infested with scum who think it’s perfectly OK to accuse somebody of insanity just because they disagree with them. Just like the scum who ran the Soviet Union for several decades.

      • You say despicable. I say look at the symptoms and compare to the NPD diagnosis. I know it is armchair psych 101, but there it is. Stay up with it because it is one of the lines of attack you will hear. This is the major leagues now.

      • Stay up with it because it is one of the lines of attack you will hear. This is the major leagues now.

        Of course. Just like the Soviet Union. If somebody’s inconvenient, find an excuse to call them “insane”.

        And if the majority of voters decide to vote for him anyway, call theminsane”. After all, it’s not as though you types really believe in democracy. It’s just like free speech: if that’s how the society you’re trying to subvert works, use it. Then get rid of it when you’re in charge.

        I wonder whether Obama, or rather his handlers, will take the risk of cancelling the elections because one of the candidates is “insane”. I guess we’ll just have to see.

      • Ask McCain if Trump should have control over nuclear weapons. His answer could have been a quick “yes”, but no it wasn’t. It was a long pause and then roundabout way of not giving his own opinion, which should be worth something, but leaving it up to the voters. The voters would look to him for an opinion on this, I would expect, so they may be disappointed, or perhaps be highly informed, by this non-answer.

      • IMO any sensible person would be more frightened of Hillary’s finger on the button.

        She doesn’t seem to have gotten the message that the Soviet Union is no more, and Russia isn’t really our enemy. (Not our friend, and certainly Germany’s enemy, but not our’s.)

      • They tried the reset after what they thought was Putin’s last term expired, but then Putin came back into power after changing their constitution to allow it, and that was that for any further progress. I think it is interesting that now many Republicans are defending Putin’s attitude to eastern Europe over NATO’s even taking an anti-Russian Ukraine stance out of their official platform. Of course the Trump camp deny responsibility for it while the other Republicans say it was them. What happened there? Very curious.

      • Ukraine has been part of “Russia” for centuries, since long before the Communists. Unfortunately, “Russia” means the Russian Empire, not any sort of ethnic nation-state.

        In fact, I’d argue that that part of Eurasia never had a real nation-state, that the “nation-state” was a phenomenon of the parts of Europe that formed the core of “Christendom”, meaning the cultural/religious horizon both dominated by the Roman Church, and that fully adopted the system of “chivalry” based on the armored, mounted, man-at-arms in a condition of feudal fealty.

        As gunpowder transformed “Christendom”, along with the collapse of the Roman hierarchy (first with the split Papacy, then the Reformation), followed by the Industrial Revolution, the Russian Empire tagged along imitating without really getting the basics.

        Thus, Russia, and various parts of its empire when separated, were never more than Potemkin nation-states.

        Unfortunately, Russia can only feel very threatened by an independent Ukraine, especially one that joins a mutual defensive pact such as NATO. They don’t really have any choice, although they have some choice what they do about it.

        But I doubt Putin (or any other Russian top dog) as much choice. The world-views of the powerful men he depends on constrain it.

      • Any idea whether the Republicans still support the wishes of the Ukrainian majority to remain separate from Russia and even to join NATO? This area of their European policy is rather muddy now with Trump’s intervention. Do they even like that the Baltic states are now part of NATO, or would they prefer to abandon them to Russia? These questions used to have clear answers among Americans, but now not so much.

      • The 80% non-Russian majority. Do you know of another one? Are the Republicans abandoning the wishes of these people? Or would they like Ukraine to join NATO to provide a larger buffer against Putin for free Europe?

      • It’s not nearly that simple. I submitted a comment with an election map, but it dropped into moderation.

        But see here and links therein.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m sure the Republicans will do at least as much for the Ukraine as the Democrats did. Nothing isn’t hard to match.

      • The Democrats would be more inclined to ally with Ukraine than Russia in a conflict. The Republicans, you tell me.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m telling you the Democrats were faced with a situation and did nothing. We don’t have to wonder what they would do because we got to watch it. I don’t know why you keep rambling on about what Trump would do for this or that since you could take random dice rolls and do better than our current president has done. He has been a complete disaster.

      • What were the Republicans pushing for in Ukraine? You make it seem like there was some kind of clamoring. The Republicans were just as gun-shy after Iraq as the general population. The truth is that no one had an appetite for getting involved with a non-NATO war, least of all Obama. He had just spent a lot of time reducing US casualty rates overseas from Bush’s 1000 per year to almost nothing.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Iraq was over. Obama left despite his military advisers telling him not to and he created that mess. Then he allowed the Sunni tribesmen that helped us defeat AQI to be slaughtered by ISIS causing our name to be mud with the SUNNI tribes over there for generations. Then he sat back and did nothing as genocide of Christians and Yazidis occurred. Then he made a mess in Libya with no idea at all what he was planning on doing with it after he was done. Then he tried to make the same sort of mess in Egypt and we were only saved by the Egyptian military. He didn’t get us out of a war anymore than Lee got the south out of the war after he went home from Gettysburg. All he did was change the location of the front line. Someone is going to have to clean up the royal mess he has created.

      • The election of the pro-Iranian Shiite government in Iraq was under Bush’s watch. That was the beginning of the end for American involvement. The mostly Sunni army in the north felt no sympathy with the new government and fled instead of fighting for them against the Sunni Is!s. The only way US forces could stay was if they agreed to be subject to Iraqi law and prosecutable under it. It was not America’s problem after that. What should have happened was a separation of Iraq into about three independent ethnic nations as some, including Biden, if I recall, had asked for. Then the IS would have felt less compelled to attack a Sunni nation, and the Sunni army would have been more compelled to fight for their own nation. Anyway, the writing was on the wall after the Iraqi election.

      • Bush reduced the casualties in Iraq to almost nothing by the end of 2008. For both Iraq and Afghanistan he average 700 casualties a year. Obama has average 350 a year.

      • Actually Jim D you are wrong. Trump is not after all Muslims, especially not patriotic ones. The Democrats and Muslim Brotherhood minions/subverters love to act as if Muslims are one homogenous group and any criticism of radical Islamism is an attack on all Muslims. The Democrats have gone along with that 100% to the extent that Obama can’t even bring himself to say Radical Islamic Terrorrism or Islamism in case some innocent moderate gets tarred. (Bush did it too so it is not unique to Democrats.) This refusal to acknowledge differing streams of Islam allows the violent supremacist type to use regular moderate Muslims as cover to hide among and also allows the radicals to deflect any scrutiny on them as they go about their subversion. It also allows the radicals to take over the Muslim community and silence the moderates. No one is going to go talk to the police about a radicalized Muslim making a bomb when they know the first Muslim the Police Chief is going to go talk to about it is the Imam of the guy building the bomb who is saying lots of fine things to Police Chief in English but something entirely different when speaking in his own language in his mosque. I have friends who won’t let their teenage kids go to our local mosques because they are terrified their kids are going to be radicalized end up in Syria but the people running the mosques are the exact same ones the RCMP here run to first for about how to stop radicalizing teens. We all know Muslims who are great patriotic people and no one wants to hurt them. Trump understands that there are regular ordinary Muslims who have no interest in imposing Sharia law on the rest of the world, replacing the Constitution with Sharia law (unlike Khan according to his own writings) and who are horrified by the radical Wahhabists (those Saudi types Khan does expensive legal work for) and the crazy Iranian Mullahs. Islamists don’t allow their women to speak and that is one of the distinguishing characteristics of them. You can spot them by how their women behave. Trump was perfectly right to point out she was acting like a subservient oppressed female trapped in a misogynist version of the religion because she was acting just like one. Trump was also perfectly right to attack the misrepresentation of his position because it was a total misrepresentation. It was fine theatre but it had no basis in reality. It was probably a waste of his time and did more harm than good because of people like you who have bought the whole “All Muslims are the same and none are bad guys and you attack one you attack them all and you are a racist pig” garbage. To anyone understanding radical versus moderate Islam his words make perfect sense. The very last thing any radical Islamist wants is a guy like Trump in power, someone who knows the difference between a moderate Muslims and a radical Islamist. Once in a position of power. Trump could undo 30 years of careful subversion and manuevering. I suspect that is why Khan got up on the Hilary’s stage to savage Trump and tell lies about him.

      • Muslims in general don’t like Trump or want him in power because of the single-minded way he talks about them whenever he mentions them. He insists on using radical Islam rather than the more precise radical jihadi as a deliberate attempt to color the whole religion that way. They detect these not-so-subtle things that look like dogwhistles. Words are important. If he wants to recruit the Muslim majority against terrorism, he is doing the exact reverse by appearing not to trust any of them. He gave the impression he wanted Muslims to register themselves so that he could track them all. Then you get people like Gingrich doubling down and asking for a sharia test to be taken by all American Muslims for some reason. This is the mindset in that campaign. There is no subtlety or hiding it.

      • Well I think a sharia test is a perfectly good way to tell them apart. Sharia law is totally incompatible with democracy. And you don’t have to have Gingrich telling you. Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Saudi Wahhabists, and the Iranian Mullahs all say it very clearly themselves. And I work frequently in the moderate Muslim community and the ones I know agree a sharia test helps sort the radical from the moderates. You are the one who needs educating on the various streams of Islam because you are repeating all the Muslim Brotherhood talking points. Tine to go read someone like Tarek Fatah. Fatah several really excellent books on the topic you could start with.

      • There are some really misleading things being said about what sharia is, and now it is used as a fear word for the poorly educated. Sharia encompasses a lot of moderate practices like food, prayer, clothing, holidays, ceremonies, etc. You have to be careful with using blanket words like this. It is not a simple yes/no about accepting sharia. There are moderate parts and some more extreme interpretations and literal beliefs. This happens with other religions too.

      • The sharia “test” is not about compliance with dietary laws, holidays or ceremonies that don’t interfere with American laws. The sharia “test” is very specific and requires knowing if the person acts as if sharia law must be obeyed even if the results are deemed illegal in the USA. Not eating pork doesn’t violate any US law. Keeping women slaves and raping them, while perfectly acceptable under radical Islamic law, is not acceptable in the USA. If a Muslim decides he can ignore American law and keep sex slaves and rape them in America because sharia law is above American law, then he fails the sharia law test. He should not be allowed into the USA and if he got in because of lax security or corruption of immigration law he should be deported. And there have been numerous cases of precisely this kind of crime in the USA.

      • OK, how prevalent do you think that is? Why just stop at Muslims that do those things? The law is the law and equal for everyone. Do you put all Muslims under automatic suspicion until they can prove otherwise? What is the thinking here?

      • It is prevalent enough that almost every terrorist attack is done by a Muslim. If Amish, Jews, Mormons or any other group start regularly committing acts of terrorism at the same rate as Muslims it should be similarly applied to them. I’m not worried about that happening because those groups don’t. Go learn some American history. Mormons had a Mormon version of a sharia test applied to them during the founding of Utah. This is not a new concept.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Perhaps when they divided the Middle East into nations they should have taken tribes into account. They didn’t. You deal with the situation you get not with the situation you wish you had. Obama has been a disaster. The world is a mess. Every decision he has made has been poor. You couldn’t be that wrong that often if you were trying.

      • Sure, the Republicans would have been bombing Iran by now, perhaps facing the Russians in Syria too, and perhaps a quagmire in North Africa. Is that your preferred role for America in the Middle East? Terrorist recruitment increases in proportion to US troops occupying or bombing the Middle East. It’s complicated, and the current situation is far from the worst case scenario for America. Many would quit complaining if they knew the alternatives.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You deal with your imaginary mistakes and I’ll stick with the mistakes that are now history.

      • In your parallel world, maybe under President McCain, US troops would be much more involved, right? Or what are you talking about specifically? It is easy to complain, harder to come up with better scenarios. The Middle East imploded, and the US is best positioned away from all that.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t know what makes you think I would support McCain because I haven’t and don’t. I don’t know what makes you think I would want to be involved in Syria. I don’t know what makes you think that because you can imagine poor results from others that somehow excuses the incredibly poor results we have achieved. It doesn’t. Your imagination doesn’t count.

      • You imply that there was a better alternative to Obama’s foreign policy. Easy to say, right?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Easy to do. You have no trouble with your vivid imagination. Imagine we negotiated a reasonable way to keep our troops in Iraq. Granted they’re are a real powerhouse that needs nothing from us (cough) but I’m sure we could have managed somehow.

      • Remember Obama was elected on pulling the troops out, and the conditions imposed by Iraq on a residual force were not acceptable anyway. The Iraqis in power really didn’t want any US troops to stay, (and besides they had the army that Bush had trained, such as it was).

      • stevenreincarnated

        He should have promised to stay out on the golf course and not make any decisions. Instead he kept the promises that were not in our interest, broke the promises that were, and got involved in regime change of people we were actually getting along with. What sort of *&^&&%%$ president goes after allies and leaves enemies alone? Ours.

      • Bush had agreed to pull all the troops out by 2011. Obama kept to that (see link). Obama had temporary ideas of remaining with some, but the Iraqis quashed that, so all out it was.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Tell it to the Christians and Yazidis, the few that are left. I have no interest in hearing stories about keeping to a plan made years prior when they should be based on the situation as it stands.

      • The Iraqis thought they could handle any eventuality, especially as their closest ally was now Iran, so they pushed the Americans out. Hindsight is 20/20.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Obama’s military advisers told him not to leave. That isn’t hindsight. His arrogance has cost a lot of lives and there will be a lot of American lives lost cleaning up the mess he created.

      • It is not America’s job nor even within their capability to “clean up” Iraq. Nor have they even been invited to do more than air support for obvious reasons. Ground troops just look like occupying forces and attract trouble from both sides there. Hands off is the best thing they can do in the current climate. The pushback is going OK. Next is Mosul. Is!s is losing ground.

      • Bush’s agreement would not have pulled US troops out of Iraq by 2011. His agreement was to remove troops from Iraqi territory, which did not include US bases in Iraq. Both the US and Iraq planned to retain US troops on those bases as a stabilizing force.

        But Obama purposefully sabotaged the SOFA agreement by putting the Iranian parliament in the hot seat, forcing them to insist on conditions that Obama would refuse to meet.

        The result, just as Bush predicted, was an implosion after just a couple of years.

      • Assuming it was a Freudian slip when you said Iranian parliament, how do you imagine Obama influenced the Iraqi parliament to put a condition on US troops staying? What more likely influenced them was the controversy about US contractors shooting in public and being immune to prosecution.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I don’t know what part of dealing with the situation you are given is beyond your comprehension. You can’t just say it isn’t our job once you have inherited the responsibility. If you don’t want the job or are incapable of doing the job then you should stay in your community and continue to organize it. ISIS isn’t losing ground. It might be losing ground in Iraq but it is gaining ground in others areas like Libya. Then we have to wonder what have we gained in the areas where ISIS is losing ground. Replacing Sunni fundamentalists with Iran controlled Shiite ones? It’s just another of a long string of Obama disasters. it seems that any random person should do better. I bet even Trump couldn’t screw up as bad as Obama has. Clinton might be able to though since she was very helpful in creating the mess that the next president will inherit and have to deal with. Unless they just throw their hand up in the air and say it isn’t their job of course lol.

      • A worse situation would be having American troops in the middle of that, not fully supported by the Iraqis, and still losing lives while fighting alongside Iranians for a Shiite Iraqi state. Some of the pundits with their alternatives have not thought this through at all in terms of the big picture. Obama has realized that there is no responsible way to wedge Americans into that situation.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Troops are heading back to a huge mess that was a self inflicted wound. You are funny worrying about what mistakes might be made by someone that hasn’t made any yet while at the same time supporting people that have consistently made huge mistakes. It’s going to get worse before it gets better and if Trump happens to be the president I’m sure you’ll be blaming the cost of cleaning up Obama’s mess on him.

      • You keep suggesting that continual US involvement in the Middle East would have been a prevention rather than a cause of more US casualties. Check your assumptions. It is far from clear that being friendly with the Iranian leaning regime in Iraq would have been a good step to take. That’s like taking sides against the Sunnis, when America has no business there, let alone taking sides.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, only because it is pretty obvious and it is what all the experts were telling Obama. Thank goodness he and you know better. I’m sure if he had we would be suffering from the wrath of the seven horsemen by now instead of just the small problems created by the complete and total bloody chaos which is the Middle East of today. We should count our blessings. Don’t you ever get tired of arguing complete BS? We are sending our troops back in. We have about half as many there now as what he was told to leave. Another mistake under his belt. You win wars quickly with violence of action and overwhelming force and not by incremental escalation. Military science 101. He is waiting to make someone else do the hard work of cleaning up his disaster. Someone else to take the blame for US casualties.

      • Yes, I am sure you would have our troops charging in without any willing western allies, supporting the Iraqis and Iranians, who have armies of their own, free of charge, and for no apparent gain for US interests, but there you go. Fine. It is a very Bush-like approach.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, I was just thinking the other day that instead of leaving our forces there and preventing the problem, or reacting in a forceful and timely manner to get the situation under control almost immediately by not allowing them to use the roads to expand, that what we should really do is let the savages ravage the countryside for a couple of years and get rid of those pesky minority religions, and then support a Shiite invasion of Sunni territory. Pure genius. What could possibly go wrong with that?

      • Their government decided they were happier with Iran, and you can’t get past that. It was Iraq’s choice to make, and they have suffered with the consequences. You can’t blame things on the US that weren’t even choices they had. You also seem surprised they didn’t jump into a sovereign country without an invitation.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Who wasn’t asking for our help? The Yazidis were. The Christians were. The Sunni tribes that fought on our side previously were. The Shiites in occupied territory were. Even government of Iraq was. It looked to me like the only one not asking for our help was IS!S. Is that who you were concerned about, Jim? Just out of curiosity, did the government of Libya invite us in, Jim?

      • Do you know how long it takes to plan a US ground deployment? Do you know how long the ISIL invasion of northern Iraq took? Do you recall any calls for help while they thought the Iraqis would fight them off? What was surprising, though not so much in retrospect, was that the Iraqi army suddenly took off and ran, by which time it was too late to call for help because the towns were taken. Unlike Iraq, Libya did not require ground forces. What the US can provide quickly is air support to local ground forces that were sadly missing in Iraq.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, I was part of the rapid deployment force. Do you know how long it takes to strafe a convoy? Do you think it would have taken more than a brigade of US troops to defeat that rabble? Do you have any military experience or are you another community organizer warrior?

      • It is good that you served. It is important to have a C-in-C who thinks things through before sending people in, would you not agree? That is, they have a strategy and a well defined goal and exit strategy too, with the politics in place concerning Iraq , their forces, and their government, possibly NATO and the UN too, since this wasn’t a US problem. Not as simple as you think.

      • stevenreincarnated

        We aren’t done in Libya quite yet, Jim.

      • stevenreincarnated

        We aren’t done in Libya yet. Probably you haven’t heard we are fighting there now, too.

      • Whose war is that? I don’t think the US wants to own another one.

      • stevenreincarnated

        If I were still in the military I wouldn’t like him as my C in C as most of the present military doesn’t. He is clueless and refuses to take advice.

      • Bush the W had people charging around with no plan, so it is better than that for sure.

      • stevenreincarnated

        What big mistakes did W Bush make? Now H W Bush, he could have avoided all of our involvement in Iraq by telling Saddam we wouldn’t allow him to attack Kuwait instead of telling him we don’t get involved in Arab squabbles. Would have saved a lot of problems. Either that or to actually follow up on what he said and not get involved.

      • 1. Wrong intelligence on WMD, 2. Acting on uncertain intelligence to go to war, 3. Assuming it would pay for itself and US troops would be welcomed as liberators, 4. Dismantling the Sunni power base leading to sectarian discontent, 5. Not having a good plan for new leadership after the elections, 6. Various surprises like taking so many casualties from IEDs, 7. Drifting exit plans towards nation building. I could go on, but the errors were too numerous, and the cost was not worth it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        1. Same intelligence everyone else was getting. Do I need to link the video of Bill explaining why he was bombing Iraq again?

        2. It seemed pretty certain at the time. He was working on WMDs anyway. We know that because he was working in cooperation with Gaddafi in Libya. When we took over Iraq Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program and we rewarded him by taking him out. That was a good lesson for all the other dictators in the world to learn from.

        3. We could have kept the oil and used it to pay for the war. We decided not to. I’d have to spend some time finding out why and I don’t plan on doing that. I doubt anyone you support thought keeping their oil was a good idea and I know people you support don’t care about things being paid for so that is sort of a ridiculous argument for you to be pressing. It wasn’t a too far fetched to think we would be welcomed as liberators. I’m sure the Kurds think of us that way to this day.

        4. Eliminating the Sunni military leadership was a bad move. It wasn’t all that bad until we pulled out our troops and left the huge vacuum in the region, though. I’m sure the thinking was the old power structure would take back over eventually if we did leave them in and we would get a new version of Saddam.

        5. Surprises are part of war.

        6. I’m sure what he envisioned was an Iraqi version of Japan. We stay in and supply the support and guidance for a couple of decades and we end up with a long term ally. It isn’t a mistake in and of itself to think that way. It has worked before. There wasn’t a drift towards nation building, that was the plan all along.

        Saddam had to be taken out. H W should have done it or should have left him alone. Saddam was shooting at our planes on a continuous basis which is an act of war. It was just a matter of time before he had to be taken out and that wasn’t W’s fault.. W did a fairly good job and left his predecessor in good shape. Obama has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

      • A do-over would have said no to the whole thing. Just a bad idea. Cheney and the neocons had the Iraq drumbeat going from early after 9/11, possibly even before, and intelligence was being bent to suit their intentions (yellowcake, curveball). An alliance of the few and willing tells you no one agreed about Iraq being a danger. Other administrations would have had no such diversions from the business at hand which was AQ and Afghanistan. They had dreams about controlling Iraqi oil that only people from cowboy states do. They had no idea of the internal religious tensions that had to be controlled. It was a lesson on what not to do in power.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You keep forgetting that everyone supported the war based on WMDs and you keep forgetting that it wasn’t long before the invasion that Bill bombed the Iraqis based on WMDs. It was going to happen. Trying to say it was because of W Bush is ignoring reality. Now, if someone could explain why we got involved in regime change in Libya that would be interesting. We now have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya and who knows where else conducting combat missions. I might add with engagement restrictions that only a community organizing lawyer could come up with. Why you can’t read the writing on the wall is a mystery to me but if you think Obama/Clinton have done a good job then I suggest you lay off the Schedule I substances.

      • If you look at what the vote was about it was to give Bush authority to go to war if Saddam didn’t give up his WMDs. It was to enable Bush to make that threat to Saddam, which he couldn’t credibly do without a vote. At that time there were UN inspectors not finding anything. Who knew Bush would short-circuit the process with an invasion when Saddam wasn’t able to produce his non-existent WMD by the Bush-imposed deadline. It was a farce of epic proportions. Those who voted also can’t be blamed for the incompetence in carrying out the invasion turned occupation turned nation-building, unfunded at that. No one signed on for that.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Nobody made that vote thinking it was only to be used as a threat and never carried out. You live in a world of delusions.

      • Of course they did. I remember at the time thinking Bush’s threat was just that, an honest threat to get those WMD he was so sure of and not really a prelude to a full-scale war (remember we didn’t know about the backroom neocon motivations at that time). If Saddam had those weapons, he would have just handed them over. In some way, it is a pity he didn’t have them, because then you get this farcical war for nothing but an intelligence error.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Then it should be pretty easy to find the videos where they are saying, “Wait! Don’t invade! I was just kidding!” Not videos from well after the fact after they had supported action all along where they suddenly decide to revise and extend their remarks to saying they were just kidding. I’ll wait patiently for you to find them.

      • Then it becomes a case of support the troops and don’t ask the C-in-C questions in wartime or you are perceived as a traitor. You see how it goes. That got them to the Mission Accomplished stage, but after that things became a bit more divided again, especially as no WMD turned up. The case that it was an error built up gradually from there on.

      • stevenreincarnated


      • Perhaps you will find something in here.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t have time to waste on this. You either can find video before the invasion where the people were saying they didn’t support it or you can’t.

      • stevenreincarnated

        A good example of what? Everyone understood that the resolution was meant to get Saddam to comply or face the consequences of not complying. What you need to do is find an instance of Clinton complaining BEFORE the invasion that diplomacy hadn’t been given enough time. She yell at her husband for bombing them with no resolution at all?

      • At the time of the vote, it was a last resort, not a first resort. That was Bush’s own promise. They took him at his word. You can tell from the quotes that war was the last thing she wanted. It was for the purpose of furthering inspections and negotiations. Bush took it and ran into war, not keeping his word about it being the last resort. Fiasco ensued.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, you’re getting old. Everyone was beating the war drum. Going back later and saying well I didn’t really mean it is BS as is this argument. Video or you have nothing.

      • Read back. Your original question was what were they thinking when they voted. You can read what Hillary was thinking, and war wasn’t it. Everyone, even Bush, was saying war was the last resort at the time, although we might suspect Cheney was already beating the war drum in the back offices there.

      • stevenreincarnated

      • It was support the team mode by then. That would have been a long time after the vote, and probably after more up-to-date misleading intelligence had been presented by Powell at the UN in Feb 2003. (The vote was Oct 2002). Who didn’t believe in those mobile chemical factories?

      • stevenreincarnated

        The comments go from 1998 to 2003. Give it a rest.

      • Read back. I stand by what I wrote. You implied something wrong, but commonly misunderstood, in what the vote was about. I took exception to your generalization and I showed you why. No one was wanting a war at the vote time especially as evidence of WMD was scant, and attempts to connect Saddam to 9/11 looked suspect. Even Bush had it as a last resort if we take him at his word. They were talking about inspections and needing more proof. That was the status at the vote I posted in response to your statement “Nobody made that vote thinking it was only to be used as a threat and never carried out.” My response “Of course, they did” is supported by the Slate article on Hillary’s speeches at the time.

      • stevenreincarnated

        No, it wasn’t. Yes, they were. You are delusional.

    • The bias in the response to the Khizr Khan controversy is so obvious to anyone who has researched this. A large number of so called “Gold Star Families” are also Trump supporters. I heard one last night on FOX who says her son is dead precisely because of really stupid rules of engagement forced on the military by the Obama administration. Those Gold Star families are never covered by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WaPo. Khizr Khan’s obvious personal conflict of interest because of his professional connections to the Clintons as a lawyer who assists rich Saudis to get into America by throwing around huge sums of money, not mentioned. And Khizr Khan, by his own writings on the topic has made it very obvious he wants to set up Saudi style sharia law in the US and that he holds sharia law above the very constitution he waved about on stage so righteously. Does the media cover this? Of course not. The total distortion by the DNC of Trump’s position on radical Islamism and protecting Americans, never explored. This entire controversy is a set up by the DNC cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood. And my leftist friends totally buy into it, all shedding great tears of sympathy for Khizr Khan and his poor wife who if they came to power in the USA would throw burqas over all the women, start hanging gays, killing Jews and taxing Christians, banning alcohol, and killing any moderate Muslim who they think offends their version of Islam. Lemmings.

      • The media’s lies and double standards accelerate at blinding speed

        According to the media, not all grieving parents of fallen servicemen are created equal. Whether those parents are protected, defended and respected or ignored, dismissed and smeared depends on their political affiliation — and how useful they are to the “right” side.

        Witness the tale of three parents that emerged during the course of the Republican and Democratic conventions….

        The leftist activists disguised as “journalists” will do whatever it takes to advance their politics, even if it means using — or ignoring — the parents of fallen patriots. They have entered a new era of base dishonesty, which makes their hypocrisy more dangerous than ever.

      • Danny Thomas

        Media’s double standard is an issue? Should any alternative uses of ‘double standards’ also be called out?

        Maybe, for example, where Trump bashes Clinton for voting for the Iraq war and at the same times gives a pass to his running mate for also having voted the same way?

        There are further examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/04/introducing-the-donald-trump-mike-pence-divergence-tracker/

        But it’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • Danny Thomas,

        If you consider yourself, or the MSM, to be independent, unbiased, impartial weighers and presenters of the facts, you have completely departed from reality.

      • tumble,

        Yours may be the most accurate, concise, and thorough description of this circus that I have read to date.

        I would add the case of Sean Smith, killed in the Benghazi attack. His mother, Patricia Smith, claimed that Hillary told her it was because of the “protest” over the video even after Hillary had sent an email to her daughter calling it a terrorist attack. Patricia Smith, a Gold Star Family member, was attacked viciously by the MSM for days after the convention. Clearly that is a double standard, and a vicious one.

        You have to give the DNC credit – they really know how to work the MSM and use it as an arm of their own campaign organization.

      • What if the video did have something to do with it? That would destroy that whole line of attack against Hillary.

      • Jim I disagree and the reason is simple. Whether or not the video was a factor, Hilary Clinton was clearly telling the parents one thing and her daughter and others in her inner circle another thing. She told her inner circle one thing and Patricia Smith and the rest of the families another. Then when people tried to confront her over what Patricia Smith was saying Clinton practically called Smith a liar. Now is that a way to treat a Gold Star mother?

      • ‘stumbling, you disagree with Morell? He seems to know better. If the video was a factor, she was not lying. There may have been more than one factor, but it was one. Remember the Egyptian consulate had video protesters just within a day before that, and for several days after other US facilities in various Muslim countries were attacked because of the video. This was very much in the thinking of the State Dept at the time. It would not be surprising if Hillary mentioned it.

      • You should try reading what I said. You just said in response to me, “If the video was a factor, she was not lying.” I clearly said “Whether or not the video was a factor, Hilary Clinton was clearly telling the parents one thing and her daughter and others in her inner circle another thing. She told her inner circle one thing and Patricia Smith and the rest of the families another. Then when people tried to confront her [Clinton] over what Patricia Smith was saying Clinton practically called Smith a liar.” Let me repeat that really important part “Whether or not the video was a factor…..”

      • Like I said, it could be both. What she told who and when could have been a combination of the narratives at that time. If the video was a factor, Mrs. Smith is reduced to having to concede she was told about part of the thinking at the time, and should be thanking Hillary for clueing her in rather than calling her a l1ar. Remember Obama publicly said it was terrorists about the same time, and they would be terrorists whether it was the video or not just by what they did. Both narratives were out there.

      • Excuse me but Hilary called Smith the liar. Hilary said Smith was “mistaken” about what she had heard with her own ears as did all the other people present that day and that includes me because I watched the whole live and I heard myself exactly what Hilary said and it certainly wasn’t what she said in her emails to her daughter. Smith has every right to call Hilary a liar because she is one.

      • If she said anything about the video, it was not a lie. She might not have appreciated Smith calling her a l1ar all over TV for months afterwards, because technically that would itself be a lie.

      • Oh so Trump can’t say anything about Khan but Clinton is excused? Hilary lied.

      • I think you agreed with Morell that the video could have been a factor (see interview I linked above) in which case, if she had mentioned the video, it was not a lie. Maybe she did not explicitly say terrorism, but that would be implied by what happened and who got killed, right? What difference does this all make?

      • I DO NOT agree with you. Stop twisting my words.

      • “Whether or not the video was a factor” is what you said, and also you pushed back when I said you disagreed with Morell. Tough to tell.

      • You don’t read what I say.

      • It’s a she said, she said thing. The moderator says Smith says Clinton says it was all because of a video, not terrorism. Clinton denies that she ever said it was ALL because of the video, and that it wasn’t terrorism, but the video may have been mentioned as part of it. If Americans died, it was de facto terrorism, unless she thought it was accidental, so I don’t know what Smith’s “not terrorism” part is supposed to mean but that is how it was phrased to Hillary. She would, of course, characterize that as wrong. The transcript is here.

      • You can spew that garbage all you like. I saw the live coverage of the entire ceremony when those coins arrived because it was carried on FOX. Hilary LIED. There was not one mention of terrorism only the video. So go right ahead and keep on defending that liar. You are not changing my mind on it. She cannot unslime her way out of her lies to the family. There are too many witnesses like me.

      • OK, Americans were killed. Does it not de facto mean terrorism took place? Do they have to spell it out every time or was it just understood by then? How did the victims’ families characterize the attack at that time? Terrorism or what?

      • Do you even read? Let me repeat myself….again…. I saw the live coverage of the entire ceremony when those coffins arrived because it was carried on FOX. Hilary LIED. There was not one mention of terrorism only the video. She lied to those family members of four dead Americans. And she kept right on lying and when she got caught in her lie she did not take any responsibility, she blamed the families she lied to. Now I am not repeating myself again because you are acting like a troll and I am beginning to think you are a troll. End of this discussion.

      • That is what I am asking. What was the mindset of those people going in? Did they not know there had been a mortar attack? How did they characterize this incident in their minds? Did Hillary have to tell them it was terrorism, or was it obvious by then? What else could it have been to them?

      • Regardless of what Hillary said to who about why the embassy was attacked we are left with the fact that she refused to send a rescue mission into Libya to get our people out of there.

        The result was that a good and brave US public servant, our ambassador, was sodomized with a knife and his dead body dragged through the streets. Hillary threw him and 3 others under a bus filled with angry US-hating Libyan Islamicists because she feared a backlash if military commandos were sent in to rescue them.

        Those are the facts and they not disputed by what exactly prompted the embassy attack. The attack happened and Hillary let it proceed without intervention.

      • We started talking about the double standard of how Hilary and the MSM treats Gold Star families versus how Trump did and Ji D keeps trying to divert the conversation to how Hilary didn’t really mean it, she didn’t really lie, well surely you agree at least on…. and but the poor Muslims. I am beginning to feel like Jim D is just a troll.

      • catweazle666

        tumbleweedstumbling: “I am beginning to feel like Jim D is just a troll.”

        Please tell me you haven’t only just worked that out!

        You need to read this!


      • To all arguing with Jim D:
        First, as to the bias in the media:
        1) ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Adviser.
        2) CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
        3) ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney.
        4) ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.
        5) ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
        6) CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
        These lists are dynamic and changing but they give the milieu. And it has the stench of sardine guts in the sun. The 4th estate has a function, traditionally, that is to ferret out the lies of those in power and expose them. The media, for the most part, help those in power cover up the lies and help them spin a defense when they are exposed. That is, as long as those in power are of the correct political persuasion. That is so corrupt as to be criminal.

        What connects Marxism, Freud, the Pope, Islam, CAGW and Progressivism with Jim D? The list is not exhaustive and the underlying connection is shared far and wide. All these ‘systems’ of thought, are disconnected from reality in keys ways. Their first obligation isn’t to truth or reality as perceived but to an ideology. They are closed systems where reality either agrees or is intrusive but it never instructs the body of thought. The body of thought spends enormous energy trying to fit reality into itself and can lead to the above conversation with a mind disinterested in the reality of the Middle East but keen on defending a key player in the Progressive Pantheon of Gods.

        If you look at Jim D’s thought as attempting to deal with a reality out there then you’d have to wonder at his mental health but if you look at it as someone whose fealty is to defend the faith, then it all makes perfect sense. To understand Progressives is to understand the underlying principle that weaves everything they do. Whatever achieves the goals and power of Progressives is ‘good.’ Whatever blocks or interferes with them is ‘bad.’ This is the rail they ride on. And they resonate deeply with Islam in that, in Islam, whatever achieves the goals and power of Islam, is ‘good.’ Whatever blocks or interferes with them is ‘bad.’ And they have a formal policy of lying, called Taqiyya, that backs this up. Clinton is a polished practitioner of Taqiyya (as is Obama). Clinton’s enemies are not the Russians or Iranians or Putin or the Mullahs or even terrorism. Her enemies are Republicans and the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The Clinton’s are both committed Platonists to their own personal ends.

        The thing to understand about closed systems is that their practitioners long ago dropped any pretense at allowing ‘reality’ to inform their thinking. Everything is put through the swamp of ideology and conforms or is banished.

        Principles and principled thinking are important, but when you find your application of your principles to reality leading to suicide, it behooves one to reexamine the principles. Isn’t this what is meant when someone points out that Obama and Merkel have doubled down. They deny the reality right in front of them and commit to ideation. Plato was never so happy. The Form is all. (Of course, there is another interpretation of Obama, but it’s far worse).

        The only way to deal with someone so committed to ideology is to outlive them. Or kill them. They won’t be persuaded. And if their ideology is benign then outliving them is an option. Islam is not benign…any more than Nazism is benign. And neither is Obama or the Clintons but there is another way to deal with them. Vote them out, kick them out. The difference between Mussolini and Obama is that Obama, as of today, is legally obliged to leave. Otherwise, he might find himself being dragged through the streets.

      • Lovely analysis. The problem is I worry there is no longer a real democracy. If these ideologies believe so thoroughly in their cause that any lie is permissible then they would not hesitate to fix the election by fixing the voting machines and cheating voting registration. I think it might be too late to unfix that.

      • catweazle666

        Daniel E Hofford, +1,000!

      • A real democracy is two wolves and a rabbit voting on what to have for dinner. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.

      • Whatever, I keep hearing things are done by votes. I am concerned the entire voting structured is simply fixed so Hilary wins no matter anyone votes.

      • Danny Thomas

        “I am concerned the entire voting structured is simply fixed so Hilary wins no matter anyone votes.”
        By what method? I’m sure all parties would be interested to know and apply.

    • jim2,

      Donald Trump was being attacked for the perfectly common sense idea that — if we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, maybe we should stop bringing them here until we can.

      The U.S. State Department is either woefully incompetent or corrupt when it comes to screening applicants for visas to enter the United States.

      My maid’s husband paid some mafia here in Mexico $2800 to procure a U.S. visa for him, and they did it by using entirely bogus documentation.

      He was one of a group of seven acquaintances that the mafia obtained visas for.

      So Trump is right. The oversight of those entering the U.S. is all but nonexistent.

      • Danny Thomas

        Curious. Did you report it?

      • Danny Thomas

        I am interested in your perspective on Hillary Clinton. From over the pond the two candidates appear monumentally bad. However I ‘get’ Trump in as much we voted against the elite amongst other things in the recent Brexit vote and he fits into the anti politics tenor of the day.

        Hillary is surely unbelievably bad? If the Republicans had put up a more credible candidate they surely would have swept in to power. How the US can produce two candidates of this nature is beyond me but I excuse Trump to some extent because he is representing a mood and that is always going to be something of a wild card .

        Do you believe Hillary to be Presidential material?


      • Danny Thomas

        Thank you for the question. I do indeed ‘believe’ Clinton has the resume`. However, I lack trust in her decision making (from historical record).

        Neither of these candidates represent that which I ‘believe’ we need when it comes to being the leader of our country. “From over the pond the two candidates appear monumentally bad.” It appears the same here. But the ‘climate’ seems to be ‘if you’re not for us, you’re against us’.

        Were I able to chose, this would be my preferred candidate: link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman_Jr.

        “Utah was named the best managed state in America by the Pew Center on the States.[3] He won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote and left office with approval ratings over 80%.”

        and here’s his company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntsman_Corporation

        The checklist includes: businessman, former ambassador to Singapore, former governor (good track record IMO), strong on trade, fiscally conservative.

        I recognize and frankly share much of the ‘mood’. In checking the ‘isidewith’ website my alignment with Trump’s policies (those known at the time) some 59%. With Clinton it was higher (mostly due to social issues) and Johnson was also higher than Trump (as was Bernie, but that’s water under the bridge).

        Counter to the how I apparently come across, I’d like to be able to vote for Trump due to the need for a change in our political industry. That he chooses to strike out at any hint of criticism is an extreme worry to me. His trigger is much too loose to be president IMO. And I have no idea who he actually is as he vacillates like day and night. He’s wonderful at pointing out problems. Were he as good with the solution side it would help. It appears he will lean on Pence to be the policy ‘decider’ and he and Pence don’t agree all that much. Here’s an example of his so called ‘running mate’ and how they align. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/04/introducing-the-donald-trump-mike-pence-divergence-tracker/

        So my search continues.

      • “Utah was named the best managed state in America by the Pew Center on the States.[3] He won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote and left office with approval ratings over 80%.”

        Yeah, easy to do when the state is so nearly ethnically and culturally pure (white Mormans).


        96% white. 61% Morman.

        You probably didn’t want those little factoids brought up.

      • Danny Thomas


        You crack me up. “Yeah, easy to do when the state is so nearly ethnically and culturally pure (white Mormans).” Maybe I’m actually a shill for ‘white Mormans’. Why would I care that you looked at the demographics over which you’d find it so easy to reach those levels of approval? Think you’d hit those numbers with your glowingly pleasant personality? What were your numbers from your stint, and demographics please?

        Actually, I should give you credit for putting in as much effort as you did.

        Let’s compare Trump’s approval and his demo’s, or alternatively you could not say such stupid things.

        Huntsman’s pros.
        Worked early in Reagan admin.
        For a border fence (don’t salivate yet)
        Has/had a rivalry with Romney (get yourself a napkin)
        Businessman (easy now)
        Fluent in Mandarin (China get ya going?)
        Washington outsider (Should we all leave you by yourself yet?)
        Born in U.S.A. (should we close our eyes)
        Digs Rock music. (Don’t know Trump’s and don’t care, just a plus for me)
        Not adverse to the LGBT community. (Keep up, you’ll do fine).
        Cato gave him a “B” grade in fiscal. (Almost done?)
        Utah ranked #1 in job ‘growth’ during his tenure (think Trump has highlighted this for someone he’s working with). (You must be exhausted)
        Crossover (actually considered ‘centrist) so unconcerned with political labels. (Got the shivers?)
        P.O.’d the RNC. (Yeah BABY!)
        And friggin endorsed Trump. (Just like Trump!)

        Gosh. Did I just describe (largely) The Trumpmeister? Big difference is Huntsman lacks Don’s buffoonery.

        Read more. Comment less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman_Jr.

      • At the border, when he attempted to enter the U.S., he got the “red light.” It happens strictly by random selection, as the Border Patrol submits a certain random percentage of entrants to more rigorous questioning. It’s not unusual, and it’s happened to people I’ve been traveling with several times.

        And upon more rigorous questioning, the Border Patrol determined that his documentation was bogus.

        Why is it that the Border Patrol quickly spotted that his documentation was bogus, but the State Department couldn’t? Could the $2800 he paid have something to do with that? Is the State Department incompetent in its screening of visa applicants? Have the State Department personnel been given instructions to apply regulatory forebearance, to be lenient and to look the other way?

        Of the seven in his group, he was the only one who had such bad luck. The other six got through just fine with their visas obtained using bogus information.

        I found out about it later, as my maid asked me if there was anything I could do to help. I contacted an immigration attorney in El Paso, but he said that once you lie to get a visa, there is a five year waiting period before one can apply again.

      • Danny Thomas

        Did you report the other 6?

        Why would you be willing to ‘help’ an illegal immigrant become legal? Isn’t that the problem with Clinton’s plan, and here you publicly proclaim that you were willing to do exactly the same of a smaller scale which is counter to the Trump plan?

        Sorry, Glenn, but that’s a double standard. (Forsee you blaming me soon for this being an issue, but personal responsibility may not be high on your list). That, sir, is “independent, unbiased, impartial weighers and presenters of the facts,”. But I think you know that and are pulling a Trump by striking out at me personally.

        Building a wall won’t matter if all it takes is bogus paperwork to bring it tumbling down. This in addition to turning a blind eye to illegal activity.
        That, one might describe, is ‘reality’ (from which some say I’m removed).

        Where’s the ‘law and order’ in that?

      • Why did they need bogus documentation? Were they criminals, or was it some kind of fake qualifications?

      • Tony B. Obama beat the last two Redimowit “credible” candidates. They could do it a third time, but the definition of insanity is …

      • Danny

        Thanks for your reply. Yes, huntsman looks a good candidate but that leaves me even more baffled that, out of a 350 million population, with tens of thousands of competent candidates,, yet you come up with two of the poorest candidats I have seen in my lifetime. What are the odds on that?

        That surely suggests a political system in crisis as the last two sets of candidates for the last two presidential elections didn’t look exactly competent. That might suggest that you need someone like Trump , with all his many flaws, to break the mould.


      • Danny Thomas

        “What are the odds on that?” Unfortunately, for us, it’s 100% (or maybe 97%?).

        If I could trust Trump, I’d be in for a serious change up (one direction or the other I.E. Huntsman as a true statesman, or Trump as a change leader). But at this point I don’t. I’m not sure he cares about being anything but a figurehead which means we’re really electing Pence as effectively president.

        Trump’s a great salesman. Seems to have a decent family. Has done much better than most in business. I don’t delve in to the misogyny, racism, and that level as I don’t know the man’s heart and frankly get the impression his daughter wouldn’t stand for it. He just needs to come up with some solutions, and not just a laundry list of problems. I can see the problems (many of them) with my own eyes. I’m hiring a fixer (at least I hope I am).

        I don’t intentionally offend those who do support him, but don’t take kindly to those who wish to attack me personally because I don’t.

      • “That might suggest that you need someone like Trump , with all his many flaws, to break the mould.”

        Exactly. Trump is not an establishment candidate from either side and certainly no Republican. In his lifetime he’s been a Democrat longer than a Republican.

        Only someone with his personal resources, name recognition, and personality could have swooped in and upset the establishment applecart. It needed to be done. It’s being done.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Your swatty, petty little “gotcha” remarks do nothing to advance your cause. You’re trying too hard, which leads you to make recriminatory comments based stricty on emotion. But your rejoinders are devoid of facts and common sense and are, to be frank, downright silly.

        For instance, how in the hell could I “report the other 6” when I don’t even know who they are? Do you believe it’s my job to play Border Patrol investigator in a foreign country where the Border Patrol itself doesn’t even have jurisdiction, and where going up against criminal mafias can get one killed? Danny, the stupidity of some of the things you say is beyond the pale.

        And what’s wrong with helping someone to go through the proper legal channels to try to get a visa?

        This “illegal immigrant,” as your wrongly call him, wasn’t in the United States when I attempted to help him. That means he wasn’t an “illegal immigrant” at all. He was in Mexico. There’s a distinction between trying to help someone trying to get a visa — legally — when they are in Mexico and trying to get an “illegal immigrant” a visa when they are in the United States. It’s a distinction, however, that is obviously lost on you.

        You then use your misconcepton of what an “illegal immigrant” is to launch a charge that I was “willing to do exactly the same of a smaller scale which is counter to the Trump plan.”

        “Counter to the Trump plan”? Can you show me one single place where Trump has ever said he was opposed to legal immigration? Show me. I dare you. Take “personal responsiblity” for all the fact-free and logic-free nonsense that you spout.

      • Danny Thomas


        Ignoring your first (and a bit pissy) paragraph.

        “For instance, how in the hell could I “report the other 6” when I don’t even know who they are? Do you believe it’s my job to play Border Patrol investigator in a foreign country where the Border Patrol itself doesn’t even have jurisdiction, and where going up against criminal mafias can get one killed?”

        You didn’t state you didn’t know who they were. But since your maid’s husband traveled with them maybe he does. Since you are aware that they gained access via fraud they are criminals and should be dealt with as such. Unless you’re suggesting that what was done is acceptable.

        AND HELL YES, it’s your job to report that illegal activity is occurring. What, after all, if they were/are terrorists? Isn’t that the point? If you consider that to be a ‘stupid’ statement on my part I worry for you. As an American citizen no matter where you are, it’s a responsibility of being one.

        “And what’s wrong with helping someone to go through the proper legal channels to try to get a visa?” Nothing is wrong with doing it legally. But your person didn’t, then you chose to step in (and as a human I understand) and assist a criminal. He committed an illegal act against the United States. I mean, after all, we do agree his act was criminal and being all law and order oriented that’s a concern, right?
        If you look, I think you’ll find both fact and logic to be within the above response. It helps if you remove your rose colored glasses first. Picture becomes clearer.

        Your emotional personal responses give you away.

        Tell you what. Take your story to Trump, as you’ve done here, and ask if he’d support your decisions to stay mum as well as attempting to help one who committed a crime against our country. (But you don’t get to tell him you luv him before hand).

      • JIm D,

        In order to procure a Tourism and Visit (B-2) visa, it is my understanding that the State Department requires documents which prove education, criminal, residency, employment and income history.

        The mafias here in Mexico have ways of creating this documentation which is fake.

        When a Mexican citizen crosses the border into the United States, even though he or she has been issued a visa by the State Department, the Border Patrol has the right to request this information again. That’s why many Mexicans carry folders with this documentation with them when they cross the border, in case the Border Patrol asks for it again.

      • Tonyb
        We are a free people.
        Free people play the wild card.
        Breaking from King George was playing the wild card.
        You guys had no chance in !940.
        Somebody had to play the wild card.
        I like uncompromising, trash talking, bombastic wild cards.
        Beats calculating liars.

      • Danny, “I’m hiring a fixer (at least I hope I am).”

        Not what is needed if you have a laundry list. The economy stupid and obey the law dumbbutt are the only real issues. The economy boils down to energy prices and taxes. Trump’s tax plan is pretty boring but flexible. If he can keep oil below $50, Russia, Iran and most of the other pests will remain pretty docile. Trump could even get a shot at bailing Putin out in Crimea with some real bridge building.

      • Danny Thomas


        “Not what is needed if you have a laundry list.” It’s pretty darn long, but ‘the job’s’ probably longer. I appreciate your perspective but don’t share your optimism that Trump is the guy. His behavior is of issue. He’s suggested he doesn’t want the job as it exists. He wants it as he wants it yet doesn’t state clearly what that is. I’m not even sure he knows. It’s yet another ‘problem’ at which he’s fantastic about referencing. Solutions, in detail, not so much. He is getting better in producing policy (thru the MSM I might add, not much on his site), but that’s outside pressure from folks asking him questions. And frankly, he’s crass at worst and thoughtless at best.

        There’s even a wiki (yeah, I get that it’s a wiki) about it:

        “Legal experts spanning the political spectrum, including many conservative and libertarian scholars, have suggested that
        Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

        Then some alternative views.: “Republican opinion journalist Josh Barro terms Trump a “moderate Republican,” saying that except on immigration, his views are “anything but ideologically rigid, and he certainly does not equate deal making with surrender.”[22] MSNBC host Joe Scarborough says Trump is essentially more like a “centrist Democrat” on social issues.[23] Journalist and political analyst John Heilemann has characterized Trump as liberal on social issues,[24] while conservative talk radio host and political commentator Rush Limbaugh says that Heilemann is seeing in Trump what he wants to see.”

        (That last line made me laugh and wonder if that doesn’t apply to many of us?)

      • Trump is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Which is pretty much the center of American politics. The socially conservative evangelical Christian fringe of the Republican party and the fiscally Marxist fringe of the Democratic party are marginalized in Trump’s core constituency. Neither establishment party likes it having an important fringe group they pander to being marginalized.

        Trump is killing it in his support among independents. A double digit lead over Hillary, As large as Hillary’s lead among women. As large as Trump’s lead among men. Independent thinkers who eschew politically correct divisions and speech are his base and those are who decide elections in the otherwise polarized electorate. I’m an independent. I voted LIbertarian last election because both candidates were party apparatchiks. We need real change and it won’t come from within either of the establishment parties.

      • Danny Thomas

        And Capt. I didn’t intend to not address your additional comment, I will have to study. I don’t know that much about the Russian situation to comment well.

      • Danny Thomas,

        The veracity of your empirical claims is not improving. Quite the contrary, your assertions continue to have no basis in factual reality.

        My maid’s husband, for instance, is not “a criminal,” as you falsely charge. In order to be a criminal alien, according to Homeland Security, he would have had to have been convicted of at least one criminal offense in the United States. This, however, is not the case. Instead, he is what Homeland Security classifies as a “non-criminal” alien.

        The other six, you go on to charge, also “are criminals.” This claim is also false. They too are what Homeland Security classifies as non-criminal aliens.

        Since Obama took office, the number of removals of non-criminal aliens has fallen steadily throughout his administration, from 254,529 in 2008 to 96,045 in 2015.



        As a result, the net immigration rate from Mexico to the United States is at an all-time high. It fell from 20.4 in 2008 to 8.5 in 2010 as a result of the Great Financial Crisis, but has now (first three quarters of 2015) rebounded to 22.8, or 12% higher than the previous high set in 2008.


        And earlier this week, in response to questioning at the 2016 NABJ/NAHJ Joint Convention, Clinton said that she would stop removal of non-criminal aliens altogether:

        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoB-gOZY5OM

        To further confirm your disconnection from reality, you then go on to claim that since the six “gained access via fraud they are criminals and should be dealt with as such,” to which you add, “AND HELL YES, it’s your job to report that illegal activity is occurring.”

        These statements go to show the dizzying extent to which you have lost touch with the political realities.

        Given the political realities, just what is it you believe would happen if I were to report the six?

      • Danny Thomas

        I’ll address your last section first. Probably not much. But ignoring the issue (as each administration has done since the 1970’s) is part of the problem not part of a solution.

        As far as the rest is concerned, you apparently have discovered the solution to the illegal immigration issue. In order (based on your argument) to completely resolve the ‘illegal immigration’ issue we only need to involve the mafia and provide bogus (fraudulent) documentation and viola` those who enter the country via this method are no longer illegal. Didn’t I suggest earlier that it appeared that you were supporting Clinton’s plan? Looks like confirmation.

        Thanks Glenn.

        Oh, did you hire Khizr Khan? I hear he’s an immigration attorney and some rail against those for some reason.

        But I may have lost touch with reality, Glenn, so take that in to consideration when you review my words.

      • Danny Thomas,

        I don’t see how you keep from getting arrested for reckless silliness when you walk down the street.

        Just because I am aware of the political realies — something which you are woefully ignorant of — doesn’t automatically mean that I agree with the status quo.

      • danny, “He’s suggested he doesn’t want the job as it exists.”

        Yep, Right now you have Obama micromanaging everything, his Pen and Phone dictatorship that Mosher loves so much. Obama might be great at somethings, but you tend to show your ignorance when you think you are great at everything. Anyone with any sense of US and global economics would know that the dollar and oil are tightly linked, it is the “petro-dollar” after all and that oil makes up a large portion of the income of despots.

        If you want to combat climate change and keep peace, you have to balance things. Focus on energy efficiency and pollution reduction instead of killing anything. Energy efficiency and pollution technology works into you hands and against the “evil empire’s”

        Instead of bombing ISIL, tell the Saudi’s well will drop oil to $20 a barrel unless they deal with it. Don’t like despotism, make their currency worthless. EU let’s the Euro get to 1.25 exchange, make them increase NATO spending. China doesn’t play fair, push for strict emissions reductions for shipping.

        It is called capitalism, take a whiff.


      • Danny Thomas


        Capitalism has the smell of roses.

        A few excerpts from your offering:
        ““But if he has the gift of virtue, there are other gifts he lacks. One is sophistication. It soon became clear, in ways I shall explain, that Carter and those closest to him to him took office in profound ignorance of their jobs. They were ignorant of the possibilities and the most likely pitfalls. They fell prey to predictable dangers and squandered precious time.”

        Profound ignorance of the job!

        “”The second is the ability to explain his goals and thereby to offer an object for loyalty larger than him.”

        Explain goals!

        “”The third, and most important, is the passion to convert himself from a good man into an effective one, to learn how to do the job.”

        Does Trump have that capability?

        “We see this quite clearly with Obama. He has no relationship with Congress on either side of the aisle. He is not the least interested in the “art of the deal.””

        How is Trump’s ‘relationship’ with Congress?

        “Today, Obama’s approval rating hovers around 42 percent, and a majority of Americans believe we are on the wrong track.”

        In comparison with the two candidates we’re offered, and considering this is an article from 2014, how has this perception been modified?

        “President Obama has governed at a time of high unemployment, low GDP, rising inflation for consumer goods, falling housing prices, a stalled housing market, record levels of home foreclosures and bankruptcies, failed energy policy, wars, and government spending too much while taking in too little.”

        No longer do we have (as) high unemployment. We do have low GDP. Inflation (described as moderate under Obama), home prices are rising and market is active. Failed energy policy (eh?)? Wars and too much spending, you bet.

      • Danny, it isn’t so much how it is modified as how flexible does the administration have to become what may. Obama inherited crap, but he knew he was going to. It is the economy stupid is in the governing for dummies hand book. Bad times, infrastructure with a long term useful life is prefect for deficit finances. Obama’s “shovel” ready was more like chit can ready.

        In the middle of Obama’s reign, the Euro was trading at 1.6 USD and all he had to do was push clean natural gas and the Keystone pipeline to “reduce” emissions and transportation pollution/environmental damage to sell a compromise with his mob… er constituency. Since Germany had to shift back to coal, Obama could have pushed super clean coal, waste to biomass etc. and still financed cutting edge research on any technology that blew wind up his skirt. He could have pushed futuregen, which probably wouldn’t work. but would have slowed China’s coal build out. With the 2008 games and pollution issues, he could have sold the fast emissions response plan in a heart beat.

        You end up at the same place but with faster recovery and more options. Of course that would have postponed the Arab Spring and all that fun, which will be his legacy.

      • Danny Thomas

        Your commentary applies to Obama. My questions allude to Trump.

        “Danny, it isn’t so much how it is modified as how flexible does the administration have to become what may.”

        Is it your perception that Trump (or maybe actually Pence?) is that guy? Flexible, and willing to modify?

      • Danny, Trump is all about negotiations and results. He is by definition flexible. An idealist is inflexible.

      • Danny Thomas


        Hmm. I’ve missed that. It seems his habit is to stake out a position, no matter how on/off base, then dig in his heels? Negotiation is a give a take. Unless you’re suggesting that he’ll be willing to participate in the ‘give’ part once in office.

        Based on this last note it seems you perceive him as not being an idealist. Yet isn’t that exactly what he’s selling?

      • No. Trump’s habit is, like any good negotiator, is start out by asking for far more than the other side is willing concede then meeting somewhere in the middle. A good negotiator won’t say where in the middle he is willing to meet. You don’t win fights by telegraphing your punches ahead of time. Duh.

        So, for instance, Trump starts his negotiating position on immigration with “building a big beautiful wall between the US and forcing Mexico to pay for it by threat of trade sanctions”. It won’t happen that way. There will be some middle ground where dueling interests settle. He doubles down by asking for a complete ban on Muslim foreign nationals entering the US. That too will never happen and he’s already budged by calling it a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration from countries where fundamentalist Islam is widely embraced. That probably won’t happen either but it’s closer to an acceptable middle where those entering the US have to have some credible documentation that they’re not radicals in sheep’s clothing.

        Militarily it’s the same thing. He starts out by saying NATO is obsolete and the US should get out of it. That won’t happen. Again it’s a starting point for negotiating a reasonable deal like requiring NATO to be funded not by ability to pay (a Marxist scheme which leaves the US footing most of bill) but rather by number of citizens in the member nation. And some applicants just aren’t acceptable. We can no more admit Ukraine to NATO than Texas can be admitted to the Russian empire. The US wouldn’t tolerate Russia on what is considered US soil and neither should traditional regions of the Russian empire on the physical border of mother Russia be admitted to NATO. North Atlantic means North Atlantic. Ukraine is pretty phucking far from the North Atlantic.

      • Danny Thomas

        Come on Dave. Rookie mistakes are rookie mistakes.

        An analogy for ya. If you price your Ford F150 pickup truck at $25,000 you’ll get offers and reach a negotiation if not an agreement. Price that same vehicle at $100,000 and you’re out of the market and IF you receive an offer it’ll (highly likely) be out of the market on the low end. In addition, you’ve established in the mind of the market that you’re an ‘unreasonable seller’ and the market will not treat you seriously. Trump, if he’d smarten up, could set himself up to be treated more seriously (you know I’m not the only one saying that dontcha?). Jawbone of an A$$ will slay a thousand sales every time. As a buyer, it’s easy to walk away from a ridiculous seller, but not so much from a serious one. If you don’t think Trump could ‘make more sales’ by moderating (which, by the by he’s been ‘forced’ to do—-Ryan/McCain as example) then you really are blinded by love.

        Scientists don’t belong anywhere near the sales game. You guys are out of your league when you’re forced to go there. But at least you make me laugh. Do keep your day job though.

      • Idi0tic analogy. Trucks have well established markets, blue book pricing, and lots of willing buyers and sellers. There is no equivalent market for immigration reform, NATO participation, trade agreements, or anything else. Do you think at all before replying? Are you capable of critical thought at all? It sure doesn’t appear that way.

      • Danny Thomas


        Here’s just one indication of a ‘comparable’ from ‘the market’ in which immigration reform participates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

        If you’ll think (critically or not) instead of reacting and hurrying to get off some silly insult you’ll realize it’s one of many dating back to the 1970’s when the current extent of the ‘illegal immigration’ issue really began.

        ‘The market’ can be easily defined by taking a look at the history of the legislation associated. The more recent the likely more reliable as analogue.

        You’re making rookie mistakes also.

      • Danny –

        Just ignore all evidence to the contrary that you see on a regular basis. Trump is very flexible, because, well just because.

        Oh. And in addition to being amazingly flexible, he also drives a hard bargain and will force trading partners to their knees because of his toughness.

        And he’s not a politician who is a victim of the media even as he slyly manipulates the media by making sensationalist statements to get free coverage fir political advantage while saying that all publicity is good publicity.

      • Danny, Staking out a claim is defining the desired result not the path to it. Not long ago he was asked about tax rates, he gave a target but said it was negotiable. Not negotiable would be corporate tax rates which need to be inline with OECD averages to stop expatriation and help produce fair trade.

        You aren’t going to get many hard details but here is a bit on infrastructure. Proper infrastructure funding is considered good debt which the US doesn’t have a lot of at the moment.


      • Danny Thomas


        This is an area I agree with Trump. And Clinton, and frankly Obama (who’s been stating the need for years).

        Yet w/o cooperation he can’t do it on his own. At least the funding portion. This is part of why his approach concerns me in that if he alienates congress now, why would they assist him later? They didn’t work with Obama on the issue and likely won’t with Clinton. And Trump, being the ‘outsider’ can’t be considered ‘one of their own’.

        Tossing a hand grenade in advance then expecting to be well received seems like a less than optimum negotiation tactic. Right now he’s tossing grenades.

      • Danny, “Tossing a hand grenade in advance then expecting to be well received seems like a less than optimum negotiation tactic. Right now he’s tossing grenades.”

        It is hard to tell if he is tossing them or just throwing them back. Right now there are 50 former Republican national security advisors announcing him as unfit mainly because of national security policy. His America first, detente, and building a coalition to fight ISIL isn’t bad policy.


      • Danny Thomas

        “It is hard to tell if he is tossing them or just throwing them back. ” Fair enough. Neither side act like adults.

        “His America first, detente, and building a coalition to fight ISIL isn’t bad policy.” No, it’s not. The issue I’d point out in building coalitions is his recent arms length move from Nato. With that in mind does going to them ‘hat in hand’ after dealing with one of those grenades we discussed put us in the best position of ‘negotiation’? I’d suggest not.

        The article linked takes Clinton to task for ‘approval’ of the decision to go to war in Iraq, yet does not take in to account that Trump has vacillated on his position on the same topic. I give zero extra credit for Trump over Clinton on that topic.

        To be clear, my intent is in no way to ‘project’ that Clinton’s approach would be sound. In part, this area is one of those of greatest concern.

        Invocation of ‘the Gipper’ :”Trump’s rejection of Washington’s conventional wisdoms makes him controversial, not bizarre or irrational. Ronald Reagan was also one who wasn’t reticent about stoking controversy,…………………..” leading to later: “Additionally, Mr. Trump’s proposed wall along the southern border and the like might frighten Washington elites, not because his views are incoherent but instead because they represent a direct challenge to their custodianship of a failing foreign-policy status quo.”

        Well, if I remember correctly, ‘The Gip’ was all about tearing down walls (at least in Germany) both literally and metaphorically (when it came to immigration).

        Interesting article.

      • A private citizen vacillating is a bit different than a career politician.

        It was a good article. You know, if we annex northern Mexico the wall will cost next to nothing :) I bet we could arrange a quick referendum vote in just a few days

      • Danny Thomas

        “A private citizen vacillating is a bit different than a career politician.” Sure. But lacking an apples/apples comparison on what else does one evaluate? Surely we gotta go on something and not just ‘believe’ because an ‘authority’ figures tells us we must.

        One can’t lose if one positions oneself as having been for/against/for/against issues. At least having a vote on record (no matter if you’re in agreement) is more tangible for evaluation.

        Can’t you picture it now? The Governor of New Northern Mexico behind his bully pulpit strongly projecting the words “Mr. Trump. Tear. Down. This. Wall.”

      • I guess not being a politician has some advantages. What is fun now is the wannabe socialists attacking his corporate tax rate cut. 15% is competitive with Canada and Ireland which have been attracting US corporations. Corporate income tax is only 11% of total tax revenue and decreasing because of moving things offshore. The minions though don’t understand why they just cannot get evil corporate empires to pay for their pet projects.

      • Danny Thomas

        “I guess not being a politician has some advantages.” By not having a recorded vote? How do we account for the vacillating stories? More, equal, or less in value?

        W/r/t Trumps Tax plan, Willard presented this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/08/what-plan

        “Typically, politicians flesh out the details of such wonkery in accompanying policy documents. But Mr Trump has yet to release the plan in full. As a result, it is impossible to cost…………..(jab at Trump snipped here).”

        “The biggest unknown about Mr Trump’s economic policy is what he really wants from trade deals. The speech criticised NAFTA, the TPP and a 2012 bilateral deal with South Korea. Mr Trump then insisted that he is not an isolationist, promising to support “great” trade deals. But he never explains what these look like.” (He does that a lot).

        Frankly, w/o looking in to it I’d tend to believe more the lack of detail to conduct an analysis than I would the ‘wannabe socialists’.

      • Not fleshing things out adds to the drama and gets Willard’s to do spurious analyst. Fortune also had a nonsense headline to go with a head scratching review. 15% marginal with a slightly lower effective rate mainly for smaller corporations is going to be the final draft. I am not sure what the optimum rate is, but even 10% effective should actually result in more revenue from less cash being sent offshore. Unfortunately, Forbes cannot convince Trump of a VAT which is really needed to simplify fair trade.

        Not being pro globalism doesn’t make you an isolationist. The South Korea deal already has some anti-trust issues ans prevents SK from being part of the TPP. It should be pretty obvious that the globalization trade deals aren’t very well thought out. With NAFTA and Mexico there are dueling subsidy issues with things like sugar plus poor treatment of manufacturing workers that have a 6 day work week, low wage and crap housing.

        You would think liberals would be more up in arms over the human condition, but I guess that is so 20th century.

        Another thing is that the Willard’s keep forgetting that “other” revenue. My how insensitive they are to the human condition.


      • Danny Thomas


        Trumps M.O.? “Not fleshing things out adds to the drama”.

        Well, that article reports what looks like it might be a ‘good deal’ (the best even?) for Ferguson, but one might need to consider the ‘collateral damage’. That’s hard to do w/o someone ‘fleshing things out’.

        In comparison with surrounding communities, Ferguson doesn’t look to be out of line revenue wise so wonder if the punitive fines are of issue or does at least a portion of the distrust stem from the quote at the end: ““The contact they have with people in the community and during traffic stops is critically important to how people feel,” he said.”

        It’s interesting that this comment was made and makes me wonder why. And I’d also wonder about the nature of the relationship with law enforcement in the neighboring communities since we have the fiscal comparisons. Wish the article would have taken that next logical step.

      • It would be interesting if someone did a good study on the negative impact of some of the “user fees”. Chicago has some of the highest emt/ambulance charges in the nation now and just a few years ago it was free. Obama has become a big fan of user fee even for things like the state department of agriculture and the failed $100 aviation user fee. It is like he knows taxes are too high and is trying to save his “legacy”.

        In any case, Police/civilian contact in the US runs over 20 times the rate in the UK and $1000 ambulance rides are the norm for what was a public service. I believe 500 billion/yr is the current guess for all user fees.

      • Danny Thomas

        Had hopes with this: “ArchCity Defenders, a local legal and social advocacy firm, recently issued a scathing white paper that identified the Ferguson Municipal Court as one of the region’s most “chronic offenders.””

        Link is dead in the original tied to ‘white paper’.

        How is ‘Obama’ involved with the: “Obama has become a big fan of user fee even for things like the state department of agriculture”? I don’t get the connection with the state.

      • >15% marginal with a slightly lower effective rate mainly for smaller corporations is going to be the final draft.

        Citation needed.

      • Danny, ” “Obama has become a big fan of user fee even for things like the state department of agriculture”? I don’t get the connection with the state.”

        Ferguson is just one example of a municipality using fire department/police/courts to increase revenue. Flint Michigan is a good example of increasing water/sewer rate to finance other things. Obama just illustrates the same thing on a federal level. Changing to a VAT should simplify things.

        Willard, a 15% marginal rate for corporate taxes will not produce a 15% effective rate with the basic deductions allowed. Whether they plan to set brackets or not is still in the works. If you want a rough estimate take 35% that yields 28% now and ratio – you get a 12% effective rate, “all things remaining equal” Doesn’t require a cite.

    • David L. Hagen

      Veteran Chris Mark responds to Khan

      I am troubled that you would allow a party that has little more than contempt for the US Service Member to parade you into the DNC to denounce Donald Trump. Did you watch when protesters at the DNC booed and heckled Medal of Honor recipient Capt. Florent Groberg? Did you notice your party interrupting the moment of silence for slain police officers? Your own hypocrisy in not denouncing these acts and instead using the DNC as a platform to make a political point is disgraceful.

      • Let’s allow MoH recipient Capt. Florent Groberg to speak for himself:

        link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSUJq_QB4z4

        And let’s allow him to determine whether or not he was dishonored at the Democratic National Convention. I have a feeling anybody suggesting such a thing to him in person would get grabbed by the chest and tossed to the ground.

      • Captain Florent is an exception to the rule. Veterans and especially active duty military support Trump by a 2:1 margin. He is entitled to a contrary opinion, he certainly earned it, but he’s not thinking clearly.

  3. Artcile clip about Khan in moderation @jim2 | August 6, 2016 at 9:01 am

    • I doubt if Khan the younger, who apparently made a personal decision to fight back against those who hijacked the faith of his parents and died for his principles, would have been as pro-Obama/Hillary as his father.

      • I think so too and he is a hero in how he died. However, it is also the practice of the Muslim Brotherhood to gradually infiltrate the military of any nation where they want to take power. They did this in Egypt and Turkey. We would be kidding ourselves if we did not think they are doing it in the west as well. This son of Khan might have been one of those infiltrators who died a hero. There is no way to know to know the truth.

      • johnvonderlin

        Hi Wags,
        Kudos on your temperate comment. You might be right, though I suspect the younger Khan would have been as outraged as his father in regards to Trump’s Muslim rhetoric.
        Speaking of being outraged, TWS just below here has posted one of the most outrageous, bizarre,, xenophobic, fact-free, woo conspiritorial, and hateful sentences I’ve yet read in this forum: “…Khan might have been one of those infiltrators….” That’s some ugly shid TWS. There is something seriously wrong with somebody that would want to share that kind of putrescent, hateful garbage when it comes oozing up from the depths of the reeking cesspool of their subconscious. Get help,

      • I’ll see your US Army Captain Kahn the hero and raise you US Army Major Nadil Hassan the terrorist who fatally shot 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood, TX, in 2009.

        There was a saying posted on the wall in my Marine Corps radio shop. It read:

        1000 “attaboys” earns you the admiration of your fellow Marines and qualifies to you be a leader of men. But with no raise in pay.

        Note: 1 “aw shiit” erases 1000 “attaboys”.

        I submit to you that Muslim Captain Kahn’s heroism was more than erased by Muslim Major Hassan’s letting his inner terrorist loose.

  4. “The Supreme Court isn’t sufficient reason to vote for Trump ” requires twitter log in. Don’t have one.

  5. How about some climate politics?
    I’ve been asked to head up the UK branch.

  6. From the article:

    This is all part of how you get someone like my friend Aarthi, an astute, reasonable and otherwise skeptical woman, to tweet about Hillary Clinton’s lusterless, cut-and-paste acceptance speech: “I think every woman in the US will remember where they were when Hillary accepted the nomination to become President.” That’s a propaganda accomplishment.

    Certainly it was a propaganda victory and precursor to a nice bounce that, emerging after four days of Clinton encomiums and Trump bashing at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia — at a remote location from the city itself, with most people in the arena held there from midafternoon until midnight — it was for nearly every attendee impossible to believe there could be any way in hell that Trump could win. Although, of course, there is.

    The historic departure here is in arguing legitimacy over policies. In this, the Democrats appear to have two fears. The first is that traditional political techniques don’t work anymore and that Trump has significantly more mastery over the new techniques. The Democrats have spent $68 million on advertising so far. Trump: $6 million. How do you fight someone who doesn’t have to spend? The second is that the party’s own policies, pushed left by Bernie Sanders and focused on usually undependable young voters, are up against a backlash that it doesn’t know how to defuse and is opposed to accommodating — a protest vote by culturally adrift, undereducated white voters without precise political moorings, an identity group the Democrats hardly knew had an identity (this already may be a cliched portrait of the Trump voter, a broad approximation of people whom the media doesn’t know).


    • Whenever someone talks about Hilary from the perspective of a “in spite of her faults we should support a woman” I bring up Sarah Pallin. She was the first woman vice presidential candidate. I ask if they supported here. the response is generally heads exploding.

      • tumbleweed, actually, the first was Geraldine “rhymes with rich” Ferraro. It was quaint back then.

      • I did not know that. Thank you for the correction but the question about supporting Sarah Palin simply because she was a woman too stands even if she wasn’t the first woman VP.

  7. From the article:

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is in free fall. The election is not over yet, but it is in danger of slipping away. And it is important to understand why.

    In an otherwise mediocre speech accepting the Democratic Party nomination last week, Hillary Clinton said: “I will be a President for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents … For those who vote for me and those who don’t.”

    And yet she, or someone on her campaign team, understood that it was important to pay minimal homage to the ideal of a president who serves all the people.

    That is what Donald Trump has failed to do, and fails to understand that he needs to do.

    There is nothing erratic about Trump’s behavior. On the contrary — and to his detriment, in this case — his tactics are dictated by a consistent strategy, not impulses.

    In January, I described Trump’s strategy, which he developed in the business world and which he brought into the 2016 presidential campaign: “If there is one near-constant in the Trump campaign, it is his use of a strategy that game theorists call ‘massive retaliatory strike‘: he is friendly by default, but hits back hard if challenged.”

    The Khans hit him, therefore they must be hit back. Ditto Ryan and McCain, who criticized him over the Khan-troversy. And so it goes, until the other side relents. Trump was full of praise Wednesday for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), for example, who mocked him in the primary but has since endorsed him.

    Winning the presidency, and governing, requires building coalitions. Those coalitions will include people who disagree. If small tiffs are treated as major disputes, coalitions rapidly disintegrate. Which is what Trump faces now.

    It is too late to teach Trump a new strategy, just like it is too late to invent a record of success and bipartisanship for Hillary Clinton.

    But he can learn from her. At least say the words America needs to hear: that Trump will fight for everyone, even his opponents.


    • –snip–

      There is nothing erratic about Trump’s behavior. On the contrary — and to his detriment, in this case — his tactics are dictated by a consistent strategy, not impulse


      Its really remarkable how sycophants can delude themselves into believing anything, no matter how absurd.

    • > Ditto Ryan and McCain […]

      Perhaps Double Bind Donald was simply telling voters in Paul Ryan’s district to vote their conscience.

  8. David L. Hagen

    Climate skeptics hold balance of power in Australian Senate?!
    Capturing 4 out of 76 senators climate skeptic Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party appears to effectively hold the balance of power with a coalition of 41 led by the Liberals with 30. Contrast the opposition Labor Party with 26 and Greens 9 holding 35. That will make for very “interesting” politics.
    EXPLAINER: Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party Is The Real Winner In Federal Election

    “The One Nation Party has returned with a vengeance, and will become the fourth largest party in the Senate after the Coalition, ALP and the Greens. Which forces one to wonder, are we back in 1996 and how did we get here?
    With 4.3 percent of the total votes, Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party has managed to grab four Senate seats. Yes. Four. Hanson, who is known for her racist controversial policies now holds a balance of power in the Senate.
    With the Guardian Australia dubbing the leader “Queen Pauline of the Parliament” – it’s looking like the radical fringe party might have more power than anyone could have imagined.” . . .

    Australia senator Malcolm Roberts calls climate change a UN conspiracy

    Malcolm Roberts won a Queensland Senate seat as member of the anti-immigration One Nation party in recent elections.
    He says the United Nations is using climate change to lay the foundations for an unelected global government. . . .
    He called for an investigation into Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) over its handling of climate change science.
    When asked if he still believed the UN was trying to impose a worldwide government through climate change policy, Mr Roberts answered: “Definitely”.

    Burden of Proof demanded by Roberts
    Senator Roberts detailed his arguments to PM Gillard, laying out the burden of proof required to scientifically and legally recognize global warming aka “climate change”:
    Roberts Affidavit to Gillard

    Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall . . .
    Preamble: From what I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts, have seen and in my experience, on the topic of human causation of global warming, also known as global ‘climate change’, people across Australia express a range of feelings including confusion, fear, guilt, frustration, resentment, anger, apathy and doubt. As a result of this and of political inconsistencies since 2006, people across Australia say their needs for truth, understanding, reassurance, security, confidence, hope and clarity are not being met. I share these unmet needs and after four years reading and researching claims of human causation of global warming, and after communicating directly with many politicians of all major Australian political parties I feel deeply concerned. It appears that politicians and associated advocates, particularly those receiving funding from government, appear to be failing their duty of care to the people of Australia. . . .
    27. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the corporation of government has not entered into contracts with advocates of the premise that humans cause global warming, to some predetermined end and believe none exists. . . .
    For these reasons I do not consent and cannot accept the “Carbon Tax” nor the terms and conditions as the bills imply as it is an issuance of a “false document” of “defective service”
    1. For the reason of, is this not an unjustifiable imposition of costs on me?
    2. For the reason of, is this not restricting my freed oms through arbitrary legislation?
    3. For the reason of, has the government not reversed its responsibility of serving the people and instead determined the people must serve the government.
    4.For the reason of, is this not injuring the people of the common wealth?
    5. For the reason of, the government not having consent of the people, are the proposed bills not an illegal and unlawful attempt to impose the tax? . . .
    Notice of Proof of Claim and Clarification: I seek clarification and proof of claim of all nine (9) items listed below, each point requiring lawful response.
    1) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that global atmospheric temperature has been rising during the past twelve (12) years since 1998 and is continuing to rise.
    2) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that in the open atmosphere, global carbon dioxide level determines global atmospheric temperature.
    3) Prove up and show material facts or evidence that human production of carbon dioxide determines global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
    4) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that global atmospheric temperature rises are catastrophically harmful to humanity and to the Earth’s living natural environment comprising animal and plant species.
    5) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is actually a scientific organisation.
    6) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence contradicting statements in the body of the August, 2010 report from the Inter- Academy Council’s review of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change processes and procedures showing that those processes and procedures cannot be relied upon.
    7) Prove up and show that the gas carbon dioxide, sometimes known as CO2, is a pollutant.
    8) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not the source of information for the current government’s climate policy and the basis of its quest to legislated a “Carbon Tax”.
    9) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that the Australian parliament has no need to convene an independent judicial inquiry into the science and politics of climate that is the basis of the “Carbon Tax” and that such inquiry should not require evidence be given under oath.


    Each point is well worth scientific consideration and open debate.

    • The evangelists of CAGW don’t need to demonstrate cause and effect using reliable empirical-forensic evidence.

      The same standard of proof that sufficed in the Salem witch trials works just fine for their purposes.

    • I agree climate change is a scam by the UN to set up a one world government they control. All the petty dictators and tyrant wannabes are already putting their hands out demanding a cut of the carbon tax. The list of demands by Black Lives Matter and their associated groups includes a demand that Whites pay a tax on air in order to provide funds to give reparations to Blacks and, as part of these reparations, to provide all Blacks with a lifetime income without any form of means testing.

  9. RE: The 2016 Race Is Not Over

    Worth repeating:

    First, we have two of the most disliked and distrusted candidates running against each other in modern political history. That point can’t be understated. It creates much more fluidity and volatility than we’ve seen in our more “traditional” campaigns. As I’ve written before, they are also challenging the traditional coalitions and alliances that we have come to know and understand….

    Third, the disconnect between the elite and the non-elite is bigger than ever.

  10. And finally, what I bet will be the most discussed article in the comments: Donald Trump’s hand size

    Brett Favre…

    Favre’s hands were measured by the NFL years ago (from thumb tip to pinkie tip) at 10 3⁄8 inches. For comparison’s sake, Tony Romo’s hand was measured at 8.88 inches. Anything bigger than 9 1⁄2 is considered large for an NFL QB prospect. …

  11. “The 2016 race is not over [link]”

    It surely is over if ~300,000 independent voters living in ~3 swing states believe the MSM should pick our next president.

  12. RE: Trumpism in international context [link]

    Yep. The globalists’ quixotic dream of one world government has suffered a major heart attack. It is now being kept on life support by “the ruling class,” a class that “has been largely discredited in the eyes of citizens.” And the ruling class’ clinging to its failed ideology invites catastrophe.

    From the article:

    We had supposedly entered into the final stage of democracy where human rights would reign, ever more rights ever more rigorously observed. We had left behind the age of nations as well as that of religions, and we would henceforth be free individuals moving frictionless over the surface of the planet. … And now we see that religious affiliations and other collective attachments not only survive but return with a particular intensity….

    We invite catastrophe by falling for an ideological representation of the world such as the one that is ours today. We invite catastrophe by sincerely believing that the religious affiliation of a citizen has no political bearing or effect.

    • The ruling class’ failed ideology was articulated by Francis Fukuyama. Here’s how John Gray describes the ideology in Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern:

      The Positivists believed that as societies came to be based on science they were bound to become more alike.

      Scientific knowledge would engender a universal morality in which the aim of society was as much production as possible. Through the use of technology, humanity would extend its power over the Earth’s resources and overcome the worst forms of natural scarcity. Poverty and war could be abolished. Through the power of given it by science, humanity would be able to create a new world.

      There has always been disagreement about the nature of this new world. For Marx and Lenin, it would be a classless egalitarian anarchy, for Fukuyama and the neo-liberals a universal free market. These views of a future founded on science are very different; but that has in no way weakened the hold of the faith they express.

      Through their deep influence on Marx, Positivist ideas inspired the disastrous Soviet experiment in central economic planning. When the Soviet system collapsed, they re-emerged in the cult of the free market. It came to be believed that only American-style ‘democratic capitalism’ is truly modern, and that it is destined to spread everywhere. As it does, a universal civilization will come into being, and history will come to an end.

      Neoconservatism was the militarism needed to spread the faith, since there was a great deal of resistance by various peoples around the globe to accept the one true faith.

      • “…history will come to an end.”

        History will only come to an end when humanity comes to an end. It may become dull and boring – which is good to live in – or it may become violent and exciting – which is good to read about – but it wont “end”.
        If the last few decades have shown us anything, it is that taking away the exciting (ie nasty, violent etc) bits of “history” doesn’t in any way reduce the need/want of people to find a worthy “cause” to devote themselves to, nor reduce the fervour with which they will persue their ideals – warranted or not, workable or not, previously attempted or not, constructive or destructive.
        I think Trump as president withdrawing the USA from most international affairs for even 6 months would have a large portion of those currently defaming you for “colonialism” etc bashing on the door begging for you to once again “stick your nose in” and perhaps – just perhaps – gaining an appreciation of just what you have spent in both lives and money to defend what really matters. That it would cost a large amount of death and destruction for these whiners to discover the truth is regrettable, but unfortunately there appears to be no other way – you really should have done it by now, this wake-up call, but you were too kind and generous for your own good.

  13. catweazle666

    When will it occur to the Trump-haters that the more they froth and gibber and impotently stamp their tiny feet the more chance he has of a win?

    Just like in the Brexit referendum, the intention of a huge chunk of the electorate is to break the mould, to express their utter contempt to the same old same old, no matter who you vote for the same bunch of utterly disconnected from reality, self-serving “elite” smug self-satisfied political class like Cameron and Obama remain in power. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves, be it Conservatives, Labour, Republicans or Democrats, either side of the Pond you can’t get a cigarette paper between them on any substantive issue whatsoever.

    Brexit broke the mould, now movements in a good half of the EU member states are agitating for a referendum too, and the USA is clearly not immune to this discontent.

    The more the anti-Trump brigade screech and throw their ordure, the more the Clintonites pile up massive heaps of same old same old, the more likely it is that the electorate will vote for the candidate that will literally “make a difference”.

    The World has changed.

    The “Liberals” are going to have to live with it.

  14. Danny Thomas

    “A quick note. I am non-partisan on this issue — in the sense of ‘none of the above, thank you.’ This collection of articles are ones that I found to be insightful and/or amusing.”

    Amusing, insightful, and a bit sad.

    However, Dr. Curry, it’s apparent that if you’re not FOR Mr. Trump then you must therefore be labeled a ‘shill’ for Clinton. That’s just how it works according to some here.

    And now for the rest of the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/upshot/can-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-nominee-swing-the-election.html?_r=0

    But it’s probably a problem with the reporting. Or maybe an indicator of things to come?

    • “The eligibility requirements, set by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, state that a candidate has to hit 15 percent in five national surveys a few weeks before the debate to earn a place on the stage.”
      The problem is the lie that the Commission on Presidential Debates is nonpartisan because in actuality, it is made up of Republicans and Democrats, period.
      Plus they have used polling data which did not include Johnson and other 3rd parties.
      That sounds like it’s designed to blackball anybody and everybody except Ds and Rs and is about as partisan as they can get.
      Making sure no one else is heard from is their number one job and their highest priority.
      Johnson is suing the commission to get on the stage because he is a viable candidate for president.

      • Unlike Trump, Johnson at least comes across as half-way sane, and people looking for an anti-government, but self-controlled, alternative with actual policy positions will gravitate to him for their protest vote.

      • Trump seems perfectly sane to me. Much more like the majority of people I’ve interacted with in my life than the usual phonies that populate the “party leadership” of either major party.

        That doesn’t mean I’m happy about him as president, but he’s better than Hillary by light-years.

      • Danny Thomas

        Here’s to Johnson getting the job done and being able to debate the alternatives.

      • AK, no Trump is the crazy tinfoil hat uncle who hasn’t yet found a conspiracy theory he doesn’t believe.

      • Trump is the crazy tinfoil hat uncle who hasn’t yet found a conspiracy theory he doesn’t believe.


    • Congrats Danny, you have achieved Josh level putziness.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thanks Tim.

        Was what I stated incorrect?

      • All you stated was an opinion concerning Dr Curry.

      • Danny Thomas

        Lack of clarity? My words: “That’s just how it works according to some here.” was a statement on the blog, not Dr. Curry. She stated, and I take her at her word, that she was non-partisan.

        However, numerous folks have ‘told’ me that since I’m so vocal about Trump that I MUST be a shill for Clinton. If that applies to me, surely there would not be alternative standards for others would there? That would be putzy.

    • Curious George

      Danny, I would love to vote for a lesser evil. Unfortunately, we don’t have one.

      • Danny Thomas

        That’s exactly how I see it and still have no confidence in what I’ll do. I have a distasteful leaning. (Two divergent one’s actually).

        Your plans if you care to share?

      • Curious George

        This is not my country by birth. This is my country by choice, for better or for worse. I am getting ready for worse. We are high on rights; the hangover (a realization that there are also responsibilities) will be painful. The Democrats are becoming an echo of an Arbeiterpartei (google NSDAP if you are young). I don’t see a viable alternative; let’s hope that Americans are more individualistic than Germans. I am not abandoning all hope yet.

      • Danny Thomas

        I’m curious why you’d say: “The Democrats are becoming an echo of an Arbeiterpartei”. Are you concerned about socialistic leanings? Perhaps your perception might be different than mine due the an advantage of having lived elsewhere?

      • The Democrats are becoming an echo of an Arbeiterpartei (google NSDAP if you are young).


      • Curious George

        Please follow Senator Whitehouse, and democratic Attorney Generals.

      • To widespread political imprisonment and murder, the overthrow of the government, mass genocide, world war, etc…. like I said, ludicrous.

      • Curious George

        This is how it starts. You are referring to later stages.

      • Curious George

        JCH – I know I am paranoid. Been there. Lucky you.

      • You were there when they murdered their liberals?

      • Curious George

        No, I was not born yet. But they were democratically elected, and then they used democracy for a sacred “common good”. True, Germans had no RICO to start with.

        Aren’t you surprised that the “right wing” never attacks free speech?

  15. Anyone who watched the Olympic Opening Ceremony will have seen the prominence given to the climate change and action message.

    • Yep. The paid liars and bumsuckers to the lords of capital never miss a beat when it comes to evangelizing their distortions, half-truths and outright lies to the public.

      • Yeah, I knew there’d be lots of messaging from the crony globalists. I just skipped the whole cheesy, multi-culti fiasco, watched Rugby League instead.

        Sadly, the West is on track to become one big Rio Olympics – dirty, violent, shabby, drug-ridden and corrupt. Where fear makes borders rather than law. And we all get to pile on the Russians.

        Another vulgar exercise in godless globalism. Lest government of the people, by the technocrats, for the lobbyists perish from the Earth.

    • The UK got out of the EU because of this alarmist climate change junk. They were destroying their economy trying to do the stupid stuff that the EU was promoting. We will do that also, we will get out of this abusive cycle, I just hope it is sooner, rather than later, after our economy is destroyed more by flawed response to even more of the green junk science.

    • Great Jim!

      We all know how the IOC is among the leaders in researching climate change.

      • It is common-core knowledge now, but I guess they feel there’s a few more people to educate, perhaps the older folk who never learned this at school.

    • “At a time of both political and legal backlash against distant and indifferent international organizations from the European Union to FIFA, the IOC remains a bastion of privilege and impunity.”

      “Indeed, corruption and the Games have long gone hand in hand like a baton at a relay race. Emperor Nero reportedly generously bribed Olympic judges to allow him to win events at the Games. The IOC (and its subordinate sporting organizations) has continued that history with a checkered record of conflicts of interests, bribery and corruption.” – USA Today

      “Can I describe a typical day’s diet for Michael Phelps? His breakfast starts with three fried egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions, and mayonnaise. He follows that up, still at breakfast, with two cups of coffee, a five-egg omelet, a bowl of grits, three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar, and three chocolate chip pancakes. At lunch, this glutton, who cares not for how much of the world’s resources he is using as a single American…” – Rush

      Good luck to him. Forget his detractors and his carbon footprint.

      • Hey, just when I’d fallen out of love with the Olympics, Ragnaar restores my faith (a bit). Pile those sandwiches altius, Mike…and do it citius. Eat fortius.

        Michael Phelps, you are my hero…But go easy on the lettuce, okay?

  16. Pope says attacks shows ‘world is at war’, religion not to blame

    Pope Francis said on Wednesday that a string of recent attacks, including the murder of a priest in France, was proof that the “world is at war”.

    However, speaking to reporters aboard a plane taking him to Poland, the pope said he was not talking about a war of religion, but rather one of domination of peoples and economic interests.

    Francis…said he wanted “to clarify” that he was not referring to a war of religion.

    “Not a war of religion. There is a war of interests. There is a war for money. There is a war for natural resources. There is a war for domination of peoples. This is the war,” he said

  17. Beta Blocker

    Jim D: “Anyone who watched the Olympic Opening Ceremony will have seen the prominence given to the climate change and action message.”

    Jim D, it is now abundantly clear Hillary Clinton will be our next president. There’s also a good possibility control of the Congress will pass into the hands of the Democrats. If this is what actually happens, the upcoming election will be rightly interpreted as a mandate from the voters to go much farther and faster than we have previously gone in pushing low-carbon energy policies.

    When it comes to the anti-carbon politics of the Obama Administration, we’ve heard lots of talk; and we’ve seen what appears on the surface to be motion on the issue. But we haven’t seen much truly effective anti-carbon action, all things considered. What kinds of changes to President Obama’s current energy and environmental policies do you expect President Clinton to be making?

    Assuming Congress is controlled by the Democrats after the 2016 elections, how large of a carbon tax do you expect the Democrats to pass? Will the tax be large enough to have any truly significant impact on our carbon emissions, in the sense of pushing us well down the road towards an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050?

    On the other hand, if control of the Congress in January 2017 is divided, thus preventing a carbon tax from being enacted and thus limiting a massive expansion of government subsidies to wind and solar, would you expect President Clinton to use the EPA more aggressively than her predecessor did in pushing new anti-carbon regulations, thus forcing steep reductions in America’s carbon emissions without the use of a legislated tax on carbon?

    • There is a possibility the senate could change hands, but Trump would have to go under like no candidate in history and then some for the house of representatives to change hands.

    • I expect the Clean Power Plan to move forwards, replacing coal plants with natural gas and renewables. I expect auto efficiency standards to reduce emissions along with building efficiency. I don’t expect a carbon tax to be punitive enough to deter usage, but it can be used to rebate fuel bills for those with low incomes, and to help build nuclear plants along with clean-energy generation (local and/or regional plants) and storage methods that should improve significantly in the next few decades. Remember that the energy transition is on a time scale of 50 or more years. Energy generation, transportation and infrastructure technologies in 2050 will be geared towards low fossil fuel use. Comparing 2050 with now is like comparing now with 1980 in terms of advancement which is relentless. It is a long-term process and it can be solved in time.

      • David Wojick

        Hey Jim D: You might try looking at EPA’s actual projections under CPP. Coal does not go away, rather it remains basically steady from today through 2050, with gas getting most of the growth. Nuclear disappears, replaced by gas for baseload above coal. Solar grows to about where nuclear is today, but as a daytime peaker. Wind grows a bit, but mostly as a ‘use it when you can’ nuisance. In summary, gas gets all of the nuclear baseload generation plus part of the new peaking.

        Basically through 2050 its a gas, man, a gas gas gas (which is a fossil fuel). Hilarious.

      • Any coal they have, has to be cleaner under the CPP rules. Most states are already opting for gas if they have it rather than upgrading coal plants, which would be the more expensive option in most cases. Coal is on the decline as a power source, right along with their industries going out of business, if you look at the trends. Gas has to be preserved or we run out within decades. Its best use is as backup to renewables because that preserves a limited resource for longer.

      • Beta Blocker

        David Wojick: “In summary, gas gets all of the nuclear baseload generation plus part of the new peaking.”

        Within the byzantine politics of anti-nuclear activism, the goal of using wind and solar as indispensable tools in shutting down America’s nuclear power fleet is as important an objective, if not a more important objective, as is the goal of reducing America’s carbon emissions.

        To remain economic, most of America’s nuclear fleet must be run at full capacity most all the time. Most of the legacy reactor designs aren’t set up for load-following. Since wind and solar output is highly variable, the variable load-carrying capacity of gas-fired plants is currently the only practical means of keeping the power grid stable in the face of the growing market penetration of wind and solar.

        The Obama Administration has some number of anti-nuclear activists in its ranks. However, broadly speaking, the Administration has walked a tightrope over the last eight years in balancing the agendas of the pro-nuclear and the anti-nuclear factions within the federal government.

        One of several reasons why the major environmental activist groups haven’t sued the EPA to write a Section 108 Endangerment Finding for carbon, to complement 2009’s Section 202 finding, is that using the full authority of the EPA to enforce a steep reduction in carbon emissions would spur the adoption of nuclear power.

        The environmental activist groups would much rather cover America from one side to the other with a combination of wind mills, solar panels, and gas fracking wells than to see an expansion of nuclear.

        One of the most important questions to be answered once Hillary Clinton assumes office is whether she will walk a tightrope between the pro and the anti-nuclear factions in government, just as her predecessor did, or whether she will tilt decisively towards one faction or the other.

        A decision on her part to use the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in forcing quick reductions in America’s carbon emissions would be the single most important action she could take to accelerate the adoption of nuclear power in this country.

  18. How fascinating to observe Climate Etc. recently with an eye towards analyses such as those by Andy West, which advance the idea that climate “skeptics” are some how categorically differentiated from climate “realists” by being constitutionally or otherwise more inclined towards individualistic thinking, or general disinclination to accept or engage in group-think behaviors, or weaker tendency towards shared ideological orientation.

    What we see, in contrast, is instead post after post unflinching, uncritical, and unskeptical parroting of political pablum from the Trump campaign and post after post taken verbatim from right-wing websites weighs mmm without ANY critical or individualistic observations, to be sure.

    No doubt, these posts are being written by a relatively small number of individuals (Soviet that the volume is huge)…and so generalizing is problematic, but we should also note hire little criticism or comment three has been from the larger “denizen” community. Indeed, it is interesting to conSider the implications to the notion of a “extended peer review” community. Where is that “extended peer review?” Where is the reaction from this putative loosely assembled group of independent thinkers? Why the silence? Where is the dedication to heterogeneous and diverse analyses from every conceivable basis m valid perspective?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    • johnvonderlin

      Hey Joshua,
      I’m a skeptical Lukewarmer, not a fool. Getting into pissing contests with a handful of apparently “Angry, Old White Guys” on the Presidential Threads would be a ridiculous waste of the fleeting moments of my happy life. I do have some theories about what would drive somebody else to take the time to make endless angry, fact-challenged, often hate-filled postings in an irrelevant Echo Chamber? Being old has its problems, many not subject to reversal, no matter your previous power, status or wealth.
      I’d suggest you be more compassionate towards our resident curmudgeons. They can’t help themselves. Give them a keyboard hug. And, remember their quaking subconscious keeps howling, channeling Dylan Thomas:
      .Do not go gentle into that good night,
      Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
      Because their words had forked no lightning they
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
      Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
      And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
      Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      And you, my father, there on the sad height,
      Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      • It sounds like he was not a firm believer in the eternal, optical, laser, cloud, memory with and incredible amount of RAM thing we got going on…

      • John –

        Granted – I might have stretched the point a bit, bit that doesn’t lessen the amusement in watching self-described “skeptics” unskeptically fall for Trump’s con hook, line, and sinker.

      • Danny Thomas

        Frankly this amazes me also. I see much reason for skepticism and very little of it.

    • J: I have said no such thing. If you think so, then link to my guest posts here with exact quotes. All humans are equally subject to cultural bias.

      • Don’t bother Andy. We are all familiar with Josh’s habit of making things up.

  19. And finally, what I bet will be the most discussed article in the comments: Donald Trump’s hand size [link]
    If this is what is wrong with Trump that gets the most attention, then he must be really OK with everything else.

  20. johnvonderlin

    “If this is what is wrong with Trump…” As the President of the Teenie Hands Club I object to your characterization. I saw no mention in the article that small hands are a “wrong.”. Every one knows it is the motion of the hands, not their size that counts. Try picking your nose with a fistful of bloated sausages. Though, there was a subtext in the article that the Rump has trouble in perceiving reality, which I’d assert is inherent in the wide spectrum of his shortcomings.
    By the way, curious about my own equipment, I measured them. They hang an awesome half an inch further down on my 5’9″ frame than his do on his 6’2″ frame. I am huge. Tremendously huge. Believe Me.
    Of course when I followed the Penthouse Letters technique of measuring, with my wrist beginning just south of my elbow, I obtained a measurement of over 17 inches. Are you listening Donald?. It’s not to late to defend your pygmy handhood.

  21. That was fast.

    Clinton’s lead over Trump narrows to less than three points: Reuters/Ipsos poll

    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s lead over Republican rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly eight points on Monday.

    • Predictable.

      The volatility in Trump’s support comes from instant reactions to some petty remark he made that’s forgotten in a single news cycle. A whole bunch of undecided voters are struggling to find a reason to not dislike him and all he has to do is not say something controversial for a few days and he begins to rise.

      Hillary on the other hand is a political fixture. She’s got 30 years of accumulated baggage weighing her down and none of it is petty. Dislike for Hillary’s is indelibly inscribed in the public conscience and there’s nothing she can do to fix it.

  22. And folks wonder why our so-called “experts” have zero credibility and zero legitimacy:

    I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally’s Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary Clinton

    On Friday, the New York Times ran an op-ed penned by Michael Morell, a 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence agency who served as its acting director and deputy director from 2010 to 2013. Contravening political conventions of non-partisanship, Morell not only endorses Hillary Clinton for president but even goes so far as to suggest that Donald Trump “may well pose a threat to our national security.”….

    What’s more, even as Morell touts his three decades of non-partisan service to his country and his (heretofore private) bi-partisan voting record, he fails to disclose that he left the CIA in 2013 to join Beacon Global Strategies, a consulting firm founded by longtime Clinton aide and ally Philippe Reines….

    Anyway, that is of course not to say that Morell is being insincere, just that unfortunately you lose some benefit of the doubt when you join the CIA, spend three decades there, and then leave to do public relations.

  23. Seems that Behind Donald is behind Gary Johnson and Jill Stein with young people.

  24. From the article:

    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s lead over Republican rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly eight points on Monday.

    About 42 percent of likely voters favored Clinton, to Trump’s 39 percent, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 online poll of 1,154 likely voters. The poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points, meaning that the results suggest the race is roughly even.

    Among registered voters over the same period, Clinton held a lead of five percentage points, down from eight percentage points on Monday, according to the poll.

    The reasons behind the shift were unclear.


    • There’s nothing Hillary can do to boost support. She’s writ in granite. A political fixture in the US for nearly 30 years. A known quantity. Trump on the other hand just has to shut the phuck up for a week and he rises because it’s nothing but petty ticky tack shiit, a single ill-considered comment he blurted out that’s forgotten in a single news cycle.

      I suspect he knows this. It’s like Nielsen rating for The Apprentice. If he says or does something stupid that lowers the rating he makes a note of it and doesn’t say or do that again. Instead of A-B testing everything utterance from his campaign before the public hears it he tests it live on the public. It seems to be working really well. He isn’t spending any money and he’s staying in a dead heat within the margin of error.

      • Now he is reduced to parroting words on sheets of paper put in front of him. That is an improvement for sure.

      • Yup. When expectations are so low it’s easy to exceed them. All Trump has to do is not phuck up and in a few days he starts rising like a rocket.

        Hillary on the other hand has been purposely placed on a “best qualified to be president candidate in history” pedestal. There’s nothing she can do to improve on that. She’s already advertised as the best ever. Any slip on her part is catastrophic. A pedestal is a precarious perch.

      • > There’s nothing Hillary can do to boost support.

        She can wait for Defective Donald to show how little control he has over himself.

      • Yes, Willerd, thanks for confirming what I said. There’s nothing Hillary can do to up her support. Trump controls her support. All he has to do is shut the phuck up for a while to win. A precarious perch indeed. The Clintonistas are praying that he can’t zip it. It’s his election to lose. Poor Hillary. She’s getting screwed out of her rightful turn to be president again.

  25. Once upon a time, Deliver Donald nominated Eminem for President.

  26. Clinton says she wants to halt all removals of illegal immigrants from the United States except those convicted of a criminal offense:

    VIDEO: Watch Hillary Clinton answer questions at 2016 NABJ/NAHJ Joint Convention

    NABJ = National Association of Black Journalists
    NAHJ = National Association of Hispanic Journalists

    a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoB-gOZY5OM

    This would be a continuation of Obama’s immigration enforcement policy. The number of non-criminal removals has fallen steadily during the Obama administration, from 254,529 in 2008 to 96,045 in 2015.

    GRAPH: 2008-2015 ICE Removals
    a; https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/images/fy2015removalStatsFig1.png

  27. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438744/iran-ransom-payment-president-obama-broke-law-sending-cash-iran

    The president hoped to camouflage what he knew to be against the law.

    Did it ever occur to President Obama to ask why he couldn’t just cut a check to the Iranian regime? Outrage broke out this week over the revelation that Obama arranged to ship the mullahs piles of cash, worth $400 million and converted into foreign denominations, reportedly in an unmarked cargo plane. The hotly debated question was whether the payment, which the administration attributes to a 37-year-old arms deal, was actually a ransom paid for the release of American hostages Tehran had abducted.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438744/iran-ransom-payment-president-obama-broke-law-sending-cash-iran

  28. Yes, Virginia, Republican Rep. Scott Rigell announced he’ll be voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson instead of Defection Donald.

    Stay tuned for Jim & Glenn’s Show, with more Culture War segments.

  29. Drumming Up Fear and Hatred Donald lost another principled vote:

    Longtime Chris Christie aide Maria Comella says she plans to vote for Hillary Clinton — saying that after [Drumming Up Fear and Hatred Donald]’s nomination, Republicans are “at a moment where silence isn’t an option.”

    Comella is breaking from the governor she helped elevate into the national political limelight. Her decision, announced in an email interview with CNN’s Jamie Gangel, comes the day after a top Jeb Bush aide said she was leaving the Republican Party.

    Comella blasted [Drumming Up Fear and Hatred Donald] over his attack on the Muslim parents of an American soldier killed in combat, calling it emblematic of the rhetoric that has led her to reject her own party’s nominee.

    There are times when principles trump party affiliations.

  30. Day at a Time Donald may not be welcome back to his own show:

    NBC Chairman Robert Greenblatt, speaking with reporters following his executive session at the network’s TCA Summer Press Day 2016, revealed that there was no home for the Republican candidate to return to. “I have no idea if he has a future in television, but he would never be back on The Celebrity Apprentice, if that’s the question,” he said. “As long as I’m here.”

  31. Disenfranchise Donald may have a point about election fraud, but perhaps not the one he’s trying to sell:

    Now the country’s rich lore of alleged election fraud makes it hard to deny that vote rigging does occur, even in this beacon of the free world. And indeed it does. It’s called suppression of turnout, and it’s practised by Republicans, not Democrats.

    Culture war alright.

  32. In fairness, Duke Donald still has an ex-KKK leader’s vote:

    Republicans who have spoken out against [Duke Donald], Duke added, are “betraying the principles of the Republican Party and certainly conservatism.”


    “There’s massive racial discrimination against European Americans, and that’s the reality.”

    Inskeep responded, “You know that white people in this country still have the overwhelming preponderance of wealth and power, right?”

    “Well they don’t really have the overwhelming—European American history—no, they don’t. I mean, Hollywood is not controlled by traditional European American heritage.”

    Asked whether he was referring to Jews, Duke remarked, “Or they’re from the Middle East, that’s not European. That’s not European. That’s Middle Eastern and they have a particular orientation for their positions and their programs.”

    • catweazle666

      “In fairness, Duke Donald still has an ex-KKK leader’s vote:”

      Unlikely I’d have thought little Willy, him being a Republican and all.

      After all, the Ku Klux Klan are exclusively Democrat supporters, as I recollect Grand Kleagle Richard Byrd was the leading Democrat in the Senate in his day, and filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

      Funny how you lot always seem to want to lie about stuff like that, isn’t it?

      Ashamed, are you?

      • Sure, Weazle, and next you’ll revise political history and claim that fascism is a leftist thing.

      • catweazle666

        Oh dear, silly little Willy. Denying Byrd was a Klucker now? Or that he filibustered the Civil Rights Act?Or that Mussolini was a Socialist?

        You really don’t have the first clue about history, do you.

        I suppose you might learn a bit when you move up to the big boy’s school, but frankly, I doubt it.

      • Your shadowboxing is both empty and boring, Weazle.

      • Wow, history by a butcher.

        In 1945 every single county office in my county was held by a Democrat who was also a member of the KKK. It means nothing today.

  33. Brexit: This backlash has been a long time coming

    The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson was that globalisation produces both winners and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash (O’Rourke and Williamson 1999)….

    In our concluding chapter, we noted that economists who base their views of globalisation, convergence, inequality, and policy solely on the years since 1970 are making a great mistake. The globalisation experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War speaks directly and eloquently to globalisation debates today – and the political lessons from this are sobering.

    “Politicians, journalists, and market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical record suggests the contrary.”

    “Unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses,” we continued, “they may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them … ”

    O’Rourke concludes by saying that Brexit could have been avoided by greater state expenditures on services for the loosers of globalization.

    What is lost on O’Rourke, however, is that this would defy the very raison d’être of globalization, which is to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small, wealthy few at the top of the socio-economic pyramid.

    • What is lost on O’Rourke, however, is that this would defy the very raison d’être of globalization, […]

      What makes you think “globalization” even has a raison d’être?

      You see a surfer riding a wave, and assume that providing surf for the surfer is the wave’s raison d’être?

      • AK,

        What do you believe the internal logic of capitalism, at least microeconomically, is, other than to maximize profits?

        And how does a capitalist maximize profits? One proven method is to cut labor costs. What, pray tell, do you believe outsourcing is all about?

        But macroeconomically, when one cuts labor costs one also destroys aggegate domestic demand. This is one of the inherent contradicitons of capitalism. And this is the reason why capitalists look for external export markets, thus more globalization.

      • I have to agree with Glenn on this. The corporations, ultra-rich individuals, and politicians shape the course of the economic waves. And they then utilize their wealth and knowledge of the waves to profit even more.

        Corporations found long ago that becoming international entities allowed them to cherry pick labor and shield earnings from taxes. The ultra-rich have also found ways to profit from globalization.

        Notice there aren’t many ultra-rich who support Trump. They are looking out for their own pocketbook.

        And really, all Trump wants to do is negotiate better trade terms for the US. That’s it in a nut shell. He also wants to make it less expensive for firms to repatriate capital in the US. That would be good for us in the US and more reasonable taxes would tend to bring back more businesses here.

      • To those who object to profit motive, and are opposed to free trade, multi-national corporations, globalisation:

        Profit is good, globalization is good, free trade is good, large multinational corporations are excellent. All of these have greatly improved human well being. Attempts to refute this are usually made by cherry picking factoids and ignoring the massive overall benefit. Ask yourself why are the rich countries rich and why do they have a higher standard of living than the poor countries:

        – law and order
        – patents
        – relatively free and fair competition
        – large multi national corporations that, by purchasing manufactured goods where labour is cheaper, they provide better value to customers and also improve the wellbeing of those involved in producing the goods. They also greatly improve health, increase life expectancy, reduce infant mortality – think where the world would be now if not for the very large pharmaceutical corporations.

      • Peter Lang – the model worked fairly well, in the past. It isn’t working very well now.

        Globalization is also bringing along with it the threat of a global, unified government. If you believe big government is good, then you are correct.

        At any rate, I didn’t say anything about eliminating international corporations in the first place, didn’t say profits were bad, or any of that.

      • Jim2,

        I wasn’t responding to you or any particular person. I was responding to those who frequently assert this nonsense.

        Peter Lang – the model worked fairly well, in the past. It isn’t working very well now.

        What “model” are referring to. I didn’t refer to any “model”.

        Globalization is also bringing along with it the threat of a global, unified government. If you believe big government is good, then you are correct.

        I wasn’t meaning that sort of globalisation. I was talking about capitalism. I agree world government is a major threat and we must do all we can to educate people about this threat – e.g. the insidious Agenda 21 agenda.

        Global growth is slowing because we’ve stalled in improving free trade amongst other things. And we have far too many people wanting to interfere in markets, make policies to intervene and block progress.

      • What do you believe the internal logic of capitalism, at least microeconomically, is, other than to maximize profits?

        But that is exactly my point. The consequences of that internal logic cannot be “blamed” on anybody’s actions. They just are.

        But macroeconomically, when one cuts labor costs one also destroys aggegate domestic demand. This is one of the inherent contradicitons of capitalism. And this is the reason why capitalists look for external export markets, thus more globalization.

        Look yes. But why do they find? Contra this interesting article from Rebecca Keller at Stratfor, Malcom McLean’s innovative container ship (actually a converted tanker) was simply one inevitable step in the progress from before the US Revolution (see Wiki link above):

        Containerization has its origins in early coal mining regions in England beginning in the late 18th century. In 1766 James Brindley designed the box boat ‘Starvationer’ with 10 wooden containers, to transport coal from Worsley Delph (quarry) to Manchester by Bridgewater Canal. In 1795, Benjamin Outram opened the Little Eaton Gangway, upon which coal was carried in wagons built at his Butterley Ironwork. The horse-drawn wheeled wagons on the gangway took the form of containers, which, loaded with coal, could be transshipped from canal barges on the Derby Canal, which Outram had also promoted.[2]

        By the 1830s, railroads on several continents were carrying containers that could be transferred to other modes of transport. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway in the United Kingdom was one of these. “Simple rectangular timber boxes, four to a wagon, they were used to convey coal from the Lancashire collieries to Liverpool, where they were transferred to horse-drawn carts by crane.”[3] Originally used for moving coal on and off barges, “loose boxes” were used to containerize coal from the late 1780s, at places like the Bridgewater Canal. By the 1840s, iron boxes were in use as well as wooden ones. The early 1900s saw the adoption of closed container boxes designed for movement between road and rail.

        But McLean’s innovation was key to reducing the cost of long-distance transport. As Virginia Postrel explained:

        ”By far the biggest expense in this process was shifting the cargo from land transport to ship at the port of departure and moving it back to truck or train at the other end of the ocean voyage,” writes Mr. Levinson, a Wall Street economist and former economic journalist. This ”breaking bulk” could easily consume half of the total cost of shipping.

        Goods often had to wait in warehouses for the next stage. Those transfers and delays made shipping slow and schedules uncertain. They also created opportunities for damage, mistakes and more than a little theft. (Whiskey was one of the first products shipped by container because it was so subject to pilferage.) Different companies in different industries facing different price regulations for different goods handled each step.

        Today, by contrast, ”you can call one of the big international ship lines, tell them to pick up your container in Bangkok, which is not a port, and tell them to deliver it in Dallas, which is not a port, and they will make the arrangements to get it to a port and get it on a ship and get it off at another port and get it onto a train or truck and get it where it needs to be,” Mr. Levinson said.

        I personally remember the longshoreman’s strike over, among other things, their self-perceived “right” to steal cargo during bulk breaking.

        It was containerization that created the modern form of “globalization”, and if a self-defined “elite” has ridden that wave of prosperity, I doubt they had much to do with creating it.

        And I also doubt they’ve had much to do with the decline, or at least transformation, of globalization. Back to Rebecca Keller (link above):

        The era of globalization is coming to an end, though its effects will not disappear entirely. Certainly, globalization has had its moment and could already be in decline, steadily replaced by its successor: a new age driven by advanced robotics, artificial intelligence and additive manufacturing. These technologies stand to dramatically lower the costs of production as they become more prevalent throughout the manufacturing process.


        The shortening of supply chains in both distance and number of nodes will, in turn, reduce the volume of global trade as fewer countries and factories are involved in the production process. Returning to the example of the hypothetical laptop, companies may need to buy parts from only two countries as opposed to six since more components can be made at the same time, in the same place.


        As the next industrial revolution unfolds, the model for economic growth that arose alongside globalization will offer a less certain path toward development. Though new technologies will not completely erase the benefit of cheap labor, they will reduce the number of opportunities countries have to industrialize, diversify and grow their economies.

        Meanwhile, trade will become more regionalized as production migrates back toward consumer countries. Nations with high education levels but comparatively cheap wages, such as Mexico, will replace their low-wage peers as the hubs of new industrial manufacturing. If technology improves enough to bring costs so low that it does not make sense to ship goods from distant places — admittedly a difficult benchmark to reach — trade blocs such as NAFTA could become virtually self-sufficient.


        Of course, if there are losers in this game then there must also be some winners. Pioneers of the advanced technologies themselves — namely the United States, Northern Europe and parts of Asia, including Japan and South Korea — are best positioned to exploit robotics and 3-D printing. China, too, will probably be able to use new technologies to its advantage. In fact, its solid engineering base, strong central government and policy of promoting domestic technological development — not to mention its aggressive acquisitions of foreign technology companies — could put it at the forefront of the next industrial age.

        Thus, bringing manufacturing home isn’t going to resolve the real problem, which is that our civilization is finally beginning to reach the point, too soon anticipated by the likes of Marx and Ricardo, where only a tiny fraction of the population needs to be productive to produce enough for everybody.

        How well people like Trump can ride this new wave we’ll just have to see. But it’s certain, IMO, that folks like Hillary will/would simply drown in it.

      • PL – good, I’m glad we both see the political dangers of globalization.

        As an IT guy, I also see an unstoppable move to automation. It will become, generally, the cheapest form of labor. Companies will embrace it.

        When you replace 20,000 workers on an automobile assembly line with robots and, maybe, 100 people to maintain them, then income inequality grows.

        I don’t see how a more equal standard of living can be restored by capitalism. Even though I’m a fan of capitalism, the rule of law, and fair markets; I think the government will have to play a role in income re-distribution IF we as a society value at least partial income equality.

        If fairness is eliminated, revolt will follow. And it should.

      • jim2,

        Things worked pretty well under Bretton Woods I, as it kept a lid on things. Under BW-I, there was a limit to how much debt any country could rack up to finance its trade deficits. Thus it limited the kind of perennial, ever-increasing trade deficits that, for instance, the US has run since 1976.

        Under BW-II — a 100% fiat monetary system — there are no limits to how much debt a country can rack up, other than how long other countries are willing to continue to loan to it.

        One only has to look at the rapid deterioration of the US Net International Investment Position since the GFC began in 2008 to understand the perils of this system.

      • I don’t see how a more equal standard of living can be restored by capitalism. […] I think the government will have to play a role in income re-distribution IF we as a society value at least partial income equality.

        It’s important to remember that “capitalism” as we know it today depends as much on markets as on labor. There’s no need for “society [to] value at least partial income equality.” The capitalists need a market, that market needs to have money to spend.

        IMO governments don’t “have to play a role in income re-distribution” but they probably will, simply because they’re there. But it won’t be so much government vs. capitalists/manufacturers/corporations. It’ll be more like the large majority of capitalists/manufacturers/corporations will drive setting up the system, seeing benefit to themselves as long as it’s enforced for everybody.

        The best model, IMO, is the wireless spectrum and the FCC. While far from perfect, the way the FCC has interacted with large corporations and Congress is probably at the better end of what we can expect from the bureaucratic state.

        Obviously, the parallels are general rather than in detail. But the point is, the technological economy is a highly non-zero sum game today, and as long as rent-seekers, power seekers, and 19th century ideologues can be kept out of the process, the results could be good for everybody.

      • Only in a world where mocking disabled people is considered to be anti-politically correct telling it like it is…

        …we get someone putting the following two points in the very same comment:

        Attempts to refute this are usually made by cherry picking factoids and ignoring the massive overall benefit.


        Ask yourself why are the rich countries rich and why do they have a higher standard of living than the poor countries:

        – law and order
        – patents
        – relatively free and fair competition
        – large multi national corporations that…

        Nope. No “cherry-picking there. Nosireebub.

        Obviously, there couldn’t be any other factors which contributed to higher standards of living in rich countries other than those.

      • Peter Lang said:

        – large multi national corporations that, by purchasing manufactured goods where labour is cheaper, they…improve the wellbeing of those involved in producing the goods.

        That is an empirical claim that is demonstrably false. All that globalizaiton has ushered in is a race to the bottom for labor in export countries.

        Mexico provides an excellent example. Since NAFTA was implemented, the purchasing power of the average Mexican manufacturing worker’s salary has declined by 60% (and that was before the recent devaluation of the peso).


        And then there is of course Germany with its mercantilist Hartz Labor Reforms, which have devastated German Labor:

        Germany tops world for shrinking wages

      • AK,

        Globalization has been a long gradual process that has stretched out over the past five centuries. It began in 1492 with the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the new world.

        The Three Phases of Globalization

        Containerization was an important innovation, but it was only one of many. Do you really believe it is more important to the advancement of globalization than, for example, the discovery of the use of fossil fuels to fuel the ships that criss cross the globe?

        You conclude by saying:

        Thus, bringing manufacturing home isn’t going to resolve the real problem, which is that our civilization is finally beginning to reach the point, too soon anticipated by the likes of Marx and Ricardo, where only a tiny fraction of the population needs to be productive to produce enough for everybody.

        This has been the Enlightenment dream since the 18th century. It was shared by our Jeffersonians with the French Enlightenment, and the same idea underlies the Marxist conception of the difference between an “economy of scarcity” and an “economy of abundance.” In an economy of abundance there is presumably no cause for rivalry.

        The theory, however, has never worked out in practice, regardless of how much material abundance has been achieved. Famine and scarcity are still very much with us — “poverty in the midst of plenty,” as the first heretic amongst Adam Smith’s disciples, Simonde de Sismondi, put it.

        As Reinhold Niebuhr explains in The Irony of American History:

        The idea that men would not come in conflict with one another, if the opportunities were wide enough, was partly based upon the assumption that all human desires are determinate and all human ambitins are ordinate….

        Neither Jeffersonians nor Marxists had any understanding for the perennial conflicts of power and pride which may arise on every level of “abundance” since human desires grow with the means of their gratification…..

        The false abstraction of “economic man” remains a permanent defect in all bourgeois liberal ideology. It seems to know nothing of what Thomas Hobbes termed “the continual competition for honor and dignity” in human affairs. It understands neither the traditional ethnic and cultural loyalties which qualify a consistent economic rationalism; nor the deep and complex motives in the human psyche which express themselves in the desire for “power and glory.” All the conflicts in human society involving passions and ambitions, hatreds and loves, envies and ideals not recorded in the market place, are beyond the comprehension of the typical bourgeois ethos.

      • AK,

        Here’s the perfect metaphor from today’s news that illustrates what Sismondi was talking about — “poverty in the midst of plenty”:

        ‘We are close in distance, but far away’: Rio’s slum-dwellers are forced to watch the glittering opening ceremony standing on the roofs of their run-down homes


      • Globalization has been a long gradual process that has stretched out over the past five centuries. It began in 1492 with the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the new world.


        Even European participation in globalization began before that, with the voyages sponsored by Henry the Navigator.

        Prior to that time, Western Europe had been at the extreme western end of a long chain of trade links, which passed though Muslim lands and put Christian Europe at their mercy.

        Actual “globalization” reaches back to the late Roman Empire. At least.

        Containerization was an important innovation, but it was only one of many. Do you really believe it is more important to the advancement of globalization than, for example, the discovery of the use of fossil fuels to fuel the ships that criss cross the globe?

        It was critical to creating (in my words above) “the modern form of “globalization”,” which would roughly correspond to “Phase 3: The Modern Age of Globalization” in your link.

        This has been the Enlightenment dream since the 18th century. It was shared by our Jeffersonians with the French Enlightenment, and the same idea underlies the Marxist conception of the difference between an “economy of scarcity” and an “economy of abundance.” In an economy of abundance there is presumably no cause for rivalry.

        Well, it hasn’t worked out that way for our closest relatives, although bonobos come close. (They’re also almost extinct.)

        I’m not suggesting that Jefferson or Marx were right, yes, as Niebuhr says, Thomas Hobbes’ “continual competition for honor and dignity” remains an important driver.

        But it’s that competition, in pathological form, that’s responsible for whatever famine and extreme poverty exist in the world today.

        My point is that the competitive forms of 19-20th century capitalism, which depended on labor to produce the products that the market bought, are becoming obsolescent; transforming into something that will still require a market, but not nearly as much of labor.

        So, Hobbes’ “continual competition for honor and dignity” must also transform. It won’t go away, but life a few decades from now will be very different than it was a few decades ago. One way or another.

      • Hillary throws our ambassador in Libya under a bus full of angry Muslims who sodomize him with a knife then drag his body through the streets. Because she didn’t want to offend Libya by sending in a military rescue team. The she lied about why the embassy was attacked face to face with all the victims’ families and to the American public.

        Trump does an unflattering impression of a reporter with arthrogryposis, a congenital condition which limits range of motion in one or more joints. No one is physically harmed.

        In complete and utter lack of perspective, let’s call it motivated perspective, J0shua focuses on the latter stunt sophomoric stunt instead of the brutal slaying of overseas American public servants.

        That’s J0shua for you. Not an unhypocritical or objective bone in his entire body.

        Now we’ll hear the sound of crickets chirping from him because he’s so obviously guilty as charged.

  34. From the article:

    A Republican candidate steps up for American manufacturers, denounces unfair trade practices by China, opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, advocates for embattled coal miners — and is pro-cop.

    Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, facing a tough re-election battle, is not exactly what you envision as a Trump Republican. The former Office of Management and Budget director for President George W. Bush in many ways epitomizes Establishment Republicans. Despite that, he is making major inroads into the organized labor vote in one of the fiercest battleground states in the nation.


  35. From the Supreme Court article, which I find highly disingenuous in the first place, we see this: “Although Donald Trump cares little about constitutional norms”.

    How can this guy write something like this? Obumbles has trampled on the Constitution. If Billary is elected, she is CERTAIN to select more Constitution -hating judges, more insanely lefty judges.

    Even if there is some uncertainty with Trump, he is still a thousand times better bet to swing the Court to the right.

  36. From the article:

    Okay, so the Minor Murdochs probably won’t replace Ailes with Mickey. But what is on their mind? What’s their definition of “Fox without the edge”?

    For some hints, we can take a close look at some recent MSM journalism.

    Writing in The Washington Post on July 20, reporters Ana Swanson and Steven Mufson tell us that not only is James Murdoch a progressive green, but so is his wife, Kathryn:

    James has long had an interest in global warming and measures needed to stop it. He sought to make BSkyB, one part of Murdoch’s European operations, carbon-neutral. And his wife, Kathryn, sits on the board of the Environmental Defense Fund; she is also president of the Quadrivium Foundation, which focuses on natural resources, “civic life, childhood health and equal opportunity.”

    Moreover, Nick O’Malley of The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 2015 that James’ wife worked for the Clinton Climate Initiative, a unit of the Clinton Foundation. That is, right in the belly of the left-wing beast.

    Finally, on July 20, Michael Wolff, who wrote a biography of Rupert and still follows the Murdoch clan closely, took to The Hollywood Reporter to describe the anti-Ailes operation as a planned hit-job. Wolff identified James Murdoch as the lead hit-man; he indirectly quoted him as saying that since the 76-year-old Ailes couldn’t stay in the job that much longer anyway, “Why not turn lemons into lemonade and get credit for kicking him out for being a sexist pig?”


  37. Draft Deferment Donald‘s record:

    [Draft Deferment Donald] stood 6 feet 2 inches with an athletic build; had played football, tennis and squash; and was taking up golf. [Draft Deferment Donald]’s medical history was unblemished, aside from a routine appendectomy when he was 10.

    But after [Draft Deferment Donald] graduated from college in the spring of 1968, making him eligible to be drafted and sent to Vietnam, [Draft Deferment Donald] received a diagnosis that would change his path: bone spurs in his heels.

    The diagnosis resulted in a coveted 1-Y medical deferment that fall, exempting him from military service as the United States was undertaking huge troop deployments to Southeast Asia, inducting about 300,000 men into the military that year.

    The deferment was one of five [Draft Deferment Donald] received during Vietnam. The others were for education.

  38. Either Outlandish Donald is truly unhinged or he’s looking for a way out.

    Donald’s Razor may help Denizens discard one hypothesis.

    Go team!

  39. More globalization-related problems. From the article:

    Major EU nations including France, Italy and Spain are clubbing together to form a new alliance with the aim of wrestling back economic power from the German leader.

    Mediterranean economies have been devastated by an EU-wide policy of austerity enforced from Berlin, which has led to massive youth unemployment and soaring poverty.

    Fiscally conservative Germany, which is the EU’s largest economy, is reluctant to loosen the purse strings and authorise the huge injection of cash many other member states need to kickstart their fortunes.

    But policies which have benefited German industry and exports have caused economic oblivion in many parts of southern Europe, and now the rest of the continent seems to have had enough.

    The leaders of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta are planning to meet in Athens next month to forge a new anti-austerity alliance with the aim of wrestling back control of the European Central Back (ECB), which sets Eurozone fiscal policy, from Berlin.


    • The people who refuse to work are ganging up to convince those who work to lend them more money that they’ll never repay.

      What could go wrong?

      • Break up the EU completely, then each nation can deal with their own particular problems.

    • Curious George

      It is unethical to ask nations to repay their debt.

  40. Obama Expands the ISIS Bombing Campaign to a 4th Country, the Media Barely Notice.

    What began two years ago as “limited” air strikes in Iraq now includes Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya—all with little public debate.

    The question pundits should be asking themselves is this: Had Obama announced on August 7, 2014, that he planned on bombing four countries and deploying troops to two of them to fight a war with “no end point,” would the American public have gone along with it? Probably not….

    [T]here was no public debate, no media coming-to-Jesus moment. Obama just asserted the escalation as the obvious next step, and almost everyone just sort of went along—an ethos summed up in Eric Posner’s hot take at Slate the day after Obama expanded the ISIS war to Syria: “Obama Can Bomb Pretty Much Anything He Wants To.”

  41. From the article:

    Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slander that Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!

    It’s evident Hillary has a hard time filling a Union Hall while Trump regularly turns people away from his stadium and arena venues.

    Now this – Analysis from social media provides additional support that Trump is likely to win in a landslide.


  42. As Turkey’s coup strains ties with West, detente with Russia gathers pace

  43. Stockholm Syndrome?

    Kaine: Being picked for VP feels like being ‘kidnapped’

    Tim Kaine says being Hillary Clinton’s running mate feels like being kidnapped.

    Kaine spoke at a coordinated campaign field office for Clinton and local Democrats in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Friday, according to Politico.
    Asked by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) what it was like to be Clinton’s running mate, he responded: “It feels like I got kidnapped.”

  44. Ok, this one is funny

    Gary Johnson: Trump watching Olympics to see how high Mexican pole vaulters go


    • From that article about Gary: “”They are hardworking people that have come into the United States and they have to come in illegally because the government can’t provide them an easy way to get in legally,” Johnson said.”

      I could say the Mafia prefers to make a lot of money illegally because the government and competition makes it hard to make a lot of money legally. Kapish?

  45. USA: How could you agree to the nuclear deal with Iran? They are a terrorist state!

    Obama: Silly wingnuts, they said they are peaceful and we can believe Iran.

    USA: Iran says they got you to pay a $400 million dollar ransom payment. WTH?

    Obama: Silly wingnuts, nobody believes Iran.

  46. In other news, Can’t Delete Donald‘s Website Won’t Let You Cancel Recurring Donations

    • I just started a recurring donation to Trump’s campaign. It’s a bunch of bullshiit that it can’t be cancelled easily. Two clicks. Literally.

      1) It recognizes you when you return to the contribute site from a stored cookie. There’s a “?” next to your name. That’s the first click

      2) You arrive at a screen which is your profile and at the bottom it lists all recurring donations you’ve set up with a cancel button next to each. That’s the second click.

      Just to piss you off Willerd I didn’t cancel it. I donated more instead.

      Two phucking clicks to cancel a recurring Trump donation. Write that down of course.

      • Here are some screenshots, Puppy Dave.

        Try to cancel your monthly donation, then report. Otherwise, thank you for your concerns.

      • I have a screenshot for you right here:


      • We can already see that shot in the link I provided, Puppy Dave.

        Perhaps it takes you more than three minutes to scan the Mic article?

      • No, that screenshot is not on your linked page.

        Look harder, dummy.

        My screenshot shows the list of recurring donations (just the one) with a cancel button next to it. The one on the mic website does not show that screen.

        Two clicks to cancel. Dos clickos if you’re a friend of Wet Willerd.

        Write that down of course.

      • > Two clicks to cancel.

        Which part of [O]nly if you register your account by setting a password and navigate through a labyrinthine process do you not get?

        Bad UX, bad Puppy Dave!

      • It’s not even Trump that does it. It’s a third party donation aggregater:



        About Revv

        We’ve learned that every cause has potential. But they often fail to reach their true potential because they haven’t been shown the value in mobilizing their grassroots supporters. And when people don’t see the value, they don’t do invest in new ways to do things.

        If only they had the tools to reach their true potential, they could raise more money from grassroots supporters, see the value engaging with supporters brings, and change the way they approach their cause.

        Enter Revv. Code written by Revv’s engineers power that realization. When a cause embraces Revv’s one-tap payments technology, they can fully realize their fundraising potential.

        A cause that reaches their potential is better-funded, thinks creatively, does truly innovative things, and makes a difference.

        What we’ve built

        Revv is a one-tap donation platform. Our mission is to help campaigns and causes reach their true online fundraising potential.

        When causes, nonprofits and political organizations save donors’ payment information into logged-in accounts, they raise more money through one-tap payments. Then, we enable them to benefit from a network effect of saved credit cards.
        Revv lets you donate to many causes with one account.

        Powered by Stripe, Revv allows donors to give with a single click, substantially streamlining the giving experience. We want to be the number one payments platform in politics and non-profits by building the largest base of users who have saved their payment information with us.

        Since our founding in December 2014, we’ve achieved a rapidly expanding client list including Presidential campaigns. Since we launched, we’ve grown to over 200,000 users processing over a half million transactions and totaling tens of millions of dollars.

        Help Us Build Us

        We’re interested in people who are interested in shaping the future of our company. Help us build us.

        Whether you care about politics or not, if you want to make an impact on a high-profile stage, we want to talk to you. We’re growing quickly and we’re looking to add enthusiastic and talented developers to help us make our product even better.

      • Ah, so like Cr00ked Hillary, you simply lied about it being difficult to cancel.

        Two clicks to cancel. Write that down.

      • > It’s not even [Donating Donald] that does it.

        Disordered Donald’s website is still Disordered Donald’s responsibility.

        If Disordered Donald can’t show any accountability for the crap his UX team produces, so much to worse for his readiness as a commander-in-chief.

      • > Two clicks to cancel.

        That’s just bad UX accounting:

        There is, actually, a way to cancel — but only if you register your account by setting a password and navigate through a labyrinthine process.

        This design flaw first came to light Wednesday, when CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond tweeted a screenshot of an email from a disenchanted [Donald] donor who alleged that the campaign has not returned voice message requests to cancel contributions. (The identity of the alleged donor is not shown.)


        Unless you can show that this design flaw has been corrected, you should let the dogs lie on that one, Puppy Dave.

  47. Blast from the Drumpf Past – Deporting Donald‘s grand dad lied to American immigration officials and got deported from Germany.

  48. Delighful rendition of Wedded Donald’s wedding with Melania. A glimpse:

    The newlyweds looked very pleased and happy as they walked back from the altar; far was it for me, their friend, to poke a nose into what was going on in their hearts and in their brand-new, instantly opaque marriage. Melania looked lovely, and the fifty-eight-year-old Donald—as a friend of the family, I was bound to call him and his wife by their Christian names, even if Donald reportedly liked being called “Mr. [Wedded Donald]”—looked uncharacteristically bashful; bashful, that is, by comparison with his character on “The Apprentice.” My impression was that he was in awe of some of the people who clapped as he made his way down the aisle, specifically those who exceeded him in the matter of net fame. But there was no reason for awe. Donald’s high status in the tabloids and on TV was clearly respected by everyone. (His career as an educator was not yet visible: [Wedded Donald]’s University opened its doors later that year.) As for those very few who didn’t watch TV or read the tabloids, or respect these media, surely even these miseries bore the groom the respectful good will one naturally bears any person who has just committed himself, for the third time, to the noble and demanding sacrament of marriage. About his latest union, Donald had predicted, in People, “I think it will be very successful<.”

    Go read it.

    • Hillary photo’d today unable to climb a front porch set of stairs. Her handlers are practically dragging her up.

      A nice metaphor for what the msm is doing for her.

      • Just like the media coverage of Obama, harkin1.

        Last year, Obama said he was 54.

        Earlier this year, Obama said he was 55.

        Which is it, Obama?

  49. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, took Dear Leader a whole year eh?

    Two more years and he’ll equal the number of states (according to him).

    But then he also thinks Hawaii is in Asia, Austrians speak Austrian and medical corps is pronounced “corpse”.

    I won’t call him a fool for his claims that health insurance costs would be $2,500 for a family of four under Obamacare, or that you could keep your plan/doctor, or that he didn’t sic the IRS on conservatives, or that he would slow the ocean’s rise…….

    Those were just bald-faced lies.

    Change You Can Believe in!

  50. From the article:

    According to the Washington Post, 32 states have implemented some form of online voting for the 2016 U.S. presidential election — even though multiple experts warn that internet voting is not secure. In many cases, the online voting options are for absentee ballots, overseas citizens or military members deployed overseas. According to Verified Voting, “voted ballots sent via Internet simply cannot be made secure and make easy and inviting targets for attackers ranging from lone hackers to foreign governments seeking to undermine US elections.”


  51. Preemptively striking Declarative Donald:

    Saying he will be shocked and saddened by the statements of his party’s presidential nominee, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday the comments [Declarative Donald] will make over the next several months are “highly regrettable.”

  52. Dixit Donald on Zapp Brannigan wins today’s Internet.

  53. Hillary wins endorsement of Communist party!


    The same site where they applaud the Iran nuke deal and blame the USA for the terrorist attacks in France.

    I’m sure she’ll be putting that endorsement into all of her new commercials.

  54. johnvonderlin

    Looking on the bright side if Trump wins:: “Nuclear War could alleviate some of the factors leading to today’s ecological disturbances that are due to current high-population concentrations and heavy industrial pollution.” I’m sure he’ll solve all our other problems just as easily.

  55. http://www.drudgereport.com/

    Top Headline today: Hillary Conquers Stairs

    I’m dubious, but if it’s all true, it’s Hillaryous.

  56. Shock Story


    Hillary discussion of Iranian nuclear scientist in unsecured email ends up with Iran executing the scientist for treason.

    Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was later executed by Iran for treason, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.

    “I’m not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman,” he said on “Face the Nation.” Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran’s nuclear program.

    The senator said this lapse proves she is not capable of keeping the country safe.

    “That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private server. And I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country safe,” he said.

    The revelation could cause further political damage to Clinton, who was already on the defensive Sunday after commenting oddly last week that she had “short-circuited” in a statement related to her honesty about the email scandal.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump seized on the statement to question her mental stability.

    Iran confirmed on Sunday that Amiri had been hanged for treason. He was convicted of spying charges in a death sentence case that was upheld on appeal, according to the Associated Press.

    “This person who had access to the country’s secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan” a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said. “He provided the enemy with vital and secret information of the country.”

    His body was returned to his mother with rope marks around the neck.

    It would appear possible that discussion on an unclassified — and quite possibly hacked — email system about a person who was hanged as a spy will have a chilling effect on others who might want to engage in espionage for the United States.

    Amiri disappeared while on a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2009, but he then resurfaced a year later in the U.S., where he visited the Iranian interest section of the Pakistani embassy and demanded to be sent home to Iran. While Amiri told reporters that he was held against his will by both the Saudis and the Americans, U.S. officials said he was receiving millions of dollars for information he provided about Iran’s nuclear program.

    The scientist shows up in Clinton’s emails back in 2010, just nine days before he returned to Iran.

    “We have a diplomatic, ‘psychological’ issue, not a legal one. Our friend has to be given a way out,” the email by Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy for Eurasian energy, read, according to the Associated Press. “Our person won’t be able to do anything anyway. If he has to leave so be it.”

  57. Hillaryous Brain Farts

    a https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157449657485725/

    2.5 million views of above video

    Shows recent gaffe where she referred to Trump as her husband and a Freudian slip where she shouts she’s raising taxes on the middle class.

  58. Compendium Donald:

    [The Making of teh Donald] chronicles the rise of [Drumpf]’s fortunes, beginning with the Republican presidential nominee’s grandfather, a German immigrant who, as Johnston put it in distinctly un-Timesian style, ran a “whorehouse,” and continuing through [Compendium Donald]’s father, whom Johnston described as an industrious businessman with some unfortunate views.

    In 1927, Fred [Drumpf] was arrested at a Ku Klux Klan meeting in Queens — something his son has tried furiously to deny, but, said Johnston: “I have the clips.” Later, as Johnston details in his book, the elder [Compendium Donald], in trouble once before with the feds for allegedly bilking a federal housing program for returning GIs, was ordered by the federal authorities to stop discriminating against African-Americans who were trying to rent apartments he owned. The settlement came only after [Compendium Donald] tried unsuccessfully to get the allegations of racial bias thrown out by the courts — a lawsuit in which he was represented by Roy Cohn, former longtime aide to Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), the disgraced Communist witch-hunt perpetrator.

    Compendium Donald never settles, except when he does.

    • Entirely false.

      • It was appropriate for the crap source you gave which is the equivalent of a conservative citing an Ann Coulter book as an unbiased, objective view.

        If you lay down with dogs you get up fleas. You might want to think about using a flea collar going forward to stop the itching.

      • > If you lay down with dogs you get up fleas.

        Then scratch this other one about Dogged Donald’s McCarthyist friend, Puppy Dave:

        Cohn gained notoriety in the 1950s as Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel and the brains behind his hunt for communist infiltrators. By the 1970s, Cohn maintained a powerful network in New York City, using his connections in the courts and City Hall to reward friends and punish those who crossed him.

        He routinely pulled strings in government for clients, funneled cash to politicians and cultivated relationships with influential figures, including FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, mafia boss Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno and a succession of city leaders.

        In the 1990s, a tragic character based on Cohn had a central place in Tony Kushner’s Pulitzer prize-winning play, “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.”

        [Dogged Donald] prized Cohn’s reputation for aggression. According to a New York Times profile a quarter-century ago, when frustrated by an adversary, [Dogged Donald] would pull out a photograph of Cohn and ask, “Would you rather deal with him?” [Dogged Donald] remained friends with him even after the lawyer was disbarred in New York for ethical lapses. Cohn died in 1986.

      • Hey David –

        You were pretty excited about the 538 “nowcast” s few days ago. How’s that working for you now, bro?


  59. From the article:

    In her presidential bid, Hillary Clinton has made job creation a centerpiece of her platform, casting herself as a pragmatist who would inspire “the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II.’’

    Her argument that she would put more Americans to work has focused on her time in the Senate, when she took on the mission of creating jobs in chronically depressed Upstate New York. As her husband, former president Bill Clinton, put it recently, she became the region’s “de facto economic development officer.”

    But nearly eight years after Clinton’s Senate exit, there is little evidence that her economic development programs had a substantial impact on upstate employment. Despite Clinton’s efforts, upstate job growth stagnated overall during her tenure, with manufacturing jobs plunging nearly 25 percent, according to jobs data.


    • With Hillary we’re going to get more of the same old same old, and the establishment’s class war on people who have to work for a living will continue unabated.

      Here’s a great description of the establishment (Clinton) voter of either party, completely indifferent to what’s going on around them:

      If you have a salary well into the six figures, stock options, nearly free healthcare, and other benefits such as access to free gourmet lunches and dinners at the company’s food court, you might have missed something that a lot of folks feel every day: It’s still a very tough battle out there in this job market.

      Why this Job Market is Still Terrible: The Politically Incorrect Numbers Everyone is Hushing up

      And here’s a graph which illustrates why all Obama’s spin about the “stellar” employment numbers is nothing but distortions, half-truths and outright lies:

      Employment-Population Ratio since 2000

      The ratio always drops during recessions, but before 2001, it always climbed to higher highs during the recoveries. The 2001 recession and subsequent recovery changed this. For the first time, the ratio never fully recovered, never got even close to fully recovering.

      a: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/US-employment-population-ratio-2000_2016-07.png

      None of this happened by accident. It was all done deliberately and intentionally by our illustrious “leaders” through the Fed’s manipulation of monetary policy: ZIRP, QE, and regulatory forebearance. So while the ownership class got a life line thrown to it, the working, lower-middle and middle-middle classes were left to drown:

      The Fed’s efforts were all focused exclusively on bailing out bondholders, re-inflating the stock market, re-inflating the housing market, and generally creating what had become the official Fed policy at the time, the Wealth Effect (here’s Bernanke himself explaining it). This has re-inflated asset prices – many of them way beyond their prior bubble peaks.

      But the Fed’s astounding focus on capital accelerated the already changing dynamics of the economy, at the expense of labor.

  60. At least we’re getting something new by Driven by Publicity Donald:

    [Driven by Publicity Donald] began by telling the people who were there that he wouldn’t run for president in 1988, which disappointed some, especially Dunbar. Then [Driven by Publicity Donald] railed, with no notes, and for roughly the next half hour, about Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Washington, Wall Street, politicians, economists and “nice people” of whom he had “had enough,” he said. This country was facing “disaster” and was “being kicked around.” Other countries were “laughing at us.”

    “It makes me sick,” [Driven by Publicity Donald] said.

  61. jim2,

    Your problem is that you’re one of what Thomas Friedman, in his column for the New York Carlos Slim Times titled “Web People vs. Wall People,” called the “Wall People.”

    As Bill Black notes,

    Web people are good people – like Friedman – who embrace the rigged financial system, while “wall people” are whiny people who complain that the system is rigged by Wall Street elites with the aid of their political cronies to ensure that Wall Street elites will be the winners at the expense of their fellow citizens.


    In his exaltation of the Clintons and the Web People, Friedman lauds Hillary as follows:

    Having been secretary of state, Clinton has been touching the world. She knows America has to build its future on a Web People’s platform, which was first articulated by Bill Clinton, and, to this day, is best articulated by him.

    “Four More Years of the Web People!”

    That’s the perfect campaign slogan for Clinton Inc.

  62. So the establishment’s marionette in Europe is having her own share of problems on the home front? Who would have ever thunk it?

    Merkel’s Popularity Plunges After July Attacks.
    Support for German chancellor falls 12 percentage points to 47%, latest opinion poll shows

    BERLIN—Mounting concerns about terrorism, migration and relations with Turkey are eroding support among German voters for Europe’s long-dominant leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel, as she decides whether to run for a fourth term.

    We knew that Merkel was in the tank for the establishment when she decided to look the other way after the NSA got caught red handed hacking her telephone:

    Embassy Espionage: The NSA’s Secret Spy Hub in Berlin

    According to SPIEGEL research, United States intelligence agencies have not only targeted Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone, but they have also used the American Embassy in Berlin as a listening station.

    It’s all so Comey-Lynch-Hillaryesque the way the estalbishment made the problem go away. No crime is too egregious, no assault on decency too severe, that the establishment can’t sweep it under the rug:

    Germany drops inquiry into claims NSA tapped Angela Merkel’s phone

    Germany has closed its investigation into a report that the US National Security Agency had hacked Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone, a move that appears to be aimed at ending transatlantic friction that threatened intelligence cooperation between the two countries.

    US intelligence agencies have been angered by the amount of sensitive information being made public as a result of German investigations into US surveillance after the Edward Snowden revelations.

    German federal prosecutors announced on Friday that their investigation was being wound down because they had been unable to find evidence that would stand up in court.

  63. Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!

    Libya, not Syria, is now the frontline in the war against Isis

    On Wednesday, Italy agreed to “positively consider” any US request to use Italian airspace and airbases for bombing missions against Isis in Libya. The move follows a series of US air strikes against Isis militants in the Libyan coastal city of Sirte on Monday. That action – which President Barack Obama declared as in the “vital national interests” of the US – is anticipated to be the first move in a sustained international offensive against Isis outside of Iraq and Syria….

    US intelligence, for instance, estimates indicate the number of Isis fighters in the country has doubled to between 4,000 and 6,000 in the last 12-18 months….

    After the failure to plan for the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime…Libya has since been controlled by rival militias, governments and parliaments….

    Following recent terrorist attacks in Europe, Western leaders are also intent on eliminating the prospect of Isis developing a base of operations in Libya….

    Beyond military actions, the G5 has also discussed a broader plan to stabilise the country, including restoration of oil production to shore up the economy, and stemming migration flows from the country….

    Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and among the top 10 globally with production of some 1.65 million barrels per day in 2010 prior to Gaddafi’s ousting. However, production today stands at around 360,000 barrels a day, which reflects Libya’s plunge into chaos since then, including Isis attacks on oil infrastructure. Rejuvenating Libya’s oil production is not just critical to restoring the fortunes of the economy, but also to the GNA’s survival, and alleviating migration flows from the country….

    GRAPH: Crude OIl Production in Libya, January 2010 to October 2015
    a; http://www.oilandgas360.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EIA-Libya-Production.png?ee4f14

    On the migrant front, much attention has recently been put on the deal earlier this year between the EU, Turkey and Greece under which new irregular migrants crossing to Greece return to Turkey, with Brussels footing the bill.

    Here’s how FRONTEX describes the Libya immigration crisis:

    With the collapse of the Gaddafi regime in August 2011, the flow of migrants again almost entirely stopped. Detections remained very low throughout 201</2. By 2013, however, the smugglers had reorganised themselves – and there was no shortage of customers desperate to escape Libya as the state imploded and violence escalated. In what was a de facto failed state, smugglers have been operating with impunity in the absence of effective law enforcement to counter their criminal activities.


    GRAPH: Illegal border crossings on the Central Mediterranean route (including Apulia and Calabria) in numbers, 2008 – 2015

    a; http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Trends_and_Routes/Central-Mediterranean-Route.png

  64. Was stopping this deal the reason that the US allegedly backed regime change in Turkey?

    Post Coup: Gazprom Still Eager To Complete Turkish Stream

    On June 27, Russian President Vladimir Putin received a letter from President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdodan expressing Turkey’s willingness to restore ties with Russia (Kremlin.ru, June 27). Immediately, Gazprom spokesperson Sergey Kupriyanov announced his company’s openness to dialogue with Ankara on the construction of the “Turkish Stream” natural gas pipeline (RT, June 27)….

    Gazprom’s Deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev said that the establishment of a working group on project implementation was agreed and the intergovernmental agreement can be signed when Putin and Erdogan meet in St. Petersburg later this August (TASS, July 26)….

    In May 2015, the U.S. State Department’s special energy representative, Amos Hochstein, during a visit to Athens, declared that “Turkish Stream doesn’t exist. Let’s put that to the side and focus on what’s important—the [Trans-Adriatic Pipeline—TAP] we already agreed to” (RT, May 8, 2015). TAP is the final leg of the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC), which will deliver Azerbaijani natural gas via the South Caucasus, Turkey and the Balkans to European markets, entirely bypassing Russia. At the February 2016 meeting of the SGC Advisory Council (in Baku), Hochstein said that “South Stream, Turk[ish] Stream, Nord Stream [Two] are simply restatements of political projects with questionable economic value” (Region Plus, March 3)….

    Yet, the state of emergency declared following the latest coup attempt in Turkey could enable the government in Ankara to legislate without going through the parliament. In other words, the intergovernmental agreement on Turkish Stream (earlier delayed in the Turkish Parliament) might now be pushed forward for signing (Natural Gas Europe, July 21).

    • I’ve seen some hints of speculation that the attempted coup in Turkey was related to geopolitical scrambles over gas. This could be fall-out from Brexit, and/or the discovery of gas off-shore Israel, which offers the potential for undersea pipelines supplying Europe with Israeli gas.

      Russia has set a precedent of using gas availability for geopolitical strong-arming, which is probably (IMO) the reason Germany went for local brown coal rather than gas when it retreated from nuclear.

      While playing with Google, I found this from the Tehran Times: The era of new energy diplomacy paradigm

      The recent failed coup in Turkey has – temporarily at least – opened the way for a realignment of Caspian and Eurasian regional geopolitics by destroying a long standing US geopolitical initiative to re-draw the regional map in favour of what has been the status quo for since man discovered oil, namely resource theft, and create a route to extract Caspian hydrocarbons for the profit of US corporations.


      Most Westerners are accustomed, and increasingly becoming tired, to a form of democracy whereby elected leaders are given the power – through an executive branch – to impose policies on what is usually a majority of the population which either voted against, or did not vote for, the policies imposed. This is evidenced most notably by recent Australian elections, which took more than a week for a party to form a razor thin one seat majority in the lower house, and no party able to form a majority in the upper house. In the UK the unexpected yes vote for the UK to leave the EU, Brexit, caused the fall of its sitting Prime Minister, and who knows what will happen in the US elections in November? The UK’s constitution and governance has been termed, not entirely wrongly, an elective dictatorship. Australia’s system of government is no different based on the Westminster system.

      Iran’s vibrant democracy is the complete opposite. No branch of government has the power to impose policy, but several have the power to block or veto it, with the role of the Supreme Leader being to wield the power of ultimate veto.

      The result of democracies such as the UK, Australia and the USA is often the imposition of bad policy on usually half of the population who voted against it. The result of the latter, Iran is all too often, no policy at all. More to the point there are countries which act, and there are countries which are acted upon: countries which impose policy; and countries which have policy imposed upon them by military or market power. Yet, Russia and Iran, as members of the EEU, have the opportunity to create co-operative policy; Mutual frameworks of agreement through trade.


      The EU approach to energy is to create an EU Energy Union monolith through which to exercise market power in engaging competitively with energy supplier nations and – through the international Energy Charter Treaty – for EU nations to invest in global oil and gas production, thereby creating the Petro Euro.

      The problem is that the original energy market paradigm of energy as a commodity bought and sold for $ and € profit has now evolved into a market paradigm of energy as an asset which investors buy because they fear that the (inherently worthless) dollar and euro will decline in value, whereas energy will not. The result of this has been that the energy markets have become completely detached from reality and dysfunctional, so that producers and consumers see massive volatility in price, at their expense while investment in infrastructure becomes excessively costly at best and impossible at worst.

      And so on.

      I’m certainly not saying I agree with it, but it is an interesting perspective.

  65. With Clinton’s end run around Trump on the right, the Hillarymongers engage in quite an orgy of cognitive dissonance in their attempts to explain their continued support for Killary. Trump’s brashness and uncouthness are, of course, far greater crimes than Killary’s warmongering:

    America’s great mistakes: Has everyone forgotten that the Vietnam and Iraq wars were unnecessary, stupid and destructive?

    Trump’s flap with the Khans over “sacrifice” misses a crucial question: Sacrifice for what?….

    Ever since Donald Trump, in an act of stupidity and indecency now becoming characteristic, spoke ill of the Khan family, whose son died in the Army during the Iraq War, the entire country has communicated a pro-military mindset that papers over the truth regarding America’s foolish and lethal wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

  66. This has become MO for Hillarymongers:

    Bernie Sanders’ Delegates Speak Out About Convention: “They Painted Us As Crazy”:

    • They were crazy. Although I agree with many of their political objectives, far more than with Clinton, the notion that a Trump presidency is an acceptable risk for the sake of ideological purity is crazy. It’s also a poison of entitlement…as few them are folks who will suffer the most from a Trunp presidency.

      Sometimes, a lesser of two evils is an appropriate choice.

  67. Devolving into a Madcap Dash through Podunk Streets Donald lost Andrea Peyser’s vote:

    [S]ome of us smitten with his shoot-from-the-lip style have reached our limits.

    I think [Devolving into a Madcap Dash through Podunk Streets Donald] secretly doesn’t want the prize. Why would he crave spending endless hours in policy meetings, cavorting with miserable domestic and world leaders and abandoning his collection of obscenely opulent abodes to live in public housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, DC?

    His penthouse, which sprawls over the 66th, 67th and 68th floors of [Devolving into a Madcap Dash through Podunk Streets Donald] Tower, looks like the palace of Louis XIV — if the French king mated with Liberace, with 24-karat-gold accents adorning everything from the lamps to the china, marble bathtubs and a vaulted living room ceiling painted with a fresco of scantily clad babes.

  68. It looks like the Trump revolution may have a great deal in common with the American and French revolutions. These were conflicts between warring elites, much more so than conflicts between warring social classes.

    Notwithstanding the stealth motives of the elites — much more self-interested than other-interested — all sides nevertheless claimed to be on the side of the commoners.

    Trump is pandering to national, local elites, whereas Clinton is pandering to transnational elites. It should come as no surprise, then, that Wall Street has so lavishly financed Clinton’s campaign.

    The question for workers is this: Which set of elites will create more jobs in America, the national elites or the transnational elites?


    The Republican presidential nominee’s speech will focus on providing regulatory relief for small businesses, according to senior campaign aides familiar with its contents….

    Trump will also propose a repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the “death tax.” Under current law, the 40 percent tax applies only to estates larger than $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples.

    For U.S. businesses, Trump will propose a tax rate of 15 percent and suggest strengthening intellectual-property protections. He’s expected to call for three income-tax brackets, down from the current seven.

    He’ll call for the elimination of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms and other investment firms….

    Carried interest, which is a portion of investment gains paid to certain investment managers, is currently taxed like capital gains…

    Trump will continue to stress his opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement backed by the Obama administration and many prominent Republicans in Congress, and he will reinforce his commitment to the coal industry, saying a federal moratorium on some coal-mining permits would be the focus of a targeted review in his administration.

    Other items on his energy agenda, he is expected to reiterate in the speech, include asking TransCanada to renew its Keystone pipeline permit application; rescinding the Climate Action Plan and “waters of the U.S.” rule; opening offshore drilling; and killing the Paris climate agreement….

    He will portray President Barack Obama’s regulatory policies as having crushed middle- and lower-class Americans and will propose making all child care tax deductible….

    Targeting the federal bureaucracy, Trump is expected to say that civil servants whose focus is job-killing regulation should be replaced with experts who would help create jobs.

  69. From Texas Monthly’s daily email missive:

    Texans For Trump

    Texas Land Commissioner and Texas GOP victory chairman George P. Bush has apparently come around to support Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, telling GOP activists at a meeting on Saturday that they should vote for the Republican nominee.

    “From Team Bush, it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton,” Bush said, according to the Texas Tribune.

    George P. Bush, a Trump Holdout, Urges Support For Nominee

    His comments are a bit surprising, considering the Bush family’s general #NeverTrump stance, not to mention how brutal the fight between George P’s dad, Jeb, and Donald Trump got.

  70. The polls are all over the place, and highly volatile.

    The latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times shows Trump and Clinton in a dead heat, with Clinton 1% ahead of Trump.

    Clinton — 45%
    Trump — 44%

    Where the presidential race stands today

    The demographic breakdown sheds much more light on who each candidate’s constituencies are.

    • ==> The polls are all over the place, and highly volatile. ==>


      Hillary Clinton’s polling surge is showing no signs of fading. She leads Donald Trump, on average, by about 7 percentage points in national polls,


      The CNN Poll of Polls incorporating the results of six major polls — all conducted after the party conventions concluded in late July — finds Clinton with an average of 49% support to Trump’s 39%.


    • Highly volatile?

      Look at the charts over time. For example, this one from notable “skeptic” J. Scott Armstrong:


      Very little variance since March on the “election timeline.

      Similar picture here:


    • Joshua,

      The claims that the polls are “all over the place” and “highly volatile” are of an empirical nature.

      On Friday, for instance, a McClatchy Marist poll showed Clinton +15. The USC/Los Angeles Times poll, on the other hand, showed Clinton +1. That’s a very large difference. These widely differing results show that the polls are, indeed, “all over the place.”

      As to being highly volatile, we witnessed Trump going from +1 in the RCP average to -7 in a mere seven days. The Reuters/Ipsos poll also registered this volatility on its poll released Monday last week, Trump dropping like a rock to -8. However, by Friday Reuters/Ipsos released another poll showing Trump to have recovered to -3.

      I’m far from being the only one taking note of the great inconsistency and volatility in the poll numbers, and to try to figure out what it all means:

      Despite all the headlines, Reuters/Ipsos poll has the race nearly tied

      More on the Reuters/Ipsos poll showing Hillary’s lead slipping

      I’m fully aware, however, that, just as is the case with CAGW, you believe you’ve got it all figured out, and that you know everything.

      • Glenn –

        When you try to characterize “the polls” on the basis of outliers rather than “the polls” as a group, u get yourself into that kind of pickle.

        When you try to characterize the degree of volatility on the basis of noise and not the signal, you get yourself into that kind of pickle.

        I have provided you with evidence of “the polls.” In fact, “the polls” as a group don’t have a wide range of variance except if you focus on outliers disproportionately. They largely are consistent in showing Clinton with a significant advantage. Only a few sjow differently. And the aggregate since March has shown little volatility if you focus on the signal and not the noise.

  71. Why Demographics Don’t Favor the Democrats

    Sure, there has been, and is, plenty of anti-Hispanic bigotry. There was also anti-Italian bigotry, anti-Irish bigotry, anti-Polish bigotry, anti-Jewish bigotry, anti-German bigotry, and so on.

    Hispanic immigration is the latest chapter, but it’s part of the same story. Before long, Hispanic-Americans will overwhelmingly speak English as their mother tongue, prefer fast food to their ancestral cuisine, and talk about the Minutemen at Lexington using the pronoun “we.” Many do already.

    The melting pot works fast. And that means, before long, the Democrats will — once again — have to find a new core constituency.


    • One of the DNC leaked emails isn’t helping Clinton Inc. win Latino voters:

      DNC Leaked Email Shows What Dems Really Think Of Latino Voters

      • –snip–
        CLEVELAND — Donald Trump, his aides and Republicans across the political spectrum are spending time at this week’s convention talking about how to attract Hispanic voters, and for good reason: the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is struggling with the nation’s fastest-growing segment of voters.

        A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll gives Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton a lead of more than 60 points over Trump among Latinos, 76% to 14%.

        Numbers like that are a reason that Trump — famous for denouncing some Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and proposing a wall along the southern border — is planning an Hispanic outreach effort designed to at least match the 27% of the Hispanic vote that Republican Mitt Romney pulled four years ago.


        In 2004, as George W. Bush won re-election to the presidency, Hispanics made up 8% of the vote. And Bush, who backed a new immigration plan and had appealed to Hispanics during his years as Texas governor, won 44% of that vote, according to exit polls.

        Four years later, Hispanics made up 9% of the vote — but John McCain, an immigration reform supporter from Arizona, carried only 31% of them.

        Romney’s 27% came in an election in which Hispanics constituted 10% of the vote — a turnout that may well increase this year.

        Demographic problem? What demographic problem?

        Too funny.


    • –snip–
      Latinos will be a key swing vote in November’s presidential election. Today a new poll of who Florida Latinos like was released. – and the numbers don’t look good for Donald Trump.

      It’s no secret that Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, has a big problem with Latino voters. Thanks largely to his harsh anti-immigration rhetoric, Trump has consistently polled well below 20 percent nationwide among Latinos. As low as 11 percent in one recent survey.

      But the Latino bloc Trump needs most is here in Florida. It’s a large swing state political analysts say he has to win if he wants to defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. And Latinos make up close to a fifth of the state’s electorate.

      Which is why Trump and his campaign aren’t likely to find much solace in a new online poll from The New Latino Voice. The survey, conducted by Florida International University, shows Trump garnering less than 13 percent of Florida’s Latinos.


    • Recent poll numbers from the Pew Research Center help shed some light on why an open borders policy with Mexico is so important to the Democratic Party and the electoral strategy — identity politics — that it has bet the farm on.

      The bad news for the Democrats is this: After Hispanics fully assimilate, they’re no longer the property of the Democratic Party.


      Currently 35.2% of Latinos in the United States are foreign born, and 70% speak Spanish.

      But without the constant refreshing of new immigrants arriving daily from Mexico, those numbers would diminish quckly.

      After growing rapidly for 30 years, the Mexican immigrant population in the United States leveled off after the Great Financial Crisis. It was almost stagnant between 2010 and 2014, the GFC having caused net immigration from Mexico to fall precipitously.

      GRAPH: Mexican Immigrant Population in the United States, 1980-2014
      a; http://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/source_images/SPT-Mexico2016-F1-T.PNG

      However, according to Mexican government statistics (INEGI), the net immigration rate to the United States is surging again. In the first three fiscal quarters of 2015, it exceeded the rate recorded in 2008, before the Great Financial Crisis began.


      The Democrats should be very happy with these developments.

      • Another data point that signals a new wave of mass migration from Mexico to the United States is the precipitous increase in the amount of remittances sent from the US to Mexico.

        The Bank of Mexico announced last week that the amount of money that Mexicans working in the United States sent back to their families in Mexico during the first six months of 2016 increased 8.9% over the same period in 2015. The $13.2 billion in remittances for the first six months of 2016 was an all-time, historical high.

        Histórico, el flujo de remesas a junio

        GRAPH: Total Remittances (Millions of dollars) January 2013 to June 2016

        a; https://s19.postimg.org/v72xy219v/Captura_de_pantalla_1342.png

      • Glenn –

        Do you have a count of how many in that “mass immigration” are Trump employees?

      • Joshua,

        The term “mass migration” is how the Mexican press frequently refers to the wave of immigration from Mexico to the US that took place over the past few decades. For example, here’s an article published last year:

        Migración masiva desde México hacia EU “ha llegado a su fin” [Mass migration from Mexico to the US “has come to an end”]

        However, here’s a more recent article with more current data which shows that the mass migration to the US has began once again:

        ¿Fin de la migración cero? [End of zero immigration?]

        According to a BBVA study which analyzes statistics from the Current Population Survey of the United States, the number of Mexican migrants in that country has grown to 12.2 million, an all-time high.

        The Great Financial Crisis in the United States, which absorbs about 90 percent of the Mexican migrant population, caused, beginning in 2008, a high rate of unemployment (10.6 percent), which affected sectors that had massively incorporated undocumented migrants: construction , services and industries of meat and chicken…

        We argued that the reduction in immigration was temporary and that the trend of “zero migration” would be reversed at the time that the United States overcame the crisis and unemployment decreased….

        For now Mexico remains a country of young people. It has an important demographic bequest that could be a fundamental tool to develop the country. But instead, it has become the leading exporter in Latin America, and the sixth worldwide, of migrants.

  72. Death Penalty Donald, vintage 1989:

    Yusef Salaam was 15 years old when [Death Penalty Donald] demanded his execution for a crime he did not commit.

    Nearly three decades before the rambunctious billionaire began his run for president – before he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, for the expulsion of all undocumented migrants, before he branded Mexicans as “rapists” and was accused of mocking the disabled – [Death Penalty Donald] called for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York following a horrific rape case in which five teenagers were wrongly convicted.

    The miscarriage of justice is widely remembered as a definitive moment in New York’s fractured race relations. But [Death Penalty Donald]’s intervention – he signed full-page newspaper advertisements implicitly calling for the boys to die – has been gradually overlooked as the businessman’s chances of winning the Republican nomination have rapidly increased. Now those involved in the case of the so-called Central Park Five and its aftermath say [Death Penalty Donald]’s rhetoric served as an unlikely precursor to a unique brand of divisive populism that has powered his rise to political prominence in 2016.

    While Death Penalty Donald paid 85k for these ads, he refused to pay for ads the judge ordered in Fred c. Death Penalty Donald, when Death Penalty Donald was represented by Roy Cohn.

  73. Sorry – posted in wrong thread earlier:

    PHOTO: Multiple staffers help unstable Hillary up stairs:

    The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign.

    The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals outside what appears to be a home.

    The photos, published by Reuters and Getty, show the 68-year-old candidate with aides holding her arms as she ascends the stairs.


    And from the Gatewaypundit – a favorite of some of our much beloved “Denizens.”

    IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT=> Photos of Hillary’s Handler Lead to More Questions about her Health – UPDATE: More Pics!

    So she slipped going up some stairs, six months ago…

    Thanks to God that we have frightwing media outlets and their Climate Etc. mouthpieces to provide balance against the MSM that shills for Hillary:

    Without them, we wouldn’t know about this important event:

  74. Now we hear from the ‘paid liars and bumsuckers of the lords of capital’:

    Zandi on Trump Speech: NAFTA Was Good For Economy in General

    • johnvonderlin

      Hi Glen,
      I assume you are the author of “Money is not true wealth.” Kudos for a well-written piece. Seems rather ironic that with such obvious skill, you should waste your time obsessively posting on this irrelevant thread. This thread is basically an “Echo Chamber” of old, angry white guys venting their spleens, with a few folks passing by to rattle their cages for their own amusement. A Big Fish like you seems out of place in this tiny pond. Have you considered making a sandwich board sign and prowling the corners of some city center? At least you’d be getting some fresh air and meeting new people.
      Life’s minutes and seconds are precious and fleeting. To see someone as obviously intelligent as you are, wasting them, rolling in the mud, (paid liars and bumsuckers? bumsuckers? is that a crude version of brown-nosers?) seemingly gnashing your teeth in psychic pain is disturbing.

      • Old angry white guys? You sound like a bigot.

      • johnvonderlin,

        “Gnashing your teeth in psychic pain”?

        So do you believe George Orwell was “gnashing his teeth in psychic pain” too? Because that’s where that phrase — ‘paid liars and bumsuckers’ — came from. That’s the reason it’s in quotes.

        Here’s the larger context the phrase was used in:

        How right the working classes are in their “materialism”! How right they are to realise that the belly comes before the soul… Understand that, and the long horror that we are enduring becomes at least intelligible.

        All the considerations that are likely to make one falter — the inescapable fact that in order to fight one has to degrade oneself…, the squalid farce of left-wing politics — all this fades away and one sees only the struggle of the gradually awakening common people against the lords of property and their hired liars and bumsuckers.

        The question is very simple. Shall people like that Italian soldier be allowed to live the decent, fully human life which is now technically achievable, or shan’t they? Shall the common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not?

        I myself believe, perhaps on insufficient grounds, that the common man will win his fight sooner or later, but I want it to be sooner and not later — some time within the next hundred years, say, and not some time within the next ten thousand years.

        — GEORGE ORWELL, Looking Back on the Spanish War

      • catweazle666

        johnvonderlin: “old, angry white guys”

        Ageism and racism in only four words.

        Not bad going, John.

        You really are a piece of work.

        And patronising with it.

        Student, are you?

  75. Scheduling Donald says NFL complained to him about debate schedule; NFL says it didn’t.

    Scheduling Donald already sued the NFL. So the NFL is a member of a club or society of people Scheduling Donald. Very strongly anti-Scheduling Donald, which is all fine. But I say the NFL’s got bias.

  76. How General Donald Helped Destroy the USFL shows General Donald’s suing strategy at work.

    • It needed destroying! Every pro football fan in America owes Trump a Debt of Gratitude by saving them from having to watch that crap.

      • Gridiron Donald:

        Might as well start with the big issue. Or rather the small one. [Gridiron Donald], we are assured, is packing some serious heat in his jock. But there is a part of his anatomy whose size could be problematic for our purposes: his hands.


        And it’s more than basic ball handling that could be an issue. The pump fake isn’t a huge part of the game anymore, for example, but it’s a handy trick to have up your sleeve. [Gridiron Donald], despite having plenty of room up his sleeves, may not be able to sell a convincing pump fake without the ball popping free. Likewise, any offensive coordinator who likes the read option is going to wonder if he can trust [Gridiron Donald] to thrust the ball into the belly of a runningback and then rip it back out if he sees a receiver match-up he likes.

  77. From the article:

    The UK should set up a Ministry of Immigration, assign “unique person numbers” to the population and reshape migration policy to suit British people, a think tank has recommended.
    The new report, produced by Policy Exchange, calls for changes to Britain’s migration system which would see it better serve voters’ needs. It advises the country reduce its dependence on migrants and instead invest in training its own citizens.

    Authoring the report, David Goodhart argues that UK should set up a Department of Immigration. This, it states, would address the “powerful national mandate” to lower migration. Though Britain has a minister of immigration under the Home Office at present, the crucial policy area lacks its own department.


  78. Detonation Donald:

    “None of us will vote for [Detonation Donald],” a letter signed by 50 of the right’s top national security officials read. Dozens of top aides and cabinet members for President George W. Bush issued the letter Monday to warn against the Republican presidential nominee as a “risk” to America’s national security.


  79. This article is laughable. First, it claims the press was neutral WRT the political parties before Trump. Of course they were!!

    Then the article proceeds to interpret Trump in the worst possible manner and uses that as the basis to get into the tank for Billary.

    Fair and balanced all ’round!!!


    • Don’t forget That Trump is a non-political, political genius because of how he manipulates the media to get free publicity by making outrageous statements that offend people and make it obvious that all he’s doing is trying to attract attention. But on the other hand he’s a victim of the press because they cover what he says.

  80. Speaking of the unfairness of the media.

    Yet another national poll puts Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump. This time it is a Monmouth University poll with Clinton at 50%, Trump at 37%, Libertarian Gary Johnson at 7%, and Green Jill Stein at 2%. Clinton has solidified her support among Democrats, with 92% of them in her camp. The very small support for Jill Stein (2%) indicates that the supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are apparently past bargaining and moving into depression and acceptance, possibly both at the same time. Also noteworthy is that Clinton has an 8-point lead in the 10 swing states that were decided by fewer than 7 points in 2012. In terms of favorable/unfavorable, Clinton is at 37%/49% whereas Trump is deeply under water at 26%/61%.

    Another poll, from Susquehanna Polling and Research (SPR), arguably gave even worse news for The Donald. The pollsters asked Pennsylvanians about their presidential preference, and Clinton came out ahead 46% to 37%. This was bad news for two reasons. First, Pennsylvania is essential to Trump’s electoral hopes—without the Keystone State, he has few viable paths to victory. Second, SPR is a Republican polling firm. We don’t put partisan pollsters (including SPR) into our database, because they tend to be heavily skewed in favor of whichever party is paying the bills. For a Republican house to give the Democratic candidate a 9-point lead is very unsettling for the Republican, indeed. (V & Z)


    obviously, this is all because of my wing bias in the MSM. In no way is the the result of mistakes Trump has made plus the public not liking hire he acts out what he has to say. Although he’s a non-political, political candidate who is s genius at manipulating the press, he is in no way accountable for his press coverage.

    • John Carpenter

      Hillary will win big in November. There is no doubt it will be due to a rigged election in cahoots with the MSM. Just wait and see, Trump will tell you himself… again

      • John – what would you do if you took off the gloves and the most hated grandmother in the world who is also in really bad health beat the holy krap out of you and the people who love you?

      • John Carpenter

        JCH – I would cry. And then I would blame everyone else.

      • John Carpenter

        Blame everyone else for not running to my aide…

      • One thing’s for sure is that Trump will do a lot of inciting to disorder with his various conspiracy theories that he is already working on, and Faux News along with right-wing radio will go along with it. It will not be pretty.

  81. More evidence that the people have decided that the experts, and not just the climate experts, have gone mad.

    Economists Mystified that Negative Interest Rates Aren’t Leading Consumers to Run Out and Spend

    Not only has it been remarkable to witness the casual way in which central banks have plunged into negative interest rate terrain, based on questionable models. Now that this experiment isn’t working out so well, the response comes troubling close to, “Well, they work in theory, so we just need to do more or wait longer to see them succeed.”

    Two years ago, the European Central Bank cut interest rates below zero to encourage people such as Heike Hofmann, who sells fruits and vegetables in this small city, to spend more.

    Policy makers in Europe and Japan have turned to negative rates for the same reason—to stimulate their lackluster economies. Yet the results have left some economists scratching their heads. Instead of opening their wallets, many consumers and businesses are squirreling away more money.

    When Ms. Hofmann heard the ECB was knocking rates below zero in June 2014, she considered it “madness” and promptly cut her spending, set aside more money and bought gold. “I now need to save more than before to have enough to retire,” says Ms. Hofmann, 54 years old.

    Recent economic data show consumers are saving more in Germany and Japan, and in Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden, three non-eurozone countries with negative rates, savings are at their highest since 1995….

    • Maybe governments should print money with a spend-by date.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Maybe governments should print money with a spend-by date.”

        Ours does. And the date is usually yesterday. But that’s the ‘government’ side. Doesn’t work that way in the private world where we must deal with reality.

      • Ours does. And the date is usually yesterday.

        You’re not making any sense.

        US money is normally printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing under the direction of the Federal Reserve Banks. I’ve looked closely at some of the money that’s passed through my hands now and then, and I promise you it doesn’t have a spend-by date.

        AFAIK neither do any of the types of accounts involved in the whole Federal Reserve system, although they certainly involve interest. Treasury securities sometimes have a “can’t redeem until” date, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

        Money with a “spend-by” date would have to be turned in to the government in settlement of a debt to same by a specific date, or it would no longer have value. It could be dispersed for welfare payments, and other ways in which the government gives people (or companies) money intended to stimulate the economy.

        The suggestion was actually a semi-sarcastic response to the linked article’s complaints:

        Instead of opening their wallets, many consumers and businesses are squirreling away more money.

      • Danny Thomas

        “The suggestion was actually a semi-sarcastic response to the linked article’s complaints:”

        I got that. And mine was a semi-sarcastic comment that our government prints money all the time and it does so as a ‘replacement’ for money that was spent ‘yesterday’ (debt). Sorry that that ‘didn’t make sense’.

    • They are using interests rates as the control variable. Pull the stick back and the airplane’s nose rises. Pull it back more and it pitches down. Your reference point as in real life is the horizon:
      The ribbons may show synchronized chaos at the break. Think of them as oscillators. Approaching the break, sensivity becomes variable and perhaps briefly changes its sign.
      The negative interest rates maybe signalling people to not spend. From the, I am an Economist and sit in the driver’s seat, point of view, the control yoke is becoming ineffective. When control inputs aren’t causing their expected result, that tells a pilot a stall is pretty close, where the nose pitches down and altitude is quickly lost.

  82. Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald:

    [T]he strategies [Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald] attempted with Gaddafi are eerily reminiscent of his approach to making money in Atlantic City by leveraging political connections.

    [Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald] loves dictators precisely because they can provide privileged access to sycophants and insiders.

    This mirrors his desired domestic economic system – one in which privileged groups (white men and the wealthy) benefit from a government sanctioned leg up, while outsiders (minorities, immigrants, etc) are denied access.

    In the case of the Libyans, he sought to woo and impress to obtain such privileged access, hoping to later take advantage of their naivety.

    Next, the sordid postscript to [Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald]’s fling with Gaddafi demonstrates how quickly he is willing to ditch his former friend when he perceives it as politically expedient. For [Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald], they have proved even easier to dump than wives – no complex prenup required.

    In February 2011, as the Arab Spring was in full swing, [Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald] advocated an aerial campaign to decapitate the regime of his erstwhile friend.

    However, unwilling to help the Libyans remove their dictator altruistically, [Never Met an Absolute Dictator on Whom he Failed to Develop a Man Crush Donald] offered a mercenary bombs-for-oil scheme.

    That bombs-for-oil scheme may deserve due diligence.

  83. Maybe the experts haven’t gone mad, they’ve gone greedy.

    Whistleblower on Medical Research Fraud: ‘Positive Results Are Better for Your Career’

  84. The making of Duke’s Donald:

    For his part, Duke is desperate to link himself to [Duke’s Donald]. He specifically credited [Duke’s Donald] for his return to politics, claiming that he was the originator of many of the “America-first” policy ideas [Duke’s Donald] is pushing. [Duke’s Donald]’s campaign website features videos with titles like “Duke & [Duke’s Donald]: The Supreme Court Does Matter” and “Never [Duke’s Donald] & Never Duke Exposed as GOP Traitors.” And Duke’s Twitter feed is a scary mish-mash of ravings about anti-white bigotry and the decline of “Euro Americans,” broadsides against more mainstream Republicans, and lamentations about the mistreatments and misrepresentations [Duke’s Donald] has allegedly suffered. In an August 6 tweet, Duke charged, “Never [Duke’s Donald] traitors at the lagop.com are trying to fix the election & keep me out of the debates. Donate today.” In an August 5 interview on NPR, Duke claimed that his internal polling shows that he’ll carry 75 to 80 percent of [Duke’s Donald] voters.

  85. Our warmonger in chief is doing everything in its power to isolate China and Russia.

    China Backlash Over U.S. Missile Shield Puts North Asia on Edge

  86. Has Erdogan decided that fealty to the United States comes at a price that is just too high to pay?

    Erdoğan and Putin reignite the bromance.
    In St. Petersburg, the Turkish and Russian leaders will find common ground in their defiance of the West.


    The chief driver of this Russo-Turkish reset is last month’s failed military coup against Erdoğan. In the aftermath of the attempted putsch by discontented elements in the army, Erdoğan has gone on the rhetorical warpath against alleged backers of the coup in the West.

    “The script of outrageous assault on our democracy was written abroad,” Erdoğan told Turkish television last month. He also blasted the U.S. for refusing to extradite rogue Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, who has been in exile in Pennsylvania since 1999. Erdoğan accuses Gülen — a former ally-turned sworn-enemy — of being behind the July 15 coup. “Those who aid the enemies of Turkey cannot be called our friends,” Erdoğan said in remarks clearly aimed at Washington.

    Russia, by contrast, rushed to support Erdoğan in the jittery hours after he narrowly escaped a team of commandos sent to capture him in a holiday villa in Marmaris. Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said this week that Russia had offered “unconditional support” over the coup attempt, and that Putin sent a personal letter of condolence to the families of Turkey’s soldiers and civilians killed in the fighting.

    Turkey’s deepening anger at the West creates an ideal opportunity for Putin to pull Erdoğan into his own fiercely anti-U.S. orbit.

  87. A very insightful article on a marriage of political extremism with religious extremism, in this particular case Jewish extremism, and how it can tear a secular society and its instituions asunder:

    The Shot Heard All Over the Country

  88. More evidence of why the people think the experts — in this case the military and intelligence experts — have gone mad. And of course both the Democratic and Republican parties have more than their share of these experts. As the article explains, they are able and more than willing to manufacture whatever “intelligence” is necessary to justify a predetermined political end, in this case the war against Iraq.

    Bush Administration Official: Saudi Ties to 9/11 Hidden to Protect Iraq War Narrative

    The Bush White House would soon present false claims linking 9/11 to Iraq, while simultaneously hiding credible evidence implicating Saudi Arabia—evidence summarized in the final, 28-page chapter of a 2002 joint congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11.

    Bush demanded the 28 pages be kept from the American public, and it’s increasingly clear why: As former State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson tells 28Pages.org, to a White House bent on selling an invasion of Iraq, compelling evidence of Saudi complicity in the attacks was an unwelcome distraction….

    The chilling effect on discussion of Saudi government links to 9/11 wasn’t confined to public statements—Wilkerson says the topic was taboo even within the Bush administration.

    • This might help explain the letter from the 50 former intelligence officials published last week that demonized Trump.

      If I were them, I would be afraid. Very afraid. If Trump is elected president, heads very well may roll.

      Here’s the letter:

      A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump.

      Dozens of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter saying they will not vote for Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee


      • Danny Thomas

        “If I were them, I would be afraid. Very afraid. If Trump is elected president, heads very well may roll.”

        So you’re suggesting that Trump may take issue with those who are ‘outspoken against the power’? No leading by example?

    • Don’t forget that the House of Bush has had close ties to the House of Saud for decades.

      OTOH, we should also remember that Osama Bin Laden was a young rebel in a solid family with close ties to the House of Saud. Rather than formal Saudi aid in 9/11, the more plausible explanation is that until then almost nobody among the Saudis actually took his opposition that seriously. It was regarded as a sort of family tiff.

      We should also remember that intelligence services in Middle Eastern countries (perhaps excepting Israel) are much more dependent on personal and family relationships than Western ones are. Because such relationships can cut across ideological divides, there should be a routine expectation that a “national” intelligence service would include members with fanatic ideologies.

      Pakistan is a notable example.

      • Terror’s Whack-a-Mole Problem

        The objective: prevent the state from winning; show the security apparatus up as weak; create a spectacle and by doing so instill fear and despondency; force the state’s hand into taking measures that eat into civil and individual liberties; militarize societies and undermine human rights; keep the pot boiling; push states and societies into revenge mode and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

        All of this results in instability. The pressure forces states to increasingly rely on legal exceptions, laws that skirt rights and due process and denote the absence of law itself. The important and chilling point in all this is that these ‘gains’ come at very little cost to the terror groups but extract a prohibitive cost from states and societies.


        The problem is worse when we are talking counterterrorism. The enemy within is not a fringe. Operating against and isolating a fringe is relatively easier. The broader society rejects whatever ideology the terror group(s) might be pushing violently. Even so, it takes time and not every attack can be prevented and preempted.

        Here, the degree of difficulty is much higher for the security forces. Large sections of society sympathize with these groups. They fund them, directly and indirectly. They provide them recruits. They reject the Constitution and the system. They don’t just live in the ‘badlands’ but could be our neighbors. The forces have not only to operate in areas in the periphery, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but have also to operate in the cities where hundreds, perhaps thousands form sleeper cells, awaiting orders or planning to strike.


        The terrorist has to be dislocated from the context that strengthens him. That strategy of dislocation requires purging the society, a job more difficult than cleaning the Augean stables. At the firefighting level it would require taking out the sanctuaries in Afghanistan, which is sovereign territory and from where groups like Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, one of the groups that has taken responsibility for the attack, plan and operate.

        Terrible tragedy Quetta is, no gainsaying that. But it isn’t the first and it won’t be the last. Tomorrow the terrorists will strike somewhere else. We must be alive to that fact. The irony is that we have to fight, nonetheless. Violence, as I wrote in an article two years ago (Perpetual Conflict), is the new normal.

        If we invite large numbers of “refugees” from these areas, will they bring that “[v]iolence […] the new normal” with them?

      • There’s a similar dilema here in Mexico.

        When the drug cartels have more legitimacy than the Mexican government, at least with broad swaths of the civil society, the state has a big problem.

        Narco Corridos: EL PATRÓN
        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBYZpmf6MK0

      • When the drug cartels have more legitimacy than the Mexican government, at least with broad swaths of the civil society, the state has a big problem.

        Has Mexico ever been a nation-state?

      • AK,

        Has Mexico ever been a nation-state?

        No, not in the way the United States is a nation-state.

        After the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine, Mexico has pretty much been a neo-colony of the United States.

        There was a brief interruption of this arrangement during the French Intervention between 1861 and 1867. France, Spain and Great Britain took advantage of the US’s domestic troubles to invade Mexico in 1861. It followed President Benito Juárez’s suspension of interest payments to foreign countries on 17 July 1861. These three major creditors of Mexico used the nonpayment as a pretense to invade Mexico.

        Emperor Napoleon III of France was the instigator, justifying military intervention by also claiming a broad foreign policy of commitment to free trade. For him, a friendly government in Mexico would ensure European access to Latin American markets. This was antithetical to the mandates of the Monroe Doctrine, but the US was embroiled in its own problems at the time so could do nothing about it.

        The European powers established a monarchy in Mexico. Maximilian was enthroned as Emperor of Mexico, with his wife Charlotte of Belgium, known by the Spanish form of her name, Carlota. In reality, Maximilian was a puppet monarch of the Second French Empire.

        After the North won the Civil War in the US, the US immediately turned its attention to exorcising the European encroachment into the Americas. The US allied itself with Benito Juárez, Republican leader and former President of the Republic of Mexico.

        The United States is of course an empire, the greatest empire in recorded history. And empires do what empires do. But as far as empires go, Juárez evidently made the evaluation that the US was more benign than the European empires.

        Beginning in 1866, the US shipped massive amounts of Amerian war materials to Juárez.

        In 1866, choosing Franco-American relations over his Mexican monarchy ambitions, Napoleon III announced the withdrawal of French forces.

        By 1867, United States Secretary of State William H. Seward shifted American policy from thinly veiled sympathy to the republican government of Juárez to open threat of war to induce a French withdrawal. Seward had invoked the Monroe Doctrine and later stated in 1868, “The Monroe Doctrine, which eight years ago was merely a theory, is now an irreversible fact.”

        Without French support and with the US supporting Juárez, Maximilian’s armies were quickly defeated. He was captured and executed on 19 June, 1867. The Mexican Republic was restored with Juárez being elected as president.

        Since then, the United States has been the most important force in Mexican politics, although there are important domestic forces.

        There are still persons in Mexico who argue that, in comparison to others, the US is a benign empire. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very good to Mexico. But since 1980 and the imposition of neoliberalism, the majority of the Mexican people have suffered greatly.

      • No, not in the way the United States is a nation-state.

        Well, my point was that if it doesn’t have a long history as a real, Western-European-style nation state, there’s no reason to suppose its government has the sort of legitimacy such nation-states’ governments (sometimes) have.

      • AK,

        I think that’s right.

        Because the Mexican government never had absolute sovereignty, and because its decisions were always subject to being vetoed by the United States, it has never put the interests of the Mexican people first. It has, instead, put the interests of the US establishment first (but certainly not the interests of US citizens like me).

        For this reason, the Mexican government has never enjoyed the kind of legitimacy that the US government has enjoyed (with its own people).

        FDR was very good to Mexico. But since 1980 the US-imposed neoliberal regime has been grinding the Mexican people into the ground, and in a very bad way. It’s exactly the same thing the US/NATO did to Egypt:

        And the rich got richer.
        Egypt is lauded as a poster child for neoliberal reform. But few of its people have enjoyed the spoils of the boom.

        Regardless of what the neoliberals and neocons think, I believe there is a limit to what you can do to people before they find ways of resisting.

        To me, this is what General Flynn is alluding to in this interview:

        VIDEO: Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise of Islamic State was “a willful decision” and Defends Accuracy of 2012 Memo

        If the US wants to stop creating these Frankensteins, then it’s going to have to change the way it treats other peoples.

        But I do agree with Flynn that the Frankenstiens that we have already created, even though we are to blame for creating them, must nevertheless be dealt with severely.

      • I knew in 2002, when the Iraq invasion was be prepped (“WMD”, etc.) that “nation building” in Iraq was a ridiculous fantasy. Same goes for Afghanistan. What I thought then, and think today I was right, was that the US should have allied itself with Iran and squashed the Taliban in Afghanistan, then left it to the warlords we supported against them.

        The Taliban probably would have reasserted itself: in most Muslim countries there’s a simple choice between religious fanaticism vs. rampant corruption. They don’t have the traditions Western Europe has, and Islam has made little headway against the older tribal traditions.

        But they’d probably have been much more wary about proclaiming a Caliphate, or giving sanctuary to foreign adventurers and terrorists plotting strikes against the US, Europe, or Japan.

        Iran (i.e. Persia) is different. They’ve been a nation-state of sorts for over 2500 years, on-and-off. Of course, conquest by Islam probably produced major changes, but at least they have the traditions to hark back to.

        I understand (and understood then) why that was out of the question. The US, especially the CIA, simply couldn’t deal with 1979, although AFAIK everybody else in the world understands it was tit-for-tat for 1953. Iran had to stay our enemy. It’s often said that the ones you hate worst are the ones you’ve wronged, this seems to fit the case.

        As for Iraq, I can’t believe that oil was at the base of it, any more than WMD’s. I read somewhere back then that it had to do with an old plot to kill Dubya’s father, which seems at least halfway plausible.

        Still, it was clear to me that Iraq would become Viet Nam 2.0, which is pretty much what happened.

  89. Digit Donald‘s plan may not add up.

  90. Dogwhistling Donald calls Freedom Fighters to aim and fire:

    What is to be done about a Presidential candidate who speculates about the future assassination of his victorious rival? Don’t boo, vote.

  91. Watch Expedient Donald contradict himself on every major campaign issue.

  92. Democracy Donald’s economic adviser is not a strong believr in democracy :

    AMONG THE MEMBERS of [Democracy Donald]’s recently announced team of economic advisers is Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-founder of the Club for Growth, which supports candidates who advocate slashing the tax rates of the top 1 percent.

    Moore is particularly notable because he’s entertainingly honest about prioritizing money over Americans. In the 2009 documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore said on camera that “Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I’m not even a big believer in democracy.” (I was research producer for the movie, which was directed by Michael Moore — no relation to Stephen.)

    Stephen Moore is also, like [Democracy Donald], a charlatan. After a guest op-ed under his byline in the Kansas City Star contained glaringly false statistics, the paper’s editorial page editor vowed that she would never run anything by Moore again, and that any other submissions by Heritage Foundation staff would be fact checked by the Star. (Moore’s errors were discovered by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah, who is my cousin.)

    Make the 1% Great Again – vote Democracy Donald.

    • “Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I’m not even a big believer in democracy.”

      Let’s take a look at the entire quote as offered by your link (obviously more honest than you are):

      Here’s the transcript from the movie, with the segment below:

      MOORE: Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I’m not even a big believer in democracy. I always say that democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. … Look, I’m in favor of people having the right to vote and things like that. But there are a lot of countries that have the right to vote and they’re still poor. Democracy doesn’t always lead to a good economy or even a good political system.

      • The whole quote is waaay better – Democracy doesn’t always lead to a good political system.

        More by Stephen Moore:

        But this criticism isn’t even close to historically accurate. Many times tax rate cuts — including in the 1960s under John F. Kennedy and in the 1980s under Mr. Reagan — have raised tax revenues from the wealthiest tax filers because lower rates reduce incentives for tax avoidance and recharge the batteries of the economy and grow taxable incomes.

        Ah yes! The ol’ “tax cuts pay for themselves” saw that we’ve been hearing from the supply-side crowd for going over three decades now. Every time a high-profile Republican comes out with a tax plan that includes steep rate cuts for the wealthy, we’re told that they won’t exacerbate deficits because they’ll supercharge the economy and actually boost revenues. There’s a large, growing, and cross-ideological consensus that this is not actually true.


    • Willard, “Ah yes! The ol’ “tax cuts pay for themselves” saw that we’ve been hearing from the supply-side crowd for going over three decades now.”

      Moore said, “many times” whether they do or not is related to the Laffer Curve which varies with economic circumstances.

      During Obama, quite a few corporations used inversions to move to places like Ireland, Canada etc. which is an indication that corporate taxes are too high, Pretty simple stuff. When oil hits $100 a barrel and your currency drops in value by 40%, not repatriating money at a higher tax rate and lower exchange rate isn’t too bright. But then, if “necessarily more expensive energy” is your idea of sound economic theory, ya might miss the obvious.

      Another good indicator is the growth in the grey economy. You know the grey economy helped drive the recovery. I am not sure how Obama planned on using tax evasion as a policy, but stuff happens. Evading taxes does tend to reduce the effective tax rate whether it is off the books labor or offshore shadow corporations.


      • Sure, Cap’n – we should not tax because otherwise people won’t pay taxes.

        People won’t move to Ireland if they wish to live in USA, BTW – corporations do. What does it tell you about corporations’ personhood and their first amendment crap?

      • Willard, “What does it tell you about corporations’ personhood and their first amendment crap?”

        Looks like they are fans of open borders and a global economy :) Warren Buffet is Hillary’s advisor right? How many companies solely owned by Berkshire Hathaway do you think moved?

      • Look at this graph showing health expenditure qua life expectancy, Cap’n: which great choice did America make circa 1980?

      • Willard, looks like we didn’t get tough on immigration. Since 1980, the US population has increased by nearly 40% while Finland increased by less than 6 percent. Sweden had a slightly large increase of 15 percent. The difference is about 45 million legal and illegal immigrants since 1980 give or take a few million in the US. Got something else?

      • > [L]ooks like we didn’t get tough on immigration.

        A chart showing immigration rates and life expectancies might be nice, Cap’n.

        Find one. Report.

      • Actually that looks like another good study for someone. Life expectancy of the US and Canada tracked together until ~1980 when migrants with a lower life expectancy blended with the population. If you allow for rural issues, your life expectancy is higher the closer you live to an ambulance and hospital, and the lack of medical insurance for immigrants, things would be pretty close to EU. Asia on the other hand we cannot compete with life expectancy wise, Latin

      • oops, Latin America though we have more than covered. Perhaps we should have focused on Chinese immigration, then we would have great life expectancy stats.

      • > Actually that looks like another good study for someone […]

        Lots of theories.

        The truth is out there.

      • Willard, “The truth is out there.”

        Must be under a different lamppost. As far as the hyper inflation of healthcare in the US, the poorly constructed medicare program had a large impact. The average cost of healthcare in Utah is 50% of the average cost of healthcare in Washington D.C. which indicates an administrative problem not an industry problem.

        A friend had an operation a few months back and the grand total was a little over $20,000, but cash in 30 days brought that down to $11,000. I had Lasik a bunch of years ago, asking price was $4,000, but I negotiated that down to $2,000 with cash paid at time of service. 100s btw. There appears there is 40% to 60% padding to compensate for dealing with administrative a$$holes.

        As far as longevity is concerned, after allowing for confounding factors there isn’t much of a statistical significance. It appears to be a tool for tools.

    • “The effect of Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts (reduced revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts) were at least partially offset by phased in Social Security payroll tax increases that had been enacted by President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Congress in 1977, and further increases by Reagan in 1983. An accounting indicated nominal tax receipts increased from $599 billion in 1981 to $1.032 trillion in 1990, an increase of 72% in current dollars. In 2005 dollars, the tax receipts in 1990 were $1.5 trillion, an increase of 20% above inflation. From 1991 to 2000, receipts increased by 90% in current dollars, or 60% in 2005 dollars.”
      Wikipedia can’t seem to bring itself to post a chart of tax revenues during the Reagan years. Heritige has all kinds of plots, but they were ruled out of bounds by myself. Otherwise, a Google dearth of plots. Someone should inform the Wikipedia gatekeepers that they ought cast aspersions on Steven Moore on their Reaganomics page. And now for the bad news:
      “Krugman argued in June 2012 that Reagan’s policies were consistent with Keynesian stimulus theories, pointing to the significant increase in per-capita spending under Reagan.” Ack! Keynes. Let’s tell ourselves he was ailing when he said that.

      • Here, Ragnaar:

        Why was government spending much stronger under Reagan than in the current slump? “Weaponized Keynesianism” — Reagan’s big military buildup — played some role. But the big difference was real per capita spending at the state and local level, which continued to rise under Reagan but has fallen significantly this time around.


        While we can understand the relationship between expenditure and weaponized keysianism have to do with life expectancy, again?

      • Ack, a line has been deleted:

        While we can understand the relationship between expenditure and weaponized keysianism, what does weaponized keysianism have to do with life expectancy, again?

      • Thank you Willard. I was trying to confine myself to Federal Revenues.
        “…what does weaponized keysianism have to do with life expectancy, again?”
        I’ll guess.
        It lowers it because it’s not efficient.
        I suppose I associate Keyniansim with failed stimulus packages. As not using libertarian ideas and adding debt.

  93. I believe Republican policies are better than Democrat policies; and was initially open to Trump for US President. But no longer. I’ve gone totally off him now. I’ve been following some analyses by high level people I’d tend to trust. I now believe a Trump presidency would be a huge risk for world peace. He seems to be near nuts.

    From today’s The Australian newspaper:

    Trump a security threat

    A Donald Trump presidency could cause “mayhem” for Aus­tralia’s national security, wreck the crucial defence alliance with the US and trigger an unnecessary confrontation with China, Kim Beazley has warned.

    The former defence minister and ambassador to Washington said Australia could not afford to sit back and let chaos rule while its ability to defend itself was badly weakened.

    Writing for The Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank, Mr Beazley said a Trump presidency would not be a question of “hold on to your hats for four years” and then sanity would rule. “America will be a different place after four years of Donald Trump,” he writes. “Australia’s responses, should they be necessary, must be immediate, forceful and sustained. More broadly, we can’t afford to see our region, including relations with China, fall victim to ill-considered confrontations.”

    Fifty national security officials from the Republican Party this week signed a letter warning that Mr Trump would be the most reckless president in US history, saying he lacked the character, values and experience to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and wellbeing”.

    Mr Beazley said some commentators would be pleased to see a rogue, isolationist US repudiating old shared values and perspectives. “However, we don’t have the capacity to readily survive an uncoupling of our bilateral ­defence relationship with our ­national security intact,” he said.

    more… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/donald-trump-a-security-threat-says-kim-beazley/news-story/e467672f14aab1c3ef3eb9a39222c5d8

    Here’s another; this one from the UK Independent:

    Donald Trump is not just a security threat to America, he’s an economic threat too
    Trump wants other countries to lose when they do business with America, and if that doesn’t work he’s prepared to build walls to keep them out”

    • Those 50 security experts were the same clowns that conned the US into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that if we didn’t invade he’d use them on the United States.

      You in the habit of getting conned twice by the same people, Lang?

      • I don’t know what 50 security experts you are talking about, nor do you and nor do you.

        Furthermore, Iraq was about securing of energy supply, dummy. You might have been gullible enough to think it was about something else. That’s gullible in spades.

        And if you are so gullible as to believe Trump would improve world security, then you demonstrate how easily conned you are, DS! (DS is a very appropriate name for you).

      • “Fifty national security officials from the Republican Party this week signed a letter”

        Those fifty. Mostly Bush apparatchiks. Neocon warhawks.

        “Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter”

        Thanks for asking!

        I realize that collecting some facts would slow you down in jumping to the wrong conclusion and that facts, in any case, have no influence in your thought process. I correct you for the sake of others who do let facts inform their thinking.

    • So you’re basically afraid that the US umbrella of protection you enjoy for virtually no cost might be at risk.

      And that fat coal export pipeline from Australia to China might be jeopardized if the US Navy doesn’t patrol the South China sea?

      link: http://assets.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/coal-trade-around-the-world-1.jpg

      • DS, if your an example of the sort of people who support Trump, I am sure the majority of US voters will not be so stupid as to make him President.

      • I’m an example of no group except perhaps eccentric geniuses.

        Australia is a prime example of countries getting free protection under the US umbrella. You want the South China Sea safe for your coal exports I suggest you build a navy big enough to do it and stop relying on the one that people like me pay for. We’re sick of being the world’s police. We’re going broke doing it.

      • This is SO typical. You also blame the US for not doing enough to make nuclear energy the panacea of your dreams. Again, do it yourself. Stop whining about the US not doing it for you.

  94. Since Trump became the official nominee for the Republicans in July, the trend has been for Republicans to back away from him. There is a steady stream of them, op-eds, letters by security and foreign policy experts, etc. Trump is trying to reset with his carefully scripted policy speech that he just reads off with no conviction, barely understanding the words by appearances. It looks like a personality transplant, but it is not taking. Today he is back to his other self with second-amendment related threats. He may just call this sarcasm, like his invitation for Russian hackers, but then everything he says is going to be sarcasm, including the wall with the “beautiful door”. He tries things out, and if they fail the fact check or the morality test, he says he was just joking. It plays to the poorly educated part of his support, and the better educated, while not believing him, support him in trying to fool them, because they are votes too after all. No wonder many Republicans are not sinking to that.

    • Perhaps he was being sarcastic when he was promoting torture and illegally going after the families of terrorists?

      Oh right, I forgot,

      1) he doesn’t actually mean anything that he says.

      2) Everything offensive he says is just t a negotiating stance.

      3) he’s a genius for dominating and manipulating the media by making outrageous statements. He smartly understands that no publicity is bad publicity.

      4) he’s a tough guy

      5) he’s as victim of the leftwing media.

      • Are you referring to Trump saying water boarding was okay after taking into account ISIS butchering live prisoners by cutting their heads off with a knife then distributing video tapes of the barbarism?

        You have absolutely no sense of perspective.

      • The CIA needs to waterboard Hillary and Bill until they confess all their crimes against humanity.

      • It is hard to tell sarcasm from just floating ideas out there as dogwhistles for his base. Sometimes, as with occasional alleged videos, he is just seeing things according to figments of his own imagination instead of reality, but again he convinces enough of his base of their reality that the truth doesn’t matter. Right-wing media don’t correct all his errors, or the base don’t listen to any news media except Trump, and so these things will persist if you poll his base about the Trump world of “facts” that he has created for them.

  95. How Difficult Donald lost the confidence of a 6 years old who simply wanted a Great America:

    I am a playwright. I write plays that question how we live in a post-modern, decidedly not post-racial society that still has some issues with lots of -isms, so I fully recognize the irony of my ambivalence about difficult questions flying about my household.

    And yet. Here I was.

    “Do you know what [Difficult Donald] believes in?,” I asked. “Uhhhhh nope,” my son replied. His sister snort-laughed.

    “Well,” I began. “Let’s talk about some of the things [Difficult Donald]—“

    “Who’s [Difficult Donald]?” my son demanded. His sister snort-laughed again. So did he, but only to show he was in on the joke. He was beginning to look nervous, like, the joke was maybe changing.

    “That’s [Difficult Donald]’s whole name. His first name is Donald. Let’s talk about what he has said. All the people running say things to get people to vote for them. The Democrats and the Republicans, and that is how we decide who we want to be president. Obama can’t run again. He has to stop being president.” “Ohhh, OK.”

    And so we began. We talked about a lot: walls and Mexico and Spanish and Muslims and brown people.

    “Wait. I am brown.” “Yes.” “OK. Keep going.”


    And as I talked and they asked questions, my son got angry. “Why didn’t you tell me any of this?” “Daddy and I want you to make up your own mind.” “You should have told me about this before I went to school,” he said. “Are you embarrassed?”

    In the rear-view mirror, I could see him nod his head sadly. His legs were tucked up to his chest. His chin rested on his knees. “Yes. I am.”

    “Don’t be embarrassed. We’re just talking. When [Difficult Donald] says certain things, some people do wonder what kind of America he is talking about. That is why the phrase is confusing to many of the people we have been talking about. It means a different thing to the groups of people we were talking about than to some of the people who want [Difficult Donald] to win.”

    “It’s your job to tell me these things,” my son said. “From now on, tell me everything: Show me all the news, tell me all the news, every day, all of it.”

    • Will you feign ignorance again, Puppy Dave, or are you willing to admit that you don’t care much about burdening Judy with your crap?

      • Read harder. She said occasional cartoons were okay. I posted only one comment yesterday which I believe qualifies as occasional. Thanks for asking!

        If you had restricted yourself to one graphic per day no one would have complained. You were however so abusive in the number you posted it became unusable due to long load times.

  96. Discriminating Donald

    The legal team went after the claims that Trump employees used coded language to refer to minorities. This case had originated in part from one employee, who told the government that he was instructed to mark rental applications from blacks with the letter “C” for “colored,” and that “he did this every time a black person applied for an apartment,” according to an affidavit from Goldweber. The employee said he didn’t want to be identified in the case because “he was afraid that the [Discriminating Donald]s would have him ‘knocked off,’ or words to that effect, because he told me about their allegedly discriminatory practices,” according to the affidavit.

    Court transcripts show how the [Discriminating Donald] lawyers then attempted a new tactic: attacking the credibility of the government’s lawyer. They drafted an affidavit for the employee, in which he denied making such statements. In the signed statement, the employee claimed that the Justice Department lawyer who replaced Goldweber, Donna Goldstein, told him to “lie” or risk being “thrown in jail.” The employee described himself as a “Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican hired directly by Mr. [Discriminating Donald].”

    Goldstein and other Justice officials vehemently denied that she made any threats. Goldstein, now a California Superior Court judge, declined to comment on the case.

    Cohn said in an affidavit that Goldstein was conducting a ­“gestapo-like interrogation.” A Cohn colleague wrote to the Justice Department that its agents were “descending upon the [Discriminating Donald] offices with five stormtroopers.”

    Cohn wanted the judge to hold Goldstein in contempt. But Cohn’s effort went nowhere. The judge admonished Cohn for his language and said in a hearing that his accusations against the Justice Department were “utterly without foundation.”

    Despite [Discriminating Donald]’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

    Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

    The Justice Department wanted the [Discriminating Donald]s to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.

    The hitch was the cost. [Discriminating Donald] went into negotiating mode.

    This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” [Discriminating Donald] said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

    Says the guy who paid 85k to reestablish the death penalty for men who were wrongfully convicted.