Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week about the U.S. Presidential election.

Compared to last week, this week has been pretty lean in terms of substantive analysis.  Here are a few things that I flagged:

How’d we get stuck with Trump and Clinton? Maybe we have to look in the mirror: [link]

Former candidate for the Democratic nomination Jim Webb Supports Trump over Hillary [link]

Trip report from Sanders delegates at the Democratic National Convention [link]

Trump:  I regret sometimes saying the wrong thing  [link]

Trump will do what Obama won’t: Visit Louisiana [link]

Trump’s problem is Trump [link]

Why Conservative Intellectuals Support Trump [link]

Conservative legal scholars prefer a liberal Supreme Court to a President Trump [link]

Why Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be a foreign policy hawk as president:[link]

Why a Hillary Clinton win means a new era of public misogyny is coming: [link]

 

Gary Johnson has a plan [link]

Why Gary Johnson Opposes Hate-Crime Laws [link]

 

 

 

546 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Gary Johnson on immigration:
    Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson took on Donald Trump over his immigration policy and plans to build a wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico.

    “He [Donald Trump] talks about deporting 11 million undocumented workers. That has a basis in complete misunderstanding of the situation,” Johnson told the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.

    According to Johnson, America should not be opposed to immigration but rather have a more welcoming, supportive policy.

    “Immigrants are not taking jobs that U.S. citizens want. We should be embracing immigration. We should make it as easy as possible for somebody that wants to come into the country and work to be able to get a work visa. And a work visa should entail a background check and a social security card so that taxes get paid.”

    Johnson also spoke out against Trump’s calls to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    “Look, building a wall is just crazy. I can just see the Mexican president [saying], ‘Donald Trump, take this wall down.’ And you know what, he is going to be on the right side of history. At some point, if Trump is elected and if he does this wall, which is really asinine, we will take it down at some point.”

    Johnson then weighed in on the factors driving illegal immigration.

    “The reason why there’s 11 million undocumented workers Maria is because they can’t get across the border legally and yet the jobs exist. So they’re forced to cross illegally. And by the way, the illegal crossings right now are like at a 10-year low. So I’m not proposing anything change on the border.”

    Yes he actually said;
    “And by the way, the illegal crossings right now are like at a 10-year low. So I’m not proposing anything change on the border.”

    The truth:
    Illegal Immigration Up 131% in 2016

    Through the first six months of fiscal 2016, which ended on March 31, border officials apprehended 27,754 unaccompanied children, the CBP reported — a 78 percent jump from the 15,616 apprehended in 2015, and just shy of the 28,579 apprehended in 2014.

    For family units, which consist of at least one child traveling with at least one adult, the increase was even more dramatic. In the first six months of 2016, 32,117 families were apprehended, the CBP reported — an increase of 131 percent from the 2015 figure (13,913) and 62 percent from the 2014 figure (19,830).

    I was actually looking for an alternative to Trump as I’ve voted libertarian in the past. I came to the conclusion he would be a good alternative to vote for if he were running for President of Mexico. It’s the same ol same ol playbook that has been so successful in the past. From his issues page on his website; “Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.”

    • I agree more with Johnson here. I think both should be done. Trips wall is kind of silly, and it will not work unless we make legal border crossing and immigration much easier. The difficulty in legal crossing drives the industry of illegal crossing which creates the security threat.

      • “The difficulty in legal crossing drives the industry of illegal crossing which creates the security threat.”
        VS
        “The difficulty in legal drugs drives the industry of illegal drugs which creates the security threat.”
        or even
        “The difficulty in legal abortion drives the industry of illegal abortion which creates the security threat.”

        If one makes sense, they all do (although you might find the last a stretch without changing the penultimate word) – but I bet you’d get a different answer for all three from the same candidate, regardless of political leaning.

      • ” They would seem to understand a and understand b, many times could not find their way from a to b, even after I explained it.”

        Yeah. I think that’s cultural. The attendant issue is the “Mandarin culture” they bring with them (see Megan McCardles thoughts below, before she got converted). One might think we want the highest IQ (and motivated) people in the sciences and getting the good jobs, but a lot of who gets promoted is test takers. Unfortunately, with all this destruction going on to US institutions, including with Scientific institutions, one could imagine a prolonged “grey age,” in which the human progress ceases for millenia. Hopefully there are enough genuinely curious people to push us through the current malaise and destruction.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/21/america-s-new-mandarins.html

      • Yeah. I think that’s cultural.

        I agree. It seems to be based on the culture they grew with that influences them the most.

    • Not to mention that:” Immigrants are not taking jobs that U.S. citizens want” is categorically an indirection of the problem. Americans, in fact, would want these jobs if our labor force wasn’t swamped with 3rd worlders, which has the effect of driving wages through the floor, exactly the purpose of the libertarian puppets of the Oligarchs.

      • Nickels,
        Georgia tried addressing the immigration issue with a hammer, and farmer’s were hurt as a result.

        Here’s one economists take: “Georgia’s experience is consistent with economic research on immigration. Although many Americans believe immigrants “steal” our jobs and push down our wages, economists find little evidence of that.

        Since 1950 the U.S. labor force has roughly doubled in size, but there has been no long-run increase in unemployment. Most economic studies also find little evidence that increased immigration depresses the wages of U.S. workers. At worst, it might push down the wages of high school dropouts, but even there the effect is small.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/2/#59a1c5dd1a7b

        IIRC, the lack of immigrants led to an attempt to draw from local sources of harvesters. The locals lasted about a day and quit. And of course the higher costs for local labor (lower productivity and higher wages) would lead to higher food costs as they are passed down the line.

        “The H-2A program is expensive: Al Pearson says application and consultant fees alone are $335 per worker. Busing them thousands of miles is about $650 apiece. Throw in another $100 per worker for housing, and Pearson spends around $108,000 on labor before signing a paycheck. Also, dealing with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor is a labyrinth of red tape. In 2011 a bureaucratic hang-up delayed Pearson’s crew for two weeks.”

        “Aren’t there any local, taxpaying citizens who would gladly take these traditional American jobs?

        Well, no, says Al Pearson. A stipulation of H-2A is that growers must advertise and offer these positions to local workers, and each year, he says, a handful apply. How do those few hold up under this demanding labor? “I’ll just say they elected not to continue employment,” says Al.”
        http://www.atlantamagazine.com/great-reads/fruit-of-labor/

        More recent (and local media coverage): http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/losses-grow-for-georgia-farmers-waiting-on-feds-to/nrGQn/
        “We get really nervous when we can’t get our crop,” Brim said, “because if we can’t get our crop, it means we’ll go bankrupt.”

        Much like the minimum wage conversation, it’s a ‘wicked’ problem.

      • nickels,

        What’s pretty amazing is that in the realignment of the parties it is the Democratic Party — the traditional bastion of labor — that has declared war on the domestic labor force.

        Ever since Adam Smith penned his Law of Population in the 18th century and spoke of the commodificaiton of labor we’ve been made aware of the effect of supply and demand on the price of labor.

        Now, all of a sudden, we’re supposed to forego common sense. And we’re also supposed to forget over two centuries of world history, including this:

        There was no question among Anglo settlers in South Texas that a major asset of the region consisted of its cheap labor pool. Angribusinessmen, their chambers of commerce, and local county newspapers constantly emphasized this great advantage of the area. One land prospectus in the Winter Garden region, for example, pushed the “sell” in a succinct statement: “The cheapest farm labor in the United States is to be had in this section.”….

        There was, of course, a sharp distinction between “white wages” and “Mexican wages.”

        In the eyes of most farmers, the differences between the two were basically adjustments to the minimum living standards of Mexicans and Anglos. The lifestyle of the Mexican, in fact, framed a common argument that farmers used in justifying their preference for Mexican labor over that of Anglos. One land development agent put it this way: “The white people won’t do the work and they won’t live as the Mexicans do on beans and tortillas and in one room shacks.”

        — DAVID MONTEJANO, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986

        William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

      • # many, Danny.

      • Danny,

        Americans will do any job if the wage is right. Tens of thousands moved to cold North Dakota during the fracking boom. Maybe we shouldn’t be farming in the United states if the wages required are too high for the work. Maybe it should move to Mexico. We seem as a country to have no problem moving our factories to other countries, why not farming. Or, perhaps, farmers will learn to automate more. Perhaps all this cheap, subsidized labor is slowing down innovation.

        Meanwhile, it’s good to see the article mentions the increased burden on services. Someone has to pay for those services, and usually it’s taxpayers, though not always. Sometimes its the uninsured person who uses the ER, and has the money or wages to pay for it.

        Regarding the H-2A, it’s ironic that those who added all the requirements to protect the guest worker do not argue they ought to apply to illegal immigrants as well. I suppose illegals do not deserve those protections?

      • Danny Thomas

        Ed,
        “Or, perhaps, farmers will learn to automate more. Perhaps all this cheap, subsidized labor is slowing down innovation.”

        Yet this still removes jobs from the market which some suggest the harvest labor force is doing anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_tractor
        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/01/japanese-firm-to-open-worlds-first-robot-run-farm

        Plus, from the Atlanta mag link: “With fewer jobs, local pickers migrated to better climes—like California, where peaches grow year-round—or left the industry altogether for factories in Macon, Atlanta, and elsewhere. What labor was left dwindled through the 1960s and 1970s as cotton production declined and finally mechanized, rendering cotton pickers obsolete.

        But peaches were too delicate for machines to pick. For Pearson and the remaining growers, finding manpower to bring in the crop became a yearly struggle against the prospect of total ruin.”

        So a multi fold issue. One state positions itself to benefit from the policies of another. And then some crops are not appropriate for those innovations.

        So the choice is to adapt to the labor issue, pay more for our food or outsource?

        (I was struck by the $108,000 payment before a single crop was picked.)

        As has been discussed elsewhere w/r/t parties/candidates ‘mobilization’ to ‘address’ climate change Trump has mobilized this group: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-agriculture-team-policy-227083
        Yet the candidate and the team members do not necessarily align.
        “The fact that so many of Trump’s advisers are establishment lawmakers drew criticism from Hillary Clinton supporters.” (Political nonsense, many of his choice have real world experience.)
        and
        “In going with a mainstream lineup, Trump is also taking advice from industry leaders whose views on immigration run counter to his own plan to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.”

        As suggested previously, much like the minimum wage conversation this is wicked. Just wicked.

      • Danny Thomas,

        That magnum opus of spin doctoring was cut out of the same whole cloth as this article from the Financial Times:

        The financial sector has not bought the next Democratic administration
        https://www.ft.com/content/700c2a12-6072-11e6-b38c-7b39cbb1138a

        Cynics, including most of the US public, figure that Wall Street will have bought the next Democratic administration. They are wrong. Contrary to what you might expect from historical experience, Wall Street is going to get little, if anything, for its money.

        [W]hile Mrs Clinton may be president, the sheriff of Wall Street will be Senator Elizabeth Warren. The senator, her progressive allies and her policy wonk followers have a lot to say about the financial sector. And not the sort of sugary reassurances you hear at high-end fundraisers.

        The real question, however, is whether enough of those who have to work for a living will be able to see through it or not.

      • That was supposed to be “+ many, Danny!”

      • How many Americans want temporary or seasonal, migrant jobs way out in the sticks. Is that part of the American dream these days?

      • Danny Thomas

        “How many Americans want temporary or seasonal, migrant jobs way out in the sticks. Is that part of the American dream these days?”

        Actually, yes it is for ‘migrant’ American’s many of whom are retired and are part of the ‘work force’ likely not counted.
        Here are a couple of examples/resources.

        https://www.workamper.com/

        http://www.sugarbeetharvest.com/

      • edbarbar said:

        Regarding the H-2A, it’s ironic that those who added all the requirements to protect the guest worker do not argue they ought to apply to illegal immigrants as well. I suppose illegals do not deserve those protections?

        Yep. As William Faulkner said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

        1920-1930: The Web of Labor Controls

        But in the 1920s and 1930s, the growers were in command. The new farm society that emerged was their world, constructed according to their social principles and economic needs. The duality of the farm society, in this sense, not only reflected the superiority of the Anglo-American but also served to preserve a cheap Mexican labor force…..

        The harsh conditions experienced by the Mexican in Texas farm counties appear as a matter of fact to the most casual historian of the region…. Immobilization of sharecroppers and pickers through debt was an obvious type of control… The dismissal or removal of wage laborers for the purpose of avoiding payment was another type. Under this latter category fell a number of specific examples: shotgun settlements, the cancellation of credit at the local store, the timely leak to the Border Patrol.

        — DAVID MONTEJANO, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986

        And if we fast-forward a century, we see that nothing has changed (see part beginning at minute 20:40):

        2013: Stolen wages
        http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2013/10/stolen-wages-201310812497973244.html

      • “What’s pretty amazing is that in the realignment of the parties it is the Democratic Party — the traditional bastion of labor — that has declared war on the domestic labor force.”

        Yes, Glenn. Democrats sold out labor and became the party of the gay parade and sexual liberation. Sad.

      • Georgia tried addressing the immigration issue with a hammer, and farmer’s were hurt as a result.

        That’s because you can’t do it in isolation of all the other states, and in fact they might need to keep an eye on imports.

      • Danny Thomas

        Micro,

        “That’s because you can’t do it in isolation of all the other states, …….”
        But they can, and they did. Some are all about states rights and all against greater ‘government’ (meaning fed) regulation.

        I tend to agree that cooperative approach might be best. But managing to get 50 states on the same page is unlikely.

      • But they can, and they did. Some are all about states rights and all against greater ‘government’ (meaning fed) regulation.

        That wasn’t how I meant it. My point is if they do them separately Georgia fruit will be more expensive than say Alabama fruit, and the businesses in GA will get killed. This is how Chinese products killed US manufacturing, that and bad trade deals.

      • Nickels,

        The LGBTs that have made the Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party are what I call “exception queens” or “parvenu queens.”

        I borrow the terms from Hannah Arendt’s chapter in The Origins of Totalitarianism titled “The Jews and Society.” Under the heading of “Between Pariah and Parvenu,” she talks about a similar phenomenon regarding Jews in post-Nazi Germany:

        It is important to bear in mind that assimilation as a group phenomenon really existed only among Jewish intellectuals. It is no accident that the first educated Jew, Moses Mendelssohn, was also the first who, despite his low civic status, was admitted to non-Jewish society….

        The dissolution of Jewish communal autonomy made them that much more eager not only to protect Jewish communities against the authorities, but also to rule over them with the help of the state, so that the phrase denoting the “double dependence” of poor Jews on “both the government and their wealthy breathren” only reflected reality….

        The “exception Jews” of wealth felt like exceptions from the common destiny of the Jewish people and were recognized by the governments as exceptionally useful; the “exception Jews” of education felt themselves exceptions from the Jewish people and also exceptional human beings, and were recognized as such by society.

        Arendt adds that “most reactionary governments of the period were supported and financed by Jewish bankers,” and that the “anti-Jewish denunciations of Marx and Boerne cannot be properly understood except in the light of this conflict.”

        “As long as defamed peoples and classes exist,” Arendt concludes, “parvenu- and pariah- qualities will be pronounced anew by each generation with incomparable monotony, in Jewish society and everywhere else.”

      • Oops!

        Should read “she talks about a similar phenomenon regarding Jews in pre-Nazi Germany:

      • Danny,

        “Yet this still removes jobs from the market which some suggest the harvest labor force is doing anyway.”

        I’m not making the argument that illegal immigration takes away jobs, though it is hard to imagine more workers do not depress wages (that fundamental law of economics, supply and demand, argues otherwise).

        What is not OK by me, is the subsidized labor. Jobs that do not pay enough to support, in taxes paid, the government services. This is the primary reason I’m opposed to illegal immigration. I work in software in Silicon Valley. My wages are less than they otherwise would have been if there were not large amounts of immigration. I think what is happening in Silicon Valley is OK, even if it is not to my personal best interest, because it has such a positive effect on the entire economy. The same cannot be said for the low skilled labor that comes form the Southern border.

        It’s foolish to have an open borders policy that is attracting millions of unskilled laborers when the US implements a massive welfare state.

      • I work in software in Silicon Valley.

        I did some work out there, and in the building of the major tech company I was visiting the whole place, couple hundred people, there wasn’t more than maybe a dozen people not from India. The three buildings in this one park looked to all be about the same. And this was just a fraction of the facilities they have. I can’t help but wonder how many Americans could fill at least some of those jobs, that weren’t even considered.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ed,
        “It’s foolish to have an open borders policy that is attracting millions of unskilled laborers when the US implements a massive welfare state.”

        Agreed. I think there are many parts of an octopus here. We’re supporting indirectly via education, medical, etc. vs. paying wages (and associated higher prices) in a more direct fashion.

        But there are also cost or not ‘open borders’ as evidenced by the $108,000 before the first crop was picked.

        This hasn’t been ‘fixed’ dating back to the 1970’s. A wall won’t do it. Deportation of millions won’t either. It’s not a simple problem.

        I wish I had more answers, but mostly have questions.

      • “I can’t help but wonder how many Americans could fill at least some of those jobs, that weren’t even considered.”

        The competition is fierce out here, because the best talent from all over the world comes. But, should it be any other way? It means tech is pushing forward faster than otherwise.

        Compare that to unskilled labor coming in from south of the border. They take jobs subsidized by taxpayer dollars (and by that I mean the jobs do not pay for the government services consumed by the unskilled laborers and their families). That dislocates dollars away from productive sectors.

        And, I ought to take a moment to point out that capitalism and all this trade the West has done has brought billions out of poverty. How many has all this illegal immigration brought out? Maybe 40 or 50 million maximum? And it’s expensive. It’s cheaper to bring someone out of poverty in Mexico, China, or India where the cost of labor and goods is lower than in the US. Oh, and for those concerned about climate change, it’s bad for the world’s CO2 footprint.

      • The competition is fierce out here, because the best talent from all over the world comes. But, should it be any other way? It means tech is pushing forward faster than otherwise.

        Generally no, it shouldn’t. But because of the sheer number, compared to non-indians at those facilities makes it look like a lot more than just the best of the best. And quite a few of our team had to cycle back to India because their stay ended. I can’t help but think this saved them a lot of money as well. Plus while the ones on our team seemed very smart, I repeatedly had to explain thing over and over many times. They would seem to understand a and understand b, many times could not find their way from a to b, even after I explained it.

      • Glenn,

        ‘The LGBTs that have made the Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party are what I call “exception queens” or “parvenu queens.”’

        Apparently in the modern schema it was Foucault who made his pact with the devil and helped steer the modern left away from supporting labor into the morass of, well, more a@@. haha. Sexual liberation and LGBT, i.e. freedom [form the moral law=slavery] I mean.

        Its just a modern day form of bread and circuses.

    • The US exploits illegal immigrant labor. They get paid a rate that legal workers can’t be paid. They are hired at younger than legal age for employment. Cash under the table, children who should be in school, and no benefits whatsoever.

      Where are all the human rights protesters when this is happening in their own country?

      I’ve been to China on Dell Computer’s behalf. I saw the barracks where they house the Phillipino women imported by the boatload to work in the adjacent electronic assembly factories. If we are going to exploit foreign workers we ought to be honest enough to do it like the Chinese do it.

      • Actually that was the Republic of China also known as Taiwan. Hillary’s bathroom server and Blackberry was built by subjugated Indonesian women living in barracks. Just so you know.

      • Capitalism is the state sponsored exploitation of labor. Not just immigrants.

      • Danny Thomas

        Nickels,

        “Capitalism is the state sponsored exploitation of labor. Not just immigrants.”

        Very well said. And those ‘exploited’ volunteer.

      • nickels,

        According to classical economic theory, the state is supposed to be neutral in the perennial conflict between labor and capital.

        But of course, in practice, as opposed to in theory, the state is seldom, if ever, neutral in this tug-of-war of material interests.

        According to Marx, the state was always on the side of captial. “Marx’s estimate of the state,” wrote Hannah Arendt in On Violence, is “as an instrument of oppression in the hands of the ruling class.”

        Deontologists, however, have a theory that varies somewhat from Marx’s:

        In short, economic actors, by the use of political means, achieve various effects often attributed to concentration of economic power….

        The two most important observations about the application of interventionist power are: (1) its exercise generates economic consequences comparable in magnitude to those gained through the exercise of economic power, and (2) interventionist power can be applied whether or not the actor commands economic power….

        The theorem just stated is in opposition to the Marxist notion that political power merely or largely reflects economic power.

        — AMITAI ETZIONI, The Moral Dimension

      • Capitalism is the state sponsored exploitation of labor.

        No it isn’t.

      • According to classical economic theory, the state is supposed to be neutral in the perennial conflict between labor and capital.

        But of course, in practice, as opposed to in theory, the state is seldom, if ever, neutral in this tug-of-war of material interests.

        According to Marx, the state was always on the side of captial.

        The two most important observations about the application of interventionist power are: (1) its exercise generates economic consequences comparable in magnitude to those gained through the exercise of economic power, and (2) interventionist power can be applied whether or not the actor commands economic power….

        Capitalism in its (early) modern form evolved in nation-states whose primary concern was maximizing war resources: taxes and civilian production of war materials.

        The rulers/governments of those nation-states had various theories how to use their “interventionist power” to maximize their war resources. The playing field was the actual wars that went on from before the Treaty of Westphalia through the mid-20th century.

        England, and some of its colonies, won.

      • AK,

        Capitalism can be the state exploitation of labor, or the state-assisted exploitation of labor.

        Capitalism comes in various types, and is always dynamic and evolving.

        You should take a look at what’s happened to labor in Mexico since NAFTA was implemented. Talk about the state taking the side of capital over labor. If there was any semblance of a symbiotic relationship between labor and capital before NAFTA, it has been completely destroyed.

        Something tells me that what’s happened in Mexico is the prototype the establishment has in mind for the United States.

      • You should take a look at what’s happened to labor in Mexico since NAFTA was implemented.

        Isn’t there a world full of people who’d gladly do the same job for 1/3 the pay?

      • “Capitalism is the state sponsored exploitation of labor. Not just immigrants.”

        It’s true. Capitalism does exploit people. It also brings them out of poverty. Look what trade has done for Asia, and how many billions it has brought out of poverty.

      • Labor laws are designed to minimize capitalism’s exploitation of labor. These protections are avoided by employing illegal immigrants. You tools should get your heads out of your asses long enough to form some coherent thoughts.

      • AK,

        The working age population of Mexico has increased from 30.6 million to 55.6 million between 1990 and 2014.

        GRAPH: Mexico — Población activa, total 1990-2014
        a; https://s19.postimg.org/kzeh9bncj/Captura_de_pantalla_1349.png

        Of that, it looks like about 30%, or 7.4 million, have wound up in the United States.

        GRAPH: Mexico — Number of immigrants living in the United States 1980-2014
        a; http://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/source_images/SPT-Mexico2016-F1-T.PNG

        As far as “a world full of people who’d gladly do the same job for 1/3 the pay?” Of the 34 countries that the Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps statistics on, it looks like Mexico comes in next to last at $6.36/hour:

        GRAPH: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF HOURLY COMPENSATION COSTS IN MANUFACTURING, 2012
        a; https://s19.postimg.org/9cud8701f/Captura_de_pantalla_1351.png

        The latest firgures for China the BLS has are for 2009 = $1.74/hour

        The latest figures for India the BLS has are for 2010 = $1.46/hour

    • “He [Donald Trump] talks about deporting 11 million undocumented workers. That has a basis in complete misunderstanding of the situation,”

      Much like Johnson’s understanding of the situation. Early on, Trump commented that once all the free stuff disappeared, along with the jobs for illegals, he figured most would just, leave.

      And anyone left probably needs to be hunted down and deported for good reason.

  2. Re the Gary Johnson link “There’s a good reason for that, which flies in the face of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the two most-disliked presidential candidates in documented history (each has disapproval ratings that range close to two-thirds of Americans).”

    What’s new with 47% of the electorate disliking the Republican candidate for President. What’s new is that you can add the Republican establishment to that dislike.

    • Wagathon said:

      What’s new with 47% of the electorate disliking the Republican candidate for President. What’s new is that you can add the Republican establishment to that dislike.

      Bingo!

      It’s part of the realignment of the parties that Trump is trying to pull off.

  3. Despite the social benefits from the UN, their futile effort to hide reality is the root cause of current social insanity.

  4. “Edwards meanwhile, defending the administration’s response Thursday, saying he has spoken daily with the White House and would prefer Obama hold off on visiting because such stops pull local police and first responders into providing security”.

    That was the exact same excuse that Bush used during Katrina. Almost word for word. But at least Bush did a fly over. Obama is not likely to give up his golfing for a few flood victims.

  5. Conservative legal scholars prefer a liberal Supreme Court to a President Trump [link]

    Neoconservatives are simply cold war Trotskyites who ditched the Democratic party in the ’70’s when the minorities in the Democratic party started supporting Palestine.
    Through force of censure they pulled a coup on the conservative party by kicking all the true conservatives out of their publications such as the National Review.

    That said, they are showing their true liberal colors now that Trump is overturning their rule.

    Also, the Republican party would do well to ditch Libertarianism that stooges like Epstein (from the article) push. Libertarianism is an unmitigated disaster. Deregulation leaves the Oligarchy wide open to destroy and dominate the country with their various financial instruments.

    Very unlikely to happen, however. Any criticism of Capitalism and any attempt to legislate against the corporate bullies and in favor of the little guy is seem immediately (falsely) as Socialist and so a more comprehensive economic system that allows free markets and yet curtails abuse is unlikely to take hold. In the absence of such a system, the gears of Capitalism crush the little guy and lead directly to the empowerment of Socialists like Sanders and to the false esteem of the Democrats, who by their tongues service the little people, but by their deeds lead the little man straight into the maw of the Oligarchs.

    • nickels:

      “Libertarianism is an unmitigated disaster.”
      Perhaps you meant, would be an unmitigated disaster. Have they somehow started making policy because of a backdoor entrance into the seats of power? They haven’t won many elections.

      In reference to, various financial instruments, have you in some way been required to participate in any of that? I don’t think I have. While yes there is a higher tendency for collapse with more complicated financial instruments, I don’t think you have to participate and if Congress bails someone out because they did, they shouldn’t. So I see two responsible parties. Certain investors and lacking a backbone Congress. Companies like Apple and ExxonMobil dominate the country which isn’t really dominance as it’s hopefully, mostly Capitalism. Please send them a note to stay away from derivatives.

      What are your criticisms of Capitalism?

      No gears of capitalism are crushing me and I am a little guy. My competitors are H R Block and whatever corporation owns Turbotax. I guess I do things they don’t so consumers have a choice, and enough of them use me.

      • I think the estimate is that 40% of our income goes to servicing debt before we even get it.
        Capitalism is state sponseted Usury.

        This is a new perspective for me after reading E Michael Jones ‘Barren Metal’.

        Germans had a Christian economic system that valued labor and curbed usury, but the Brits had to destroy them and it in WWI.

      • nickels:

        I used to worry about the Republicans and Democrats more. The politicians often do things opposed by libertarians. I thought the elections process was stacked against third parties. I many cases I am against debt, yet some opportunities seem to require it. It’s hard to get grip on the size of our national debt. It’s a bit concerning that low Federal interest rates actually help the Federal government with its interest payments. There’s some doubt as to whether this is a good thing? It occurred to me that I own some of this debt. My conservative side investing in bond index funds. So yes, the debt, a very tiny tiny amount is owed to me. I have an international bond index fund too. So those people owe me money as well. Act at the individual level as the hippies have been telling us for over 50 years. The debt disaster you mentioned is mostly on the Republicans. They can’t stop spending so much. They keep delivering pork. Perhaps someday I’ll make a list of many of the ways our individual tax code indicates a money grubbing Congress backdoor raising taxes by doing things like not indexing for inflation the maximum $2500 per year student loan interest deduction. Not indexing the $3000 per year cap on a capital loss deduction. I have been pleased that a few libertarians have become policy advisers. No election required.

        “It is imperative that we immediately cease the wasteful federal spending so we can pare down the national debt and significantly increase the amount of our own money we get to keep.” – lp.org

      • Someone needs to tell Ragnaar about the War on Poverty when it comes to debt. Defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. War on Poverty isn’t one.

      • Ragnaar,

        I read a lot of the Austrian school and was quite into their ideas for a time. They are probably onto something in terms of ridding the system of its various crony aspects.

        However, at the end of the day, I just don’t buy their arguments. For one, the gold standard is just a deflationary tact that favors the creditors over the debtors. Secondly, exponential interest is, well, exponential. It always destroys, forcing the economy to grow at a rate that will produce the magical ‘copulating coins’, and the second it falls behind it the whole system collapses. Just like 9 planets formed from the process of inverse square attraction, so a handful of Oligarchs end up ruling the Capitalist system fueled by Usury. Third, monopolies, especially in this technological age, seem to be a natural and quick result. Hence the concept of competition is simply impossible.

        No fan of socialism, though, which is the drastic dialectic opposite. The Germans rejected the English system and were working on a solution that kept the good parts of Capitalism but still valued labor in the early 19th century. It would be good to see something more along those lines, in my opinion.

  6. Hmmm. “How’d we get stuck with Trump and Clinton? Maybe we have to look in the mirror:” Link not working. Very curious to read as I’ve said the same and need constant reinforcement of my confirmational bias, please.

      • Thank you. Wasn’t sure when I did a google search which was the link.

        Now just gotta find a place to view it.

      • Similar theme in this National Review article from April this year. A snippet:

        Americans’ animus to the remaining options doesn’t stem from a fear of change; they are unhappy with the status quo, too. Yes, this spring Obama’s job-approval rating has ticked up a bit, to around 50 percent. But since mid-2009 — right as the glow was fading from Obama’s honeymoon — voters have been consistently pessimistic about the country’s direction, with 60 to 70 percent of Americans saying the country is on the wrong track.

        It is of course impossible that Americans’ dim view of the country’s direction has anything whatsoever to do with their even dimmer view of Congress:

        Note that the Gallup article containing that graphic was published two weeks prior to the NR article I cite above. Gallup says something interesting:

        Although Republicans control both the House and Senate, Democrats nationwide (20%) remain more approving than Republicans (12%) of the job Congress is doing. Congressional Republicans are still dealing with the fallout of a showdown between newer, more conservative Republicans who eschew compromise, versus more moderate, establishment party members who are willing to make deals with Democrats to pass legislation. This divide may still be dampening rank-and-file Republicans’ approval of Congress.

        Or maybe Republicans are, on average, simply crankier than Dems.

    • There is almost no symmetry between how Republicans ended up with Donald and how Democrats ended up with Hillary.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        No argument. But does ‘the mirror’ analogy not apply? (Still haven’t been able to view the video).

        The way the ‘battle lines’ seem to be drawn seems to be a mirror image of the electorate. Clinton’s folks are Clinton’s folks and they seem to defend her ignoring the shortcomings. Trump’s are the same. And independents (such as I) see a little bit of ourselves in each while also seeing the blemishes.

      • I personally never wanted her to run, but not because of any significant shortcomings. I don’t buy that BS. Of all who ran this time, she is clearly the best of them. Eight years ago, Obama was clearly better than her. He’s better than anybody on the scene. Easily could win elections 3 and 4, and maybe beyond.

        The country shook the bushes, and they’re disgusted with what fell out. It’s sort of foolish to believe high quality is going to be available every 4-8 years. They would prefer to just keep Obama. The losers were allowed to make a rule that would have saved them from being losers. It’s a bad rule; never should allow losers to make rules that turn them into winners.

      • Obama is the worst President in the history of the US. He would have been stunningly great for Cuba, however.

      • Danny Thomas,

        But does ‘the mirror’ analogy not apply? (Still haven’t been able to view the video).

        The premise of the video is that Trump was nominated as retaliation for eight years of Obama, and Hillary was nominated as retaliation for eight years of Republicans hating Obama. I don’t really agree with this premise.

        Possibly the strongest evidence that we get what we ask for in politics is the widely-known practice of using focus groups to test slogans and soundbites in conjunction with opinion polling.

        Possibly the strongest evidence *against* the mirror analogy is the grossly lopsided influence of large special interest lobbies and very well-heeled individuals. It’s even worse now that corporations are people for the purposes of campaign finance.

        Adding the two together, it’s difficult for me to argue that the general public is more venal and self-serving than those whom we elect to “represent” us. However, I certainly don’t have all the relevant facts, nor the ability to process and comprehend them all even if I did.

        The best advice I could give the general public is to stop mimicking how politicians and op-ed writers demonize their opposition, or more to the point, their opposition’s base.

      • Brandon,
        Grrr. Wish I could view that video, but no streamy for me me (where we are currently).

        “The best advice I could give the general public is to stop mimicking how politicians and op-ed writers demonize their opposition, or more to the point, their opposition’s base.”

        Is it still okay to go after the candidates. Gotta have some fun somehow and they’re such easy pickins. :)

        Seriously, yes I’d like to see that too (your quote above).

      • Obama is the worst President in the history of the US. He would have been stunningly great for Cuba, however. …

        Yours is a minority opinion by an extraordinarily wide margin. Obama is going out popular; the competition looks dreadful by comparison; Presidential historians are going to be extremely kind to Obama; maybe you should consider immigrating to a country where they think like you; if there is one.

      • Don’t forget; Nixon’s biggest problem was that he got caught and W. Bush never happened.

      • Presidential historians are going to be extremely kind to Obama;

        Not likely, just look at the disaster that the mideast has turned into, and it’s spilling over to the rest of the world.

        This always reminds me about those nostradamus programs that describe a great uniter, who started wwiii, and dang if that doesn’t just fit Obama to a tee.

      • Given what I’m about to post next, I’m trying sooo hard — and failing miserably — to not laugh.

      • Danny Thomas,

        I don’t think you’re missing much by not being able to view the video. But when you return from whatever hole in the Internet it is you’re presently stranded, you will of course be the better judge for yourself.

        Re: demonization. I don’t expect perfection, but I would like to see some restraint. That doesn’t mean pulling punches necessarily, but I think it does mean staying above the belt. There’s a big difference between calling an argument or opinion stupid, dangerous or out and out wrong (especially with an explanation why) and calling a person an ignorant cretinous commie pinko fascist knuckle-dragger not fit to mouth-breathe the same air as I do, much less defecate on *my* soil.

        That’s for regular folk, my ostensible neighbors. Politicians are guilty until proven innocent in my book. I can overlook their tendency to be failures as human beings so long as they seem reasonably competent at their jobs. I don’t necessarily need to like their policies. By that metric, I consider Reagan one of the best presidents of my lifetime even though I violently disagree with many of his views and politics.

        The problem I see with violently partisan criticisms of politicians is that when someone truly dangerous comes along (as opposed to being merely loathsome), the superlatives have lost their impact. Or as some wag on Usenet once put it, “What did we use for hyperbole prior to 1939?”

      • Brandon,
        Due to the number of users ‘they’ limit streaming here in our ‘internet hole’. But sounds like I’m not missing much.

        “There’s a big difference between calling an argument or opinion stupid, dangerous or out and out wrong (especially with an explanation why) and calling a person an ignorant cretinous commie pinko fascist knuckle-dragger not fit to mouth-breathe the same air as I do, much less defecate on *my* soil.”

        Agree. As evidenced here (and most everywhere else), debating the argument is much different (and acceptable) as opposed to
        (mis) characterizing the arguer. Most, hopefully, recognize the distinction.

      • JCH said:

        There is almost no symmetry between how Republicans ended up with Donald and how Democrats ended up with Hillary.

        You can say that again.

        Clinton stole her nomination with dirty tricks and with her seamless pipeline into the MSM.

        Thank heavens for the hacked DNC emails, which revealed some of the dirty tricks!

        Trump, too, went up against the same establishment. He took on the same rigged system. He too took on the same depraved and viscious MSM.

        But Trump won. And he won by setting the record for the most GOP primary votes ever.

      • brandonrgates,

        Right.

        Now that someone has come along that might actually upset the establishment’s apple cart, you start pleading, “Can’t we all just get along?”

      • Danny Thomas said:

        But does ‘the mirror’ analogy not apply?

        Do false equivalences much?

      • Glenn Stehle,

        Trump’s populist platform might be more palatable if it didn’t come hand in hand with demagoguery against non-white, non-christian, non-native-born groups. He talks like a proto-fascist. Obviously we can’t all get along, but pouring gasoline on the fire hardly seems necessary to overturn the rich elites’ stranglehold on *both* political parties. I’d go so far to say that inflaming cultural and ethnic differences is the exact opposite thing one wants to do when attempting to ignite a class revolution.

        I wouldn’t think stirring up negative cross-cultural, -racial and -gender relations is advisable in general … unless one has designs on homogenizing things.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Most, hopefully, recognize the distinction.

        Extreme views tend to be louder than their overall representativeness, and I subscribe to the notion that the Internet only further facilitates their amplification. On the various … social … conflicts such as being discussed in this thread, I’ve long had that same hope. Trump steamrolling the Republican primary has somewhat dashed it. On the other hand, it’s shed some light on some ugly festering resentments. A benevolent, functional society would find a way to use that information as something more than political ammunition.

      • “A benevolent, functional society …” Maybe in science fiction.

      • brandonrgates,

        The only reason the ruling class incites the culture wars is because they are an effective tool for controlling the sheeple.

        The ruling class’s allegiance is to its own social and economic class, and It is far more interested in furthering its own class interests than it is fostering any heartfelt solidarity with some racial, ethnic, gender, national or sexual identify group.

        Those who do not understand this will continue to be unwittingly and unknowingly manipulated.

      • The ruling class’s allegiance is to its own social and economic class, and It is far more interested in furthering its own class interests than it is fostering any heartfelt solidarity with some racial, ethnic, gender, national or sexual identify group.

        They care about the value of your work, the value to the collective. It’s all meritocracy. I joined 3 startups, all three gave a a little less salary, for equity stakes. The last one gave me about $3,000 worth of shares as of the time I started, my job was to do technical sales support, I was the tech guy. I do good, the company’s value goes up, and my part is worth more. Simple concept, like the founders, I work my a$$ off, and my share is worth more after ipo, if we ipo. Fortunately the last one went up a lot, until Greenspan and Willy eviscerated the stock market, I lost half, and I had to pay near half what was left in taxes. I’m only a little bitter, just when I pick at it. But my boss did okay by me. He made a lot, but he put up all the money to get it started. That’s why he got the biggest cut, he risked the most. I’m thankful.

        But, risk vs reward. Nothing stopping anyone from jumping on any point they have the required skills and will accept the risk. Between the three, I missed a lot of time with the family, worked long hours with no overtime, in sales if you did good, you’d get a good bonus. It’s the value you bring to the table. Same reason Ton Cruise and Tom Brady get big contracts. They’re worth more to the investors. But when you bring value, you can shop for the best deal.

      • If jim2’s is a minority opinion, it’s a minority of half.

        I doubt history will view Obama kindly. His “legacy” will be ACA and he had relatively little to do with getting that passed.

        Wait, I forgot the other “legacy”. The trillions in new debt, setting race relations back 30 years, ISIS, Syria and the Arab Spring, Putin and the resurrection of Russian power, the disdain of our allies, the slow economic recovery, …

        Yep, history is gonna love Obama. But hey, he is stopping the seas from rising. Guess that is enough for you JCH.

      • Glenn Stehle,

        The ruling class’s allegiance is to its own social and economic class, and It is far more interested in furthering its own class interests than it is fostering any heartfelt solidarity with some racial, ethnic, gender, national or sexual identify group.

        Hence Republican platforms typically oppose things like wealth redistribution by way of progressive taxation and social welfare programs, affirmative action for employment and education, amnesty for illegal immigrants, marriage equality, anti-discrimination policies … etc. Since those are all things Democrat platforms typically support, I take it you have different ideas how to go about leveling the playing field for the 99 percent.

        I’m specifically wondering how you think Trump conforms to your thinking because railing against establishment politicians doesn’t look to be the only reason he crushed the primaries … he stirred up a lot of cultural animus along the way, which is entirely consistent with your lead statement: The only reason the ruling class incites the culture wars is because they are an effective tool for controlling the sheeple.

      • take it you have different ideas how to go about leveling the playing field for the 99 percent.

        To quote Mötley Crue
        Jobs, jobs, jobs

  7. Trump’s problem is Trump [link]

    This article is categorically absurd.
    Trump is a rock star that has rock star rally after rock star rally precisely because of the positions he stands behind and precisely because of what he is saying.

    Pure propaganda, although it has been very powerful. If the little voices of the media keep saying ‘Trump is crazy’ ‘Trump is a loose canon’ ‘Trump has a mouth problem’ long enough, even those who don’t believe it are sucked into the propaganda vortex of viewing his campaign from the categories put forward by those insidious little lying voices. The media controls the very nature of the dialog and manipulates even those who, by disagreeing with the articles, think they are immune.

  8. RE: Why Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be a foreign policy hawk as president

    It is of course impossible to predict the future.

    But just about everything in Clinton’s past indicates she is a hawk. For instance, there’s the time when she bashed Obama for not escalating US intervention in Syria:

    Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

    And then one must ask, “Why is that most of the neocons have circled the wagons around Clinton?”:

    Another Neocon Endorses Clinton, Calling Her ‘2016’s Real Conservative’ and ‘the Candidate of the Status Quo’.
    James Kirchick joins a slew of right-wing pundits who support Clinton over Trump.

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/another-neocon-endorses-clinton

    Wall Street has thrown its weight behind Hillary Clinton.

    In addition, several members of the U.S. right-wing establishment have expressed support for her. Another neocon added his name to the pro-Clinton list on Thursday. James Kirchick penned an op-ed in the Daily Beast titled “Hillary Clinton Is 2016’s Real Conservative—Not Donald Trump.”

    “Clinton is the candidate of the status quo, something that conservatives, by definition, are supposed to uphold,” Kirchick writes….

    Kirchick is a fellow at Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank where leading neocons Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan sit on the board of directors.

    Kagan, who served as foreign policy adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign and has been described as “the neoconservative movement’s chief foreign policy theorist,” has also strongly come out in support of Clinton….

    Kirchick and Kagan have joined numerous right-wing pundits in endorsing Clinton for president. Max Boot, a hard-line war hawk and self-declared “American imperialist,” lauded Clinton in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in May. “Clinton would be far preferable to Trump,” Boot wrote, describing her as “a centrist Democrat who is more hawkish than President Obama and far more principled and knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Trump, who is too unstable and erratic.”….

    Like liberal elites, Kirchick also writes off Trump’s working-class supporters as “too stupid,” writing, “he long ago preemptively humiliated any purported ‘intellectual’ supporter when he declared his ‘love’ for ‘the poorly educated’ voters flocking to his campaign….

  9. We have Donald Trump as a candidate for President because a portion of the electorate is not elite college educated with long standing ties to the East Coast establishment. That the main stream media can be painted with the same brush makes it no coincidence that they too missed the Trump appeal to voters largely ignored and denigrated being characterized as: “uneducated white men.” There are a lot of other people who view a populist anti-establishment non-politician as an attractive alternative. Some of these thinking people, as opposed to educated people, see their future much differently than the current crop of Social Democrats. There even some Trump supported people who are highly educated and black (Ben Carson). Who would have thunk it?

    The Ivy School and West Coast elites continue to self-congratulate themselves on how they have and will shape the world to their views.

    Its something like predicting the weather a 100 years hence; borne of arrogance and magical thinking.

    • “uneducated white men”
      Identity politics is just becoming a mess.
      Would uneducated white men be a disadvantaged group due to lack of education or a privileged group due to being white?
      Inverted but same question for Ben Carson.
      I think the Ivy Leagues should create affirmative action tenured positions for the uneducated.
      Do they believe in diversity or not?

      • rebelronin,

        Would uneducated white men be a disadvantaged group due to lack of education or a privileged group due to being white?
        Inverted but same question for Ben Carson.

        Oh goody, dichotomies. Did the hypothetical white men *want* to go to Yale, or did they pass on the opportunity due to their distaste for Ivy League academic types?

    • Trump has a YUGE advantage in the middle income group $35,000 – $75,000 and a YUGE deficit in the lower income group less than $35,000. He’s tied in the $75,000+ category.

      Education can be formal or informal. The rule of thumb is that income increases with education. Trump then actually has the advantage among educated voters given Clinton only leads in the lowest, least educated bracket.

      This simply highlights the fact that formal education has been hijacked by liberal elites who brainwash the eager young minds who enroll. The eager young minds who get their education on-the-job earn just as much and avoid the brainwashing.

  10. Re: Why Gary Johnson Opposes Hate-Crime Laws

    The intent of the perpetrator (“mens rea” or “guilty mind”) is an element of many criminal convictions. So we already examine “thought crimes”.

    When it comes to sentencing, the court seeks to separate the criminal from society for an appropriate length of time. A propensity toward future crimes could well be evidenced by targeted hatred toward a specifically identified group. Thus, a longer or more severe sentence may be appropriate.

    • “Libertarians believe that individuals have the right to free speech and that government should be able to limit it only for the most compelling reasons. Most libertarians recognize fighting words as an example of a sufficiently compelling reason to limit free speech. Notwithstanding the libertarian viewpoint, the courts have been careful to interpret this exception narrowly.”
      http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

      At the link the Bar cites two cases and says the Supreme Court took the libertarian approach. But it is difficult to agree on exactly what the libertarian approach is. There are thousands of different flavors of libertarianism. I think the books always balance. Giving a government additional powers means that others now have less. We may say we don’t care about some peoples loss of rights.

      I agree with Reason.com about vengeance.

      If you hate others, they have won.

      You can be consumed by others bad acts, and not at some point let them go and live your own life. I think that going beyond justice to vengeance at least approaches a moral wrong.

      • Ragnaar:

        Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Hates Crimes advocate?

        I generally agree with your approach to the issue. Nevertheless, problems still arise. For example, how do you distinguish “justice” (ranging from minor fines to death penalties) from “vengeance”? One needs to define terms or end up in a muddle. Even with definitions, perhaps a muddle is unavoidable.

        In contrast to the Reason article, I offered a logical explanation/justification for hate crime penalty enhancement that does not depend upon a desire for vengeance. Indeed, the governmental monopoly on force and punishment (See: Social Contract Theory) is partly intended to exclude personal vengeance as an option. The pure-libertarian alternative (individual contract) fails at least as often as monopoly force when confronted with the real world. Personal nukes, anyone?

        In addition, the fact that crimes are still committed is proof that all forms of deterrence fail, with or without hate crime enhancements (or even the possibility of personal retaliation/vengeance). Thus, to me, that is not dispositive of the value (or legitimacy) of hate crime statutes.

        Precisely because any given response to crime can be interpreted in multiple ways, the debate will, in all liklihood, never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

    • Guilt or innocence before the law should be of an objective nature, or as near to this goal as is humanly possible.

      The problem with hate crime laws is that they add a whole new layer of subjectiveness to the law.

      • GS:

        I’m not sure how a hate crime law is less objective than a non-hate crime statute. The victim’s characteristics/status are typically objective. Intent (a subjective state of mind) of the perpetrator is already considered under criminal statutes.

        I’m not saying that hate crime laws are necessary to achieve “justice” but I don’t see that they are exceptional either as crime or sentencing categories.

  11. If anyone owns Tesla or is considering a position, they should be following my brother on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/JeffCNYC/status/765945282806808576?p=v

    • You can have your lefty explanations about the good old days. There is an element of truth to the article, but facts are facts. Manufacturing has been gutted in the US and there are a lot of people who actually had much better days. It ain’t nostalgia, pilgrim.

      • I think your reply was meant for my other comment, but anyway…

        Right, and having a base and the ability to expand it are important, but anti trade sentiment is a bit overblown today.

        There’s a lot wrong with our current state, I see a lot of young adults buying property and paying rent way out of line with their incomes. We need much more focus on skilled trades less on college..

        There’s also a lot of truth to the “immigrants do jobs Americans won’t” meme. Kids expect unreasonable pay for hard labor.

      • IMO, automation already has begun to chew into jobs. I think that will accelerate. I’m an old fashioned, free market, capitalist kind of guy who believed technological progress would always spin off jobs that required newer skills.

        With advanced automation, I’m not so sure. Robots can build cars. Robots can build and maintain robots. The role for human workers is diminished every year. I don’t see how the past engines of growth will be able to operate as in the past and benefit a majority of us.

        I think will call for a new approach to societal structure and it will look more socialist than I like.

      • Yup. Same here.

  12. This is a good read: https://aeon.co/essays/nostalgia-exerts-a-strong-allure-and-extracts-a-steep-price?preview=true

    It never was golden
    ‘The good old days’ is a virulent falsehood that infects those whose defences have been weakened by fear and insecurity

    • Fear and insecurity have been the driving force behind the current decade of interest rate declines that have kept the pensions above water but that “Old Yield Curve’ plays no favorites. If a one percent yield on a current bond purchase were to be marked down to yield 1.25% the market value will decrease about 20%+… There are a lot of bonds out there too. Bond traders call them haircuts. What will you call them?

      • In 1985 I bought a house with an ARM mortgage that started at ~12%. In 2014 I sold that house… still had exact same mortgage. Final rate was 2%. Greenspan says I am one of the few home buyers from the mid 80s who played the game correctly. Because of people like me, they write better ARMs.

      • Did Alan send a congratulatory letter with a gold star for your exemplary prescience? Genius manifests itself in many ways.

  13. To me the most significant political event lately was the release of the hacked documents. This fat cat is using his billions to short circuit the will of citizens in numerous countries and to substitute his own desires in place of ours. He should be treated like a rouge dictator, but in fact his is a trough in which our politicians firmly plant their feet. Something needs to be done about this idi0t.

    From the article:

    Sandal: Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

    Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.

    On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

    We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.

    Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-bizarre-media-blackout-of-hacked-george-soros-documents/

    • This man is the source of many of the worlds problems. More from the article:

      As we noted in this space on Monday, the leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections.

      The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups,

      Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists

      Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter

      se his clout to sway Supreme Court justices into approving President Obama’s unilateral effort to rewrite immigration law.

      This year alone, Soros has given $7 million to the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA super-PAC

      And when Soros speaks, Clinton listens.

    • rogue, not rouge. ?

  14. From the article:

    Landrieu was asked, “Does a visit by Donald Trump, is that helpful to raising awareness and money?”

    She responded, “I think it is. And I want to thank Mr. Trump for coming to Louisiana. I think the governor’s admonition about not using it as a press op is a good one, but he brought attention to our state, and we need that now, because, this disaster, Brianna, is far larger than people can appreciate on television.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/19/landrieu-i-want-to-thank-mr-trump-for-coming-to-louisiana-i-hope-clinton-and-obama-will-visit/

  15. From the article:

    Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, both of whom have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, are standing up for Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick.
    Willey and Jones are demanding that NBC News Anchor Andrea Mitchell issue a public apology for baselessly calling Broaddrick “discredited” during a segment that aired May 19 on the highly-rated Today Show.

    Following a letter from Broaddrick’s attorney demanding a retraction, NBC deleted the “discredited” referenced from the Internet version of Mitchell’s report. But NBC has not fulfilled Broaddrick’s request, which she says was communicated in the letter, for an apology from Mitchell on the Today Show, as well as an acknowledgement on the show and on NBC’s website that there is no information indicating that Broaddrick’s story is untrue.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/19/exclusive-clinton-sexual-assault-accusers-paula-jones-kathleen-willey-unite-nbcs-andrea-mitchell/

  16. Sanders delegates relay their convention stories:
    “From Wednesday onward, huge numbers of Hillary ‘fillers’ were being bused in to fill the upper levels of the hall and to also assist in isolating Bernie Delegates to prevent them from being able to sit together in sizable groups. This was an attempt to greatly inhibit our ability to communicate and work together, as well as to be able cover for one another for restroom and dinner breaks. (Evidence of this was the huge number of buses that now filled the parking lot outside!) Since we were not allowed to bring in food to the convention floor, we either were forced to gobble down food while standing and hope that our seats would be saved or … just not eat. Many delegates were denied entry back into the convention floor after having left for a break. Some delegates were denied egress for restroom breaks, necessitating that they find another ‘door’ that would permit them to leave to attend to urgent physiological needs. … We had observed advertisements in downtown Philly from the DNC asking for people to serve as seat fillers — for pay. They were expected to hold and wave signs, chant for Hillary, and follow the lead of the Hillary delegates.”
    Let me endorse all these activities to limit what is not the establishment.

  17. Obama caused Milwalkee? From the article:

    About 40% of Milwaukee’s 600,000 residents are black. That gives the city the largest black population in Wisconsin, including many families in which parents and grandparents migrated from the South in the 1960sfor factory jobs that quickly declined.

    The poverty rate for blacks [in Milwaukee] is among the highest anywhere in the United States…

    The simplest possibility is that African-American poverty might be rooted in a city-wide surplus of low-skilled workers amid an increasingly high-tech national economy.

    Basic economics says that an over-supply of labor reduces wages, and that a greater demand for workers — dubbed a “tight labor market — forces up wages. For example, wages for African-Americans rose in the boom years of 1998 and 1999 when companies began competing for workers by offering higher salaries, regardless of race.

    So does federal data show a tight or a loose labor market in Milwaukee?

    A quick glance at the federal data does show a huge flow of low-skilled workers into the city — and the data shows that this supply of extra workers is being delivered by the federal government’s immigration policy.

    That national policy annually imports roughly two million working-age migrants and foreign workers to compete against the four million Americans who turn 18 each year.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/18/obama-flooded-milwaukee-with-cheap-labor-slashed-income-for-african-americans/

    • I dunno: “Walker has implemented a failed economic strategy, based on basic and failed Republican economic principals, that has left Wisconsin lagging behind peer states.”

      “WEDC, which Walker chaired, gave out taxpayer-funded loans to hundreds of companies in the hopes of spurring growth. But the jobs Walker promised never materialized. Instead, in an epic display of mismanagement, WEDC lost track of millions of dollars in loans, gave awards to ineligible businesses, and has generally been a poor steward of taxpayers’ money. ”

      http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott

      Just have to wonder how Gov’s of States with improved circumstance see ‘credit’ go to them, but states with lesser circumstance is ’cause Obama.

      (Full disclosure. Author is a Dem, but in fairness, Breitbart obviously is not).

      • I dunno, importing thousands of migrants will soak up low paying jobs no matter what the program did or didn’t do. They are independent.

      • Jim2,
        From your Brietbart link: “About 40% of Milwaukee’s 600,000 residents are black. That gives the city the largest black population in Wisconsin, including many families in which parents and grandparents migrated from the South in the 1960s for factory jobs that quickly declined.”
        Factory job loss apparently an issue.

        Then: “The immigrant population in Milwaukee city rose by 46 percent from 2000 to 2010, according to the American Immigration Council.”
        When did Obama become the prez?

        Then: “State-wide, Wisconsin’s immigrant population rose 40 percent from 2000 to 2013, up to 266,491 people, according to a business-backed pro-immigration group. The state’s immigrant population rose by nine percent from 2010 to 2014, up to 274,329 in 2014, according to another business-backed pro-immigration group.”

        40% 2000-2013. Then 9 percent 2010-2014? (Some overlap in times here double counting 2010-2013 by my eye).

        Finally: “All of that adds to an extraordinary change from 1990 when the Hispanic population of Wisconsin was only 93,000. It doubled to 193,000 in 2000, then 336,000 in 2010 and 345,000 in 2015, putting it close to the state’s black population of 435,000 in 2015.”
        1990-2000= not Obama. 2000-2010= not Obama (allowing leeway for the tapering off of previous administration. Then a total of 9,000 from 2010-2015 attributable to Obama.

        “During the same period” (1990-2015),” and amid many other disruptions — inflation, welfare expansions, oil shocks, the arrival of foreign auto companies, the free-trade departure of U.S. factories — the percentage of black men with jobs crashed.”

        I’m no math major but those numbers appear higher before Obama then lessened after he took office. But it’s your link. Have a go at the numbers and tell me if you see it differently based on the quoted immigration numbers.

        Sounds like a propaganda piece, but interestingly while Brietbart here is promoting Trump in an earlier piece on the other thread Brietbart also reported that it (Breitbart) and Trump both play ‘loose with the facts’.
        (Happy to provide a link to that reporting if you wish).

        As, good old ‘the media’, huh?

      • You can’t blame Brietbart for reporting what they found. They didn’t make up the numbers, they were given by other groups.

        The bottom line is that the number of migrants has increased. And they will soak up low paying jobs. It’s not all that complicated after all.

      • Jim2,
        “You can’t blame Brietbart for reporting what they found. They didn’t make up the numbers, they were given by other groups.”

        And I don’t. Where I ‘blame’ Brietbart is for the ‘twist’ placing the blame on Obama for the ‘massive’ increase in immigration which occurred prior to his watch. Then using that blame as a promotional tool to support Trump.

        It is what it is. Propaganda not based in reality. And I agree that being able to parse this out is indeed not that complicated.

        ‘The media’ and all.

      • jim2,

        It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

        Upton Sinclair

      • Danny Thomas,

        But did you or did you not take the flip side of the argument? From higher up on this thread:

        Here’s one economists take: “Georgia’s experience is consistent with economic research on immigration. Although many Americans believe immigrants “steal” our jobs and push down our wages, economists find little evidence of that….

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/19/week-in-review-politics-edition-7/#comment-805111

      • Glenn,

        I don’t think I even got in to cause(s) of the issues in Milwaukee. I did link to an alternative view that a Dem wrote indicating the issues were not immigrant oriented, but did not sanction. I’ve not studied Milwaukee, but have looked at Ag related immigration/harvest issues in Georgia and elsewhere which is why I chimed in.

        Brietbart’s propaganda piece has within it the premise that ‘immigrants’ were the issue and Obama caused the ‘immigrant’ issue.

        Logically, if one is (easily) able to show that Obama was not responsible for the ‘immigrant’ issue one need not go further to discuss if the ‘immigrant’ issues was cause of the ‘issues in Milwaukee’. The Breitbart argument was already proven patently false that “Obama Flooded Milwaukee With Cheap Labor, Slashed Income for African-Americans.”

        Knock down one leg of chair and the chair falls over.

      • Danny Thomas,

        But jim2’s comment you were responding to said this:

        The bottom line is that the number of migrants has increased. And they will soak up low paying jobs. It’s not all that complicated after all.

        So are you arguing that Obama’s policies have not been to encourage more immigration? And over the past year, those policies certainly seem to have begun to bear fruit (or immigrants).

        Or are you going to argue that the law of supply and demand doesn’t work when it comes to labor markets?

      • Glenn,

        “So are you arguing that Obama’s policies have not been to encourage more immigration?”

        What I’m arguing (you see I don’t have to stay within your framing) is that according to the Brietbart articles data (not arguing it’s accuracy) immigration in Milwaukee was higher under the previous administration than the current one. So if Brietbart’s desire is to ‘blame’ Obama for ‘increasing immigration’ that is patently false. And any premise based on that ‘increasing immigration’ in Milwaukee must (using logic here) must also be false.

        If that’s not clear to you, I don’t know how to help you.

      • 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.

        https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_yb_2014.pdf
        https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics

        As a result of Obama’s policy of non-removal of non-criminal aliens, 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.

        http://www.inegi.org.mx/saladeprensa/boletines/2016/especiales/especiales2016_01_10.pdf

        In 2015, the number of Mexicans living in the United States reached an all time high of 12.2 million, surpassing the previous all time high of 11.9 million.

        And last 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

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        If we’re ad hoc(key)ing here who’s doing so? What does this have to do with Obama and Milwaukee, the ‘topic’?

      • Danny Thomas,

        But you switched the topic. The rhetological trick you employed is what is known as an ad hoc rescue.

        You did not, and have not, responded to the point jim2 made, which is, to repeat once again:

        The bottom line is that the number of migrants has increased. And they will soak up low paying jobs. It’s not all that complicated after all.

      • Danny Thomas

        The topic, Glenn, was: “Obama Flooded Milwaukee With Cheap Labor, Slashed Income for African-Americans”.

        “The bottom line is that the number of migrants has increased.” Jim2.

        Sure, but the flows were blamed on Obama yet the data clearly showed that those flows have been reduced from what they were before Obama.

        Again, the numbers from Breitbart: “The immigrant population in Milwaukee city rose by 46 percent from 2000 to 2010, according to the American Immigration Council.” This cannot be attributable to Obama except for an unknown amount between January 2008 to 2010, correct?

        Then: “By 2009, there were 57,124 immigrants in the city of 603,000, so immigrants comprised 9.46 percent of the city’s 2009 population, says a pro-immigration, business-backed group. In 2014, after many illegals had gone home during the crash, immigrants comprised 9.8 percent of the city, and contributed 58,684 people to the city’s lower population of 598,078, according to census data.” 2009 and prior not attributable to Obama, except for an unknown amount from January 2008 to 2009.

        Reread the very first sentence and tell me how these Breitbart supplied numbers show that Obama is responsible for increasing the inflow of immigrants.

        Based on dates, total number of immigrants attributable to Obama’s time (58,684-57,124=1560) 1560. Attributable to prior adminstration(s) 57,124.

        If anything, Jim2 ‘switched the topic’ with a valid point. I stayed with the original post and thread flow. Take your ad hoc(key) stick after him if you like.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        ….the data clearly showed that those flows have been reduced from what they were before Obama.

        No, what the data show is that, as a result of Obama’s policy of non-removal of non-criminal aliens and other changes in immigration policy he has implemented, the net immigration rate from Mexico to the United States is at an all-time high.

        And in 2015, the number of Mexicans living in the United States reached an all time high of 12.2 million, surpassing the previous all time high of 11.9 million.

        (for documentation and citations, see my comment above:
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/19/week-in-review-politics-edition-7/#comment-805399 )

        Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.

      • Jim2 & Glenn,

        Let’s take a look at the next door neighbors and wonder why the differences.

        “Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians account for large and growing shares of the economy and population in Minnesota. Immigrants (the foreign-born) make up 7.4% of the state’s population, and 51.5% of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote. “New Americans”—immigrants and the children of immigrants—account for 7.7% of all registered voters in the state. Immigrants are not only essential to the state’s economy as workers, but also account for tens of million of dollars in tax revenue and consumer purchasing power. Moreover, Latinos and Asians (both foreign-born and native-born) wield $14.3 billion in consumer purchasing power, and the businesses they own had sales and receipts of $4 billion and employed more than 22,000 people at last count. Immigrant, Latino, and Asian workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs are integral to Minnesota’s economy and tax base—and they are an electoral force with which every politician must reckon.” https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-minnesota

        VS

        “Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians account for growing shares of the economy and population in Wisconsin. Immigrants (the foreign-born) make up 4.8% of the state’s population, and more than two-fifths of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote. “New Americans”—immigrants and the children of immigrants—account for 3.5% of registered voters in the state. Immigrants are not only integral to the state’s economy as workers, but also account for tens of million of dollars in tax revenue and consumer purchasing power. Moreover, Latinos and Asians (both foreign-born and native-born) wield $12.5 billion in consumer purchasing power, and the businesses they own had sales and receipts of $4.7 billion and employed more than 26,500 people at last count. As the economy continues to recover, Wisconsin can ill-afford to alienate such an important component of its labor force, tax base, and business community. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-wisconsin

        Higher percentage of immigrants in Minn than Wisc.
        Same prez, same federal policies different but neighboring states, each the largest cities in their states :
        “From 2000 to 2010, several cities in Wisconsin saw their population increase mostly or in part due to immigration,” “Milwaukee (46.6% change) (see demos post for link)
        “Other metro areas in Minnesota also saw their populations increase in part due to immigration: Minneapolis (35.2% change due to immigration)” (see demos post for link)

        If I were to look further for reasons for the issues in Milwaukee recently, I might have to look at the states policies as well as the cities.
        Breitbart is patently wrong to blame Obama for the Milwaukee issues.

        (Demos to follow in separate post.)

      • Danny – you seem to be oblivious to the Law of Supply and Demand. Convenient for this discussion, but unrealistic.

      • Jim2,
        Why then, with a higher percentage of the total population in neighboring Minnesota immigrant based, are the same social dynamics not in play? You’ve got some ‘splaining to do there Lucy.

        The reasons must be local (state/regional/city) because the fed rules are the same.

        Breitbart is just wrong.

      • As shared above: “The foreign-born share of Wisconsin’s population rose from 2.5% in 1990, to 3.6% in 2000, to 4.8% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Wisconsin was home to 274,687 immigrants in 2013, which is more than the total population of Jersey City, New Jersey”

        We find an even higher total population and percentages here: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-texas

        “The foreign-born share of Texas’s population rose from 9.0% in 1990, to 13.9% in 2000, to 16.5% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Texas was home to 4,369,271 immigrants in 2013, which is more than the total population of Los Angeles, California.”

        Where’s the social unrest?

        (I only have 47 more states to go if I must. Let me know if you want them)

        Supply/Demand argument? Wisc. unemployment is below the national average (same form of calculation) and falling. Texas is at 4.2% same as Wisc. Texas has a higher percentage of immigrants and a LOT higher total number.

        But Obama polices, or but Brietbart ain’t gonna cut it. This issues are local. You guys are just blowin’ smoke.

      • Danny, none of those stats show immigrants HAVE NOT sucked up low paying jobs from citizens. Sure, economic conditions come into play, but that sheds no light on how many jobs are taken from citizens by immigrants. Sorry, no cigar for you.

      • Jim2,
        “HAVE NOT sucked up low paying jobs from citizens. Sure, economic conditions come into play, but that sheds no light on how many jobs are taken from citizens by immigrants.”

        Agree. But the Breitbart doesn’t either. It’s the premise, but the same fed policy dynamics are in play everywhere. Why the social unrest in Milwaukee? Why not Houston, for example, with a lot higher sheer volume of immigrants (or anywhere else in Texas or Minnesota)?

        Ask Ragnaar or Rud, they’re from the area.

        Other than conjecture (politically motivated?) there is no proof. If you’re looking for a cigar, it’s certainly not in that article and associated data. What it is, is smoke.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        There is no proof.

        Besides the law of supply and demand, there have been any number of empirical studies conducted that demonstrate that immigration lowers wages for native-born workers. See, for instance:

        Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in California
        http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3365.html

        The major negative effect of Mexican immigration was lower wage increases for native-born workers, but the effect was concentrated among Latinos.

        And:

        THOMAS MULLER, The Fourth Wave: California’s Newest Immigrants
        https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Wave-Californias-Newest-Immigrants/dp/0877663750

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        There is no proof that this was the cause of the unrest in Milwaukee. Same federal policies apply elsewhere. Greater immigrant volumes elsewhere.

        The issues in Milwaukee are more likely local. Brietbart is off base.

        Again, from that article: “The simplest possibility is that African-American poverty might be rooted in a city-wide surplus of low-skilled workers amid an increasingly high-tech national economy.”

        Might and possibly.

        May be a turn of events by Trump so you’ll have to change your mongering.

        “The campaign for Donald Trump and Trump’s fellow Republican supporters argued Sunday that the unpredictable presidential nominee had an outstanding, comeback week amid new leadership but still faced a barrage of questions about what’s next — particularly about Trump’s plan for the massive deportation of illegal immigrants.

        “To be determined,” new Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/21/trump-campaign-faces-more-questions-on-whether-candidate-has-flipped-on-mass-deportation.html
        (Used Fox as the source so you won’t arm wave at Wapo).

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        Shame on you.

        The Rand link is from 1986.
        Plus it states this: “The report’s major conclusion is that the widespread concerns about Mexican immigration are generally unfounded: Mexican immigrants differ in their characteristics and their effects on the state; they provide economic benefits to the state, and U.S.-born Latinos may bear the brunt of competition for low-skill jobs; immigrants contribute more to public revenues than they consume in public services, but produce a net deficit in educational expenditures; and they are following the classic pattern for integrating into U.S. society, with education playing a critical role in this process.”

        The 2nd is from 1985 and costs money. I didn’t bother.

        Try something from 2010.: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/95-408.pdf

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Where’s the social unrest?

        Are you arguing that structural factors like the lack of good-paying jobs, loss of income and downward mobility don’t play a role in causing crime and social unrest?

        I don’t think the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with you:

        And then we hear that the Negro is a criminal, and there are those who would almost say he is a criminal by nature. But they never point out that these things are environmental and not racial: these problems are problems of urban dislocation.

        — REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., Commencement address at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, 6 June 1961

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “Are you arguing that structural factors like the lack of good-paying jobs, loss of income and downward mobility don’t play a role in causing crime and social unrest?”

        Are you attempting a strawman AGAIN?

        What you suggest MAY (or may not) cause unrest. With alternative areas under the same federal policies why do some areas have strife and others not? Especially since some areas (Texas) have a far higher percentage of immigrants and a far greater total number of them. The Breitbart piece says ‘might’ and ‘possibly’ that the factors you suggest had impact in the recent Milwaukee strife which is the topic. I’m speaking specifically about that and you seem to wish to ‘change the topic’ to general. (Some don’t care for it when one changes the topic).

        Local conditions (state/regional/city) are variables Glenn, federal polices are the same. Why did the strife occur only in Milwaukee and not in Houston or Minneapolis?

        Stay focused. You can do this.

      • Danny Thomas:

        I would say Minnesota hasn’t seen a lot in the way of social unrest because of immigrants. One exception and it may be minor is recent African immigrants relating with established blacks. Those immigrants did bring a different culture. There have been a few clashes. In Minnesota you start with predominantly white population of Germans and Scandinavians. Some jobs are in livestock packing plants. Some of them the ones of the Swift Raids. Swift is a meat brand like Hormel. I now consider the Swift Raids a mistake without many positive results. Minnesota is perhaps and exception with its livestock production in rural areas fitting nicely with the packing plants. Material amounts of young people aren’t been born and/or staying in rural Minnesota. Mexican immigrants on the other hand find opportunities in some of rural Minnesota and help maintain its population. So many school districts have had to consolidate. It would be true to say, that the immigrants aren’t perfect as a whole. They will have their bad apples as all populations do.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ragnaar,
        Thank you.

        I cannot see how the Obama policies would have a different impact in Minnesota and Houston than Milwaukee and your offering don’t seem to show any difference either.

        All the most up to date data I can find shows unemployment rates in the low 4% range for the 3 areas considered. With you being near the northern two do you have reason to think that that data is inaccurate?

        If low 4% range is correct I’m not sure that lack of jobs contributed to the recent Milwaukee strife. Of course that 4% is general population. It seems Minnesota’s economy may be doing better than Wisconsin’s with the two different parties in the governor’s offices. If you have any perspective it’s always appreciated.

        That Brietbart piece seems like propaganda from here.

      • Danny Thomas quotes:

        In 2014, after many illegals had gone home during the crash, immigrants comprised 9.8 percent of the city, and contributed 58,684 people to the city’s lower population of 598,078, according to census data.

        [….]

        The simplest possibility is that African-American poverty might be rooted in a city-wide surplus of low-skilled workers amid an increasingly high-tech national economy.

        How does adding 58,684 mostly low-skilled workers to a labor force that already has a “city-wide surplus of low-skilled workers” help lift African Americans out of poverty?

        Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

        In 2014, Mexican government statistics show that 28.9% of the immigrants that immigrated to Wisconsin had a grade-school education, 42% had a junior high-school education, 19.6% had a high-school education, 1.4% had technical training, 1.5% were non-degreed professionals, and 1.5% were college graduates.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “How does adding 58,684 mostly low-skilled workers to a labor force that already has a “city-wide surplus of low-skilled workers” help lift African Americans out of poverty?”

        What are the dates of those increases Glenn? Not (all but 1560 of ’em) on Obama’s watch. Therefore, not attributable to Obama. That’s point one.

        Point two. The same kinds of increases also occurred in Minneapolis and Houston. Why did the social unrest not occur in those locales?

      • Danny Thomas

        That was fun. Only part of the image posted so here’s the link from which it was taken.http://www.maptheimpact.org/state/texas/

        Immigrant population 16.3% of state with 44.4% growth 2000-2014.

        What doesn’t make sense is Breitbart’s ‘might possibly be’ assertion is that the unrest in Milwaukee was due to “Obama’s Policies” and that same type of unrest has not occurred elsewhere when ‘elsewhere’ is covered by the same policies.

        Something else (local issues) is more likely the cause.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “How does adding 58,684 mostly low-skilled workers to a labor force that already has a “city-wide surplus of low-skilled workers” help lift African Americans out of poverty?” This is your strawman of my argument. But I’ll address it anyhow. I’ll stipulate that you’ll concur that the Obama policies (and previous administrations) are equal in both cities.

        “From 2000 to 2010, Houston gained 400,000 foreign-born residents, more than any other U.S. city except New York. Last year, the county received 4,818 refugees from 40 different countries, the most of any county in Texas.”http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/themillion/article/How-diversity-culture-demographics-of-Houston-6117301.php

        You’ve posited about 56,000 in Milwaukee. Houston gained almost the entire population of Milwaukee. Why no unrest in Houston?

        Local policies, local policies, local policies. Unrest not attributable to Obama except for misguided political propaganda. Breitbart is full of doo.

      • Barry’s policies that put down Millwaukee are the wars on coal, steel, and products manufactured in the US that depend on it often called “heavy industries”. Some areas are more effected by anti-energy and globalization policies than others. In general the Great Lakes region was deeply invested in heavy industries largely due to ease of shipping (raw materials and finished products) afforded by the Great Lakes. In MIllwaukee’s case Briggs and Stratton, Harley-Davidson, Master Lock, Allis-Chalmers, Rockwell Automation, Caterpillar, Falk, and Johnson Controls are examples of Millwaukee heavy industries.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,

        Yours is the closest to making sense ’cause Breitbart, Glenn & Jim2 haven’t. Now if you could explain how at a jaw droppingly awful unemployment rate of near 4% folks don’t have jobs that’d help. And you’d have to show me, not tell me. You see boyz, we’ve developed trust issues in our relationships.

      • Now if you could explain how at a jaw droppingly awful unemployment rate of near 4% folks don’t have jobs that’d help

        Because that number is a ruse, near 30% of the population stopped looking and their unemployment benefits stopped long ago, they are no longer getting counted.

      • Micro,
        We don’t disagree that the unemployment figure is not nearly as thorough as it should be. However, it is no different area to area. The dynamics you suggest are not relegated to soley Milwaukee which is what the Breitbart ‘hit piece’ tried to convey. That article is a joke.

      • Danny Thomas | August 21, 2016 at 6:25 pm |

        “I cannot see how the Obama policies would have a different impact in Minnesota and Houston than Milwaukee”

        That’s because Double Dealing Danny is a Dimwit. Figure out what range of industries each region is most vested in, dopey. Houston is an oil town. Minnesota is farming. Milwaukee is heavy industry, products made from steel, which rely heavily on coal-fired steel foundries.

        What a helpless dumbass.

      • Danny Thomas

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/19/week-in-review-politics-edition-7/#comment-805882

        Yep. I’m sure you’ve researched and not just spouting off. Ya see the unemployment rate is near 4% similar in Houston and Minneapolis.

        Since I’m so helpless, help me by showing me ’cause I won’t take you’re telling me.

        Prove it or lose it!

      • Danny, unemployement does not gauge the impact of an influx of workers. Here are some more relevant metrics.

        * Wisconsin Has the Highest African American Unemployment Rate in the Nation

        * WISCONSIN WAGES: HOURLY WAGE GROWS JUST 71 CENTS
        OVER 35 YEARS

        730,000 Wisconsin workers — 1 in 4 — worked in poverty-wage jobs in 2014.

        • The median age of a poverty-wage worker in Wisconsin is 29 years old.
        • More than three-fourths of Wisconsin’s poverty wage workers are white. But African American and Hispanic workers are much more likely to hold poverty wage jobs. While one-quarter of white workers earn poverty wages, 36 percent of black, and 48 percent of Hispanic workers do.

        http://www.cows.org/_data/documents/1733.pdf

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,
        I truly thank you for one third of a reasoned argument. Now, if you only took it to a level of inclusion comparing those same metrics in the Minneapolis and Houston markets it would be useful.

        Something, not Obama policies since they apply to all 50 states, is a variable Breitbart has not explored. Those variables are the likely source leading to the unrest in one area vs. the others.

        Keep going. You’re almost there.

      • Milwaukee is the 5th poorest city in the US.

        Sanburn, Josh. “This is the Poorest Big City in the U.S.” TIME Magazine 17 Sept. 2015; based on US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014 data

        29.4% of people in Milwaukee live in poverty. 43.3% of children in Milwaukee live in poverty.

        United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. “S1701 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months” 2009 – 2014 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Office, 2014. Web. 7 March 2016

        http://cityonahillmilwaukee.org/about/milwaukee_statistics.php

      • Concentrated poverty: Milwaukee is one of the nation’s most segregated cities, with black residents—40 percent of the population—living almost exclusively on the city’s north side. Milwaukee is also America’s second-poorest major city, in a state that in 2014 had the nation’s highest black unemployment rate. A third of its black residents live in “extreme poverty,”

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/milwaukee-riots-poverty-education-statistics

      • The bottom line is that inadequately educated hispanics compete with blacks for low paying jobs. That’s the bottom line.

      • Jim2,
        It’s ‘part’ of the ‘bottom line’.

        At least it sounds like you’ve come around to the recognition that the Milwaukee social unrest may indeed not be due to ‘Obama’s policies’ especially due to the fact that local/regional/state policies affect…….well, local/regional/state areas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/22/20-years-on-heres-how-welfare-reform-held-back-immigrants-children-in-some-states/

        The study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12140/abstract
        “Across states, there is substantial variation in the degree to which immigrants and their children are offered public assistance.” Argues exactly what you suggest and what I’ve been saying all along.

        And for that recognition, I thank you. Can you pass the word on to Glenn. He’s more hard headed and closed minded than you. Breitbart being ‘the media’ and all is at least as suspect as any other ‘the media.

      • That may be the case in Dannyland, but in the real world, Obummer has done everything in his power to draw in more illegal aliens of all kinds.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim2,

        Dannyland! I like the sound of that.

        In ‘my’ world yes I can see that Obama’s policies (nor Bush I & II, Clinton, nor Reagan) have been able to stem the flow. You see, in ‘my’ world there’s an entity called ‘congress’ which has an impact as do state/regional/local ‘entitites’.

        What’s it like in ‘your’ world? I might wanna visit some time.

    • Curious George

      Blacks in Oakland and Berkeley have always complained about a lack of work. Then the Oakland Hills Fire of 1991 destroyed over 3,000 homes. Plenty of construction jobs emerged. Those homes were rebuilt mostly by Latino workers.

      • Curious George,

        Hence the old joke: Mexicans don’t let their daughters marry black guys … because their grandkids would be too lazy to steal.

        On a more serious note, in 2010 the entire nine-county Bay Area was 6.7% non-Hispanic African American (as if Hispanic Africans are a thing? maybe they are) and 23.5% Hispanic or Latino of any race. May have been different in 1990. I know for Oakland it was: 43.9% black in 1990 vs. 28.0% in 2010; 13.9% Hispanic/Latino (any race) in 1990, 25.4% in 2010. And actually, I just checked and Bay Area-wide, 14% Latino/Hispanic in 1990 vs. 22% in 2010. 11% black in 1990 vs. 8% in 2010. Slightly different stats from what Wikipedia reported for the Bay Area, but that’s gummint statistics for you.

        Anyway, since non-Hispanic whites represented 59% of the Bay Area population in 1990, I could just as easily argue that they’re lazier than everyone for not getting out there and rebuilding the Berkeley Hills. Or that they have the cushy high paying jobs because non-Hispanic white hiring managers are evil and don’t hire colored folk and immigrants (is that redundant?) to do office work.

        Plenty of these stereotypes lying around. Pick your poison.

      • because non-Hispanic white hiring managers are evil and don’t hire colored folk and immigrants
        As I pointed out in an other post, this can be proven to be patently false in Silicon Valley where they have hired whole Fricking buildings of them. It’s neither immigration status or skin color that are keeping those two category of people underemployed. It’s their lack of valuable skills.
        Which has been the quite message that’s has been obvious for decades to the people who hire people. They are not qualified and in many cases slackers, what do they expect, all of their coworkers to do their job for them? Oh wait, that’s what’s happening, they just don’t even bother to get the job before they slack off. That’s some good slacking right there.

      • Ugh my phone has become possessed and is just mangling my posts, sorry.

      • Micro – I had the pleasure of training my Indian replacements once. They really weren’t all that sharp, to the point my employer kept asking me to stay on until they could get up to speed. As soon as I found another job I left anyway and let the Devil take the hindmost.

        The biggest majority of employers, IMO, hire Indians because they work cheap.

        Not long ago on another thread, someone posted this link for me to read:

        http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Robertscomparativeadvantage.html

        I would modify that story somewhat to reflect reality. The second couple would become three people, a couple and a big, burly guy with a bull whip. The big guy would force his couple to fish and get water and if they didn’t comply, they would get whipped. Couple one thought that was wrong, but they could make some great coconut wine and the big guy loved it. So they traded wine for all the water and fish they would ever need, so they never criticized the big guy for being cruel and nasty. (Hint: I’m thinking about who builds iPhones.)

      • micro6500,

        As I pointed out, from the anecdote Curious George offered plus some very high-level statistics of my own, I could make up any number of plausible narratives. “Blacks are lazy” is just as facile a narrative as “whites are bigots”. Perpetuating such stereotypes probably doesn’t help reduce enmity between the two groups, which I would think is first priority — makes for better office politics for one thing.

      • As I pointed out,

        Hmm how did an observation about the high employment rate of dark skined individuals, turn into bigotry? I thinks it’s more about having the required skills for the job, and as mentioned pay rate, though it’s a pricy neighborhood, and they have to stay somewhere. So why do so many Indians have CS and EE degrees compared to most Americans actually?

      • micro6500,

        Hmm how did an observation about the high employment rate of dark skined individuals, turn into bigotry?

        Hmm, how did a Breitbart piece about immigrants driving down wages in Milwaukee turn into a discussion about black people being lazy?

        I thinks it’s more about having the required skills for the job, and as mentioned pay rate, though it’s a pricy neighborhood, and they have to stay somewhere. So why do so many Indians have CS and EE degrees compared to most Americans actually?

        As a percentage of people in America or in the respective countries? Population of India is 1.252 billion compared to 318.9 million for the United States. It’s easy to imagine that India has a surplus of engineering labor which American firms are all too eager to accept at a lower wage, which the Indians are all too happy to get because it’s better than they’d be making at home.

        Acquiring highly marketable skills is not a trivial exercise. One does not simply obtain a technical degree — undergraduate or graduate — from a top school because they want one. It starts but doesn’t end there.

      • and in many cases slackers

        Yes an unnecessarily broad brush I should not have used. And I apologize if it was offense to anyone.

        But what would you call a 10 through 12th grader who hasn’t done any school work for years? And what are his employment opportunities, White or black?

        Acquiring highly marketable skills is not a trivial exercise. One does not simply obtain a technical degree — undergraduate or graduate — from a top school because they want one. It starts but doesn’t end there.

        That’s one way, but not the only way. It is possible once you have technical competence to work your way up, having a degree isn’t even necessary, it makes it easier, but not the only path one can take. You can for instance pay attention in high school, take advantage of programs, and special classes.

      • micro6500,

        Yes an unnecessarily broad brush I should not have used. And I apologize if it was offense to anyone.

        I wasn’t offended, but I do appreciate your recognition of painting with too broad a brush.

        But what would you call a 10 through 12th grader who hasn’t done any school work for years? And what are his employment opportunities, White or black?

        The standard answers are:

        1) lazy
        2) low-paying to none
        3) both

        My personal views on this are influenced by my own personal experiences because I struggled from first through eleventh grades for reasons having nothing to do with me being lazy.

        That’s one way, but not the only way. It is possible once you have technical competence to work your way up, having a degree isn’t even necessary, it makes it easier, but not the only path one can take. You can for instance pay attention in high school, take advantage of programs, and special classes.

        I get that, but having technical competence AND a degree from a top school almost certainly leads to better compensation on average. The awful truth is that children born to poor parents have fewer opportunities to get the best education America has to offer, and through no fault of their own. It also happens that racial minorities are among the poorest, that’s particularly the case with blacks and Hispanics.

        Those are roughly the facts as I know them. As I alluded in previous comments, I could create all sorts of narratives consistent with these kind of high-level statistics, but not conclusively supported by them. Depending on the narrative I wanted to spin, I could make it a story about how the rich white man is holding the minorities down or I could argue that minorities are lazy and don’t take advantage of the additional assistance offered them … and then supply anecdotes to support whichever conclusion I chose to argue.

      • The standard answers are:
        1) lazy
        2) low-paying to none
        3) both
        My personal views on this are influenced by my own personal experiences because I struggled from first through eleventh grades for reasons having nothing to do with me being lazy.
        That’s one way, but not the only way. It is possible once you have technical competence to work your way up, having a degree isn’t even necessary, it makes it easier, but not the only path one can take. You can for instance pay attention in high school, take advantage of programs, and special classes.
        I get that, but having technical competence AND a degree from a top school almost certainly leads to better compensation on average. The awful truth is that children born to poor parents have fewer opportunities to get the best education America has to offer, and through no fault of their own. It also happens that racial minorities are among the poorest, that’s particularly the case with blacks and Hispanics.

        Of course, but there are always people who have a leg up. I don’t begrudge that they were born higher up the ladder than I was. But I am an example of making it. Yeah, where I grew up was a decent place, and others have it worse, but you can climb the ladder, and you can even do it without a degree.
        The biggest impediment to getting wealthy in the US are taxes and the person staring back in the mirror.

      • micro6500,

        The biggest impediment to getting wealthy in the US are taxes and the person staring back in the mirror.

        Well, no. For one thing, taxes go toward paying for the things which make trade and commerce possible. For another, a college student with little to no income pays far less in taxes than someone working who is pulling down six or more figures per year in compensation. A college degree is one of the great equalizers, the more college, the more equal. Thing is, children with well-heeled parents have an easier time of it getting more college than those born into poverty.

        IOW, the “leg up” is important. Countries with high taxes and low income inequality tend to have more upward intergenerational socioeconomic mobility for various reasons, including wealth redistribution of course, but a big part of that wealth redistribution is leveling the playing field for education.

        Speaking of individuals, I would tend to agree that a sufficiently gifted person who is motivated to attain a better income than their parents stands a good chance of being able to do that in the United States, regardless of their race. But speaking of an entire socioeconomic demographic, it’s very *unlikely* that everyone who is born into poverty would be able to rise to the top income quintile if only they looked in the mirror and worked hard enough. The ability to get a competitive degree for the poorest classes simply isn’t there.

        Like it or not, a good number of poor — and especially poor racial minorities — are tired of being told they have an equal opportunity when they quite obviously do not. If I were in charge, I’d beef up the education benefits and make them color blind. I think doing it any other way probably does more to perpetuate racial tensions than it resolves, but I don’t really have any way of knowing that for sure. And, alas, I’m not in charge.

      • Speaking of individuals, I would tend to agree that a sufficiently gifted person who is motivated to attain a better income than their parents stands a good chance of being able to do that in the United States, regardless of their race.

        IMO this negates your whole argument. Although the gifted part just helps. Which gets back to my comment, to move up socioeconomically the biggest impediment are taxes and the person in the mirror.

        College money is there, in fact too much college money is there letting people who probably have no place in college to get enrolled, take a bunch of stupid classes, get a journalism degree, and a $100,000 bill, and work as a waitress or cook for the rest of their life. While they pay off that bill.

        And so few want to work hard enough to get real hard science degrees, the same group of people we give visa’s to because there aren’t enough Americans to fill the jobs. Good high paying jobs that are good for the country (it is a high tech world now).

        Most of these same people didn’t study in high school.
        The only reasonable solution ,is to put a complete set of college classes on line, for free, and then maybe having some way to switch into paid college.

        What we really need is more good paying jobs, and I don’t think a bunch of people with humanities, journalism, or polysci degrees does anything for 90% of them, but put them in debt. And no, free brick and mortar college isn’t a solution, it’s a waste of money. In fact, they have gotten a windfall of money, and have gone on a building spree trying to spend it , er make a nice campus because the competition for students is so hard.

    • If labor is going to stand a fighting chance against capital in the perennial battle between labor and capital, it is going to have to draw a bead on its own material self-interest, and forget all the appeals to serving some loftier, more transcendent goal. This is what the establishment — the ownership class — does, and to devastating effect.

      I was listening to a program the other day from Germany on how the German ownership class got labor to sign off on the Hartz Reforms, which have had a devastating impact on German labor.

      Germany tops world for shrinking wages
      http://www.thelocal.de/jobs/article/31839

      The guests said that the German working class is very nationalistic. The German establishment was able to convince working people that their sacrifice was in “the best interest of the nation.”

      But it wasn’t in the best interest of the nation. Germany’s mercantilist policies are unsustainable. They have been an unmitigated economic disaster in the broader EU context. The German workers should have been able to consume the fruits of their labor, instead of exporting them for the sole benefit of Germany’s ownership class.

      Other countries in the EU accured massive amounts of debt, owed to the German ownership class, to pay for the goods that Germany exported into other EU countries. The leaders of the importing countries — also part of the rigged system — allowed their own domestic productive capabilities to be destroyed. Then, when the point came when the importing countries couldn’t service the debt — when the debt was no longer creditworthy — the German ruling class had the German government and the EU buy up the bad debt. In various cash for trash transactions, the German ownership class was indemnified for its loan losses caused by its reckless and profligate lending practices.

      The only beneficiary to Germany’s mercantilist policies have been the German ownership class.

      • “Labor” is obsolete.

      • AK,

        Oh really?

        Then how do you explain what’s going on in these countries which have implemented mercantilist policies based on decimating worker pay like Germany? Or Mexico? Or China?

      • Here’s how Reinhold Niebuhr explained the M.O. of the ruling class:

        Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold.

        — REINHOLD NIEBUHR, Moral Man and Immoral Society

      • Then how do you explain what’s going on in these countries which have implemented mercantilist policies based on decimating worker pay […]?

        Labor is obsolete. Therefore, the demand is always smaller than the supply (left over from when it was less obsolete). Therefore the price is going down, and will continue to do so.

        Actually, I perceive one type of “skilled” labor where the market will grow for a while: There will be a growing market for people who can do more or less routine jobs, but following in detail instructions generated by computer programs and received over their phones.

        The “skill” is the ability to suppress their natural objections from “taking orders from a machine/computer”.

        Based on my recent observations, only a small fraction of those wanting “good-paying jobs” are going to be qualified…

      • AK said:

        Labor is obsolete.

        If “labor is obsolete,” then why do policy makers in Germany, Mexico and China exert such extraordinary efforts to eviscerate its political and economic clout?

        Take the role of the state in controlling labor in China, for instance, a country whose chief export are products made with grotesquely cheap labor:

        The country’s sole labor union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, is recognized by many as an appendage of the Communist Party and, at the plant level, submissive to management. Its mission is more to placate the workforce than to respond to workers’ needs. (In China, the companies themselves largely fund the union, and their managers often lead the union chapter; both practices would be unlawful in the US.)….

        One major difference between the US and China is that China is committed to maintaining its monopolistic, party-controlled union structure, while unions in the US, for all their troubles, are independent of the government….

        [S]ome union officials in certain regions are genuinely trying to implement reforms and deliver gains to workers. But she notes that the space for independence and reform in the union was much greater before the Party clamped down and reasserted hierarchical control of the union in the wake of the Tiananmen Square protests a quarter century ago.

        American workers’ unrest disrupted the economy and posed a real challenge to social order, far beyond what Chinese workers’ protest have thus far done, but in the United States, employees had a voice that those in China do not: the vote. The commitment to one-party rule, along with the continuing denial of a political outlet for worker frustrations, means that the Chinese government finds protest much more threatening than in democratic societies.

        http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/cynthia-estlund-china-labor-law

        Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing

        China (2009): $1.74
        USA (2012): $35.67


        http://www.bls.gov/fls/ichcc.htm

        101 East did an insighful documentary on China’s evolving labor situation:

        101 East – China’s labour pains
        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqGmCq0hUBk

      • If “labor is obsolete,” then why do policy makers in Germany, Mexico and China exert such extraordinary efforts to eviscerate its political and economic clout?

        In (“free” market) principle neither “labor” nor “management” should have any “political and economic clout”. The judiciary should be even-handed, and rule on the basis of equity and property rights, not allowing wages to come into the issue.

        In the US and Europe, both unions and management/industry groups have bribed politicians with money, votes, and other valuta, resulting in a variety of special interest legislation.

        Meanwhile, politicians and the “government” have played them off against one another.

        The results are that real wages are almost always out of sync with what the “free” market in such labor would provide. When it’s “out of sync” too far, it becomes obvious to almost everybody, and political movements to “restore the balance” end up creating new legislation that just hobbles the “free” market further.

        For the 19th, and most of the 20th, century labor was a necessity, and its market value varied according to supply and demand, as hobbled by various “labor legislation”.

        But with automation, almost everything “labor” does can be replaced by machines/computers. And they, especially the latter, are getting cheaper exponentially.

        Take the role of the state in controlling labor in China, for instance, a country whose chief export are products made with grotesquely cheap labor: […]

        China’s “labor” was/is in competition with automation in much of their 1st-world markets. Successful imposition of unrealistic wage demands would have simply resulted in factories being built elsewhere. As they already are.

        But things are changing for China, and they’re going to need to pay their workers more as those workers become the primary customers for the sort of manufactures they used to export. This will be to everybody’s benefit (as it was in the US) as long as it’s enforced across the board.

        Manufacturers aren’t going to be that unhappy paying much higher wages. They’re only going to be unhappy if they have to while their competition doesn’t. That was what really drove wage increases in the US (IMO). It wasn’t “labor” vs “management”, or “labor” vs. “capital”, it was “labor”+most “management”+most “capital” vs. managements and capital who wanted to cheat, by paying their workers much less, while collecting from customers paid more by the competition they were cheating.

        This would be generally understood, except for the deliberate deceptions fostered by government and Marxist ideologues.

      • AK said,

        But with automation, almost everything “labor” does can be replaced by machines/computers. And they, especially the latter, are getting cheaper exponentially.

        This is where you and I part ways, because I am very skeptical about this sort of techno-triumphalism.

        I see globalization as little more than a continuation of the age old rivalry between captial and labor, but with a new twist: the contest is now being played out on a global stage, instead of a national one. The transnational ownership class has succeeded in solving its collective action problems across national borders, whereas the lower orders of society have not.

        But this too will pass, because for every action, there comes a reaction.

        Techno-triumphalism is a mere distraction from what has really caused the decimation of worker pay: trade, labor, banking and monetary policy.

      • AK said,

        “But with automation, almost everything “labor” does can be replaced by machines/computers. And they, especially the latter, are getting cheaper exponentially.”

        Really? I fixed the hot water heater in my RV this morning. There’s nothing even remotely feasible that could do that other than a human. You vastly overestimate how much can be done by machines. Pretty much only repetitive tasks in strictly controlled environments with no deviations from set routines. A robot may have retrieved the repair parts I ordered from an Amazon warehouse and computers and computer networks used all along the supply chain but that just makes the parts less expensive. Notably I didn’t save enough to hire someone else to do the repair work.

      • Danny Thomas

        Yep.
        “A robot may have retrieved the repair parts I ordered from an Amazon”. The bin which contained the parts might have been delivered to a human. But a human picked it, placed it for processing, packed it in a box and put that box in a truck. Truck also driven by human.

  18. Wizard Donald:

    Because [Wizard Donald]’s political views are widely viewed as opposed to the values espoused in the Harry Potter series, exposure to the Potter series may play an influential role in influencing how Americans respond to [Wizard Donald].

  19. The Nine Stages of a Declarative Donald statement.

  20. Default Donald

    For opponents of [Default Donald]’s presidential run, this contretemps about American Indians might seem like a distant but familiar echo of the racism charges that have dogged his campaign, including his repeated taunting of Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” because she claims native ancestry. But, in this case, there was more to it than that: [Default Donald], through his offensive tantrum, was throwing away financial opportunities, yet another reminder that, for all his boasting of his acumen and flaunting of his wealth, the self-proclaimed billionaire has often been a lousy businessman.

  21. Seems that Dropping Donald dropped his polls tweets:

    • But correlation does not imply causation.

      Oh, and there’s this:

      “I think it helps us to be a little bit behind, and we are. It lights a fire under us and reminds us what we need to do to get this done.” ~Kellyanne Conway, this week’s Trump campaign manager

      On the other hand …

      But behind closed doors, there is a shared, quiet paranoia among Democratic strategists and voters alike: don’t get too publicly confident… or voters won’t show up in November. The thinking is that if too many Democrats believe the Trump threat has been neutralized, they won’t turnout for Clinton. Democratic voters, after all, are not as reliable as Republicans—a point proven every mid-term election.

      […]

      In this way, there is a strange alchemy to modern campaigning: a candidate must highlight the urgency of the choice facing voters and suggest the possibility—but not probability— of defeat. These days, Clinton’s supporters might be less inclined to believe in the probability of her defeat, but she must somehow keep alive a healthy sense of paranoia about the possibility of it.

    • Tsk, tsk… that doesn’t look like a cartoon to me, Willurd. Here’s a cartoon so you know what they look like:

  22. From the article:

    “Wo-o-o-o-w,” 60-year old Uber driver Cynthia Ingram said. “We all knew it was coming. I just didn’t expect it this soon.” For Ingram, autonomous Ubers are an unwelcome threat to her livelihood. “I kind of figured it would be a couple more years down the line before it was really implemented and I’ll be retired by then,” she said. A paralegal with 30 years experience, Ingram began driving for Uber and Lyft in June 2015 when she lost her job. She said that she loves driving for Uber, though she has struggled to make ends meet.

    https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/08/19/1916252/were-just-rentals-uber-drivers-ask-where-they-fit-in-a-self-driving-future

  23. From the article:

    “Mr. Trump and Governor Pence have shown true leadership by visiting those devastated by the flooding in Louisiana. By bringing attention and aid to those affected, Mr. Trump has led by example and shown what we have come to expect from our nation’s leaders,” Christie said in a statement released late Friday.

    “The criticism by Louisiana’s Governor is injecting partisan politics into a tragic national disaster. I refused to do that during Hurricane Sandy and I put the people of New Jersey first. Governor Edwards should do the same thing because the people of Louisiana deserve better,” Christie said.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/19/chris-christie-blasts-louisianas-democratic-governor-injecting-partisan-politics-tragic-national-disaster/

  24. Whereby it is shown that Extreme Donald‘s extreme voting would disqualify some of Extreme Donald’s voters.

  25. Trump regains the lead in LA Times/USC Daybreak Poll:

    http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

    See… that didn’t take long. Notice that in each cycle of Trump falling and rising there is a series of lower lows and higher highs. Just the opposite for Hillary. When looking at a public company’s stock price this is what you watch for in making short/long decisions. Short term volatility is of interest to day traders. Long term trends are of interest to investors.

    Trump’s best week of his campaign was this past week. It’s not yet fully priced into his stock. The big moment, the “regrets” speech, is only 48 hours old. If one was investing in this election now is the time to short Clinton and go long Trump. I’ve said all along Trump is capable of acting “Presidential” whenever he chooses. Timing is everything. The third and final act of Donald Trump goes to Washington has begun. The hero faces his biggest, seemingly insurmountable challenge and finds a way through it.

    The libtard panic will be in full bloom in about 10 days when the RCP poll average comes around to dead even.

    • Trump, with his appeal to blacks and other minorities, is doing what Scott Adams a month or so ago said he should, and probably eventually would, do. And of course the Democrats and their obedient MSM are squealing like stuck pigs. They can’t, after all, allow someone to encroach upon their plantation:

      VIDEO: Donald Trump faces new backlash over pitch to black voters
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-backlash-appeal-black-voters/

      • http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

        Trump jumped 10% among black voters overnight according to LA Times/USC Daybreak poll.

        “Democrats have taken your vote for granted for many decades and done nothing for you in return.”

        “All they care about is the teachers union; a powerful special interest group.”

        “Give me a chance.”

        “What have you got to lose?”

        Powerful persuasion. Linguistic kill shots.

      • Impeach Barry,

        Trump jumped 10% among black voters overnight according to LA Times/USC Daybreak poll.

        … to a whopping 13.6% overall. Wake me up when it hits fifty.

        Hillary’s edge is with college or better educated (51.1% to 35.%) people earning < $35 k/yr (50.6% to 37.4%). That seems odd until one looks at the race and gender buckets. From this, we might infer that a number of well-educated women, Hispanics and blacks are getting paid less than their white male peers and see this as a problem that a filthy rich white man who makes filthy comments about women, immigrants and Muslims isn't likely to solve.

    • David –

      Heh. “Regains the lead”
      I notice that you haven’t gone back to posting the “nowcast” once Trump’s “lead” in that metric cratered…but I fits that doesn’t prevent you from cherry-picking other polls.

      It appears that even Trump is avoiding such a shallow approach to The polls:

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-isnt-tweeting-about-the-polls-anymore/

      The race should get close, but pretending that Trump currently has a lead in the polling just hilarious, and exposes a weak approach to analysis.

  26. So where are the occupy wallstreet bufoons??? From the article:

    The analysis, which examined donor lists posted on the foundation’s website, found that 53 percent of the donors who have given $1 million or more to the charity are corporations or foreign citizens, groups or governments. The list includes the governments of Saudi Arabia and Australia, the British bank Barclay’s, and major U.S. companies such as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil.

    [The inside story of how the Clintons built a $2 billion global empire]

    The foundation’s announcement drew skepticism Friday from the right and the left as critics wondered why the Clintons have never before cut off corporate and overseas money to their charity — and why they would wait until after the election to do so.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-than-half-of-clinton-foundations-major-donors-would-be-barred-under-new-rule/2016/08/19/f2d21776-6631-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_clintonfoundation-820pm:homepage/story

  27. Recalling this thread: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/week-in-review-politics-edition-6/#comment-803910

    From the article:

    Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war.

    One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine.

    It is now accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup, that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of “EU values”.

    What is even more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of “non-profit organisations” worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine “Maidan” narrative, but to also disavow any ties and support for Russia.

    Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated smear campaign.
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/week-in-review-politics-edition-6/#comment-803910
    In one document entitled: “Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian debate in Greece” (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece.docx), Soros offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for “at least 15 full working days in carrying out this task” plus all expenses paid.

    The aim of this task:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-19/leaked-memo-shows-soros-pushed-greece-support-ukraine-coup-paint-russia-enemy

  28. From the article:

    One email chain shows the Wall Street titan in 2011 personally wrote then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging intervention in Albania’s political unrest. Within days, an envoy he recommended was dispatched to the region.

    Other emails seem to show Soros using his billions to push an anti-Israel agenda, while other documents reportedly detail funding for various grassroots organizations that were loosely linked to the 2014 unrest in Ferguson, Mo.

    The revelations mostly stem from a recent hack by a group called DC Leaks – which describes itself as “American hacktivists who respect and appreciate freedom of speech, human rights and government of the people.”

    The files – all 2,576 of them from 2008 to 2016 – were released Saturday and provide an eye-opening look into Soros’ political operations.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/17/money-talks-from-ferguson-to-unrest-overseas-new-reports-reveal-soros-influence.html

    • More from the article:

      Soros’ email provided instructions on what the American response should be and gave Clinton the names of three possible mediators who could provide analysis of the crisis.

      “I believe two things need to be done urgently: 1. Bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha and opposition leader Edi Rama to forestall further public demonstrations and to tone down public pronouncements. 2. Appoint a senior European official as a mediator,” the letter said.

    • There’s even a Trump connection, but not political and pretty old:

      So far, he’s donated more than $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic Party members this cycle — though that number is expected to go higher as the general election in November nears.

      Soros also has shelled out money for Media Matters and has been a major financial contributor to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank founded by John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman.

      Soros also had a relationship with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. In 2004, the Wall Street titan lent Trump $160 million to help with the construction of Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago.

      In 2008, both were named in a lawsuit brought by Leslie Dick Worldwide Ltd., a real estate developer. The suit, which was later dismissed, involved the sale of the General Motors Building in New York City.

  29. Ahhhhhh … this is sweet. From the article:

    \The suit includes six claims: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, monetary restitution for donors of Sanders, the DNC breaking its own fiduciary duties, and negligence for failing to protect sensitive donor information that was hacked. Beck & Lee noted the lawsuit was a way to give a voice to Sanders supporters who were silenced by the rigging of the primaries for Clinton. Attorneys Jared Beck, a Harvard Law graduate, and Elizabeth Beck, a Yale Law School graduate, have previously filed successful lawsuits against Yelp, Unilever, Korea Airlines, and fraudulent real estate investors.

    The July WikiLeaks release provided further evidence that the DNC actively worked against Sanders, yet the Vermont senator’s supporters have received no recompense. The damage control used to divert from the content of these emails portrayed criticism of Clinton as a Russian conspiracy. While the mainstream media has devolved into an apparatus to funnel messaging and talking points directly from the DNC and Clinton campaign, the litigation for this class action lawsuit has been moving forward.

    http://observer.com/2016/08/class-action-lawsuit-against-debbie-wasserman-schultz-moves-forward/

    • Not all the MSM is in the tank for Clinton. Fox is #1 in news and as everyone knows they are fair and balanced. Newspapers are so 20th century I’m not sure if they should be counted as MSM anymore but I’m sure online sources like the Drudge Report should be counted as should Huffington Post where one is Clinton and the other is Trump. All told the MSM is certainly very biased in favor of Clinton but it’s not totally one-sided. They should be holding her feet to the fire to give press conferences, it’s been 9 months since her last one, and they aren’t. I think she fears the pressure would bring on a seizure. She’s not right in the head anymore and any hard evidence of it would spell the end of her bid for the oval office.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary%20press%20conference&rct=j

    • jim2,

      Oh no, it’s all just wild conspiracy theory talk the author’s spouting.

      Voter fraud and election rigging, or the potential for those, are either nonexistent or happen on such a minute scale as to be insignificant. They pose no threat whatsoever to the integrity of our elections, or the legitimacy of our democracy.

      And if you don’t believe it, just as Obama, his Just-us Department or the Democratic Party.

      • It ‘could’ be that G.W. Bush was ‘placed’ in office and Gore really was ‘robbed’ of the election.

        “In any close election, because we have not done the simple things that could protect the integrity of our democratic process, there will be room for doubt.”

        “I have to emphasize that we have no evidence that such hacking has ever taken place in the U.S. or that it is about to occur.” (From the linked article).

        Or it could be a nice set up as an excuse for losing an election. Can’t wait till the Clinton team takes hold of this also. Then the whole thing can be placed at the foot of our 50/50 SCOTUS. Things could get even more entertaining then. “Room for doubt” is all ya need.

        ‘The media’ and all.

      • Danny – the Gore/Bush election should drive home the point to you that we need bullet-proof integrity for the balloting process. We also have to ensure that only citizens, living ones, vote and vote only once. Of course, these concepts are an anathema to the Dimowits.

      • Jim2,

        Look. I’m not suggesting we not do everything to prudently protect the integrity of the electoral process. Bullet proof ain’t gonna happen. There are states rights issues vs. overbearing (in some eyes) federal oversite. There are costs vs. evidence. And there are outright conspiracy theories.

        “We also have to ensure that only citizens, living ones, vote and vote only once.” Yep, agree fully. ID’s good. But if the chosen approaches mean one (and I do mean even one) American citizen is disenfranchised then the maker of that approach should be punished by law.

        “Of course, these concepts are an anathema to the Dimowits.” is a ridiculous statement. What proposals have you heard from any party, the REPUBLICAN controlled state legislatures and even congress PRIOR to elections? Almost none. What you do hear is the laying of groundwork as an ‘could be’ excuse for after an election fails. I hope Clinton’s camp picks up on the same theme in case she loses. THAT would make the aftereffects entertaining dontcha think?

        You try so hard to place blame for all issues on “Dimowits” and none on anyone else. I can see issues with ALL the participants.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        ID’s good. But if the chosen approaches mean one (and I do mean even one) American citizen is disenfranchised then the maker of that approach should be punished by law.

        Nothing like a generous dollop of absolutism to kick one’s morning off.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thank you Glenn.

        Jim2 was seeking ‘bullet proof’ elections. So what level of voter fraud is acceptable? What level of disenfranchisment is acceptable? You okay with giving up your vote?

      • Danny Thomas said:

        What proposals have you heard from any party, the REPUBLICAN controlled state legislatures and even congress PRIOR to elections? Almost none. What you do hear is the laying of groundwork as an ‘could be’ excuse for after an election fails.

        Well, no.

        The law requiring voters to present ID in Texas in order to vote was passed in 2012. It also significantly enhanced the penalties for voter fraud, which before the new law were punishable with only a slap to the wrist.

        There has also been a fair bit of literature written on voter fraud and election theft. Here’s a recent example:

        Down for the Count: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America
        https://www.amazon.com/Down-Count-Elections-History-Democracy/dp/1620971682

        It is a revision of a book written by the same author in 2005. If one examines the bibliography, however, there are references to other literature that was published well before 2005.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “The law requiring voters to present ID in Texas in order to vote was passed in 2012.”
        Ah. You caught me. What I should have said was legal proposals. :)

        The 2012 law has been shot down at least in part. Interestingly, if you read the actual ruling, two of the forms of acceptable ID are available to illegal immigrants. It’s only 203 pages: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-5th-enbanc.pdf

        Texas has a history of being in the doghouse when it comes to disenfranchisement. Would I be wrong to assume of this you’re aware?

        Forgive the lack of trust for whom is guarding the hen house. I’m not about allowing fraud, but not at the great expense of disenfranchisement.

        We need to keep an eye on both sides of this issue.

      • A person still has to be registered to vote, show up at the correct location, and have their name on a list of registered voters for that location. You need a Texas ID to register and/or provide the last 4 numbers of your social security which has to match up with federal records. An SSN is required to get a Texas ID. That’s a pretty good screen and insures only one vote per valid social security number.

      • Danny Thomas

        Danny says in his usual dishonest way: “Bullet proof ain’t gonna happen.”

        Can you say ‘absentee ballot’?
        Can you say, here’s $20 if you’ll vote for _______________.
        Can you say, Mr./Ms. election official here’s a set of keys to that new “Texas Edition” pick ’em up truck over there.
        Can you say, let’s draw a squiggily line around this area and create a new district.
        Can you say, let’s create a law restricting access to voting!

        No cookies! You’re looking at little fish and missing the entire school.

  30. Doc, election years are always ugly.
    Treasure the Chesapeake.

  31. From the article:

    BERLIN (Reuters) – The leader of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has spoken out in favor of people arming themselves with guns and self-defense devices following a series of violent attacks last month.

    The anti-immigrant AfD has won growing popular support in Germany due in part to Europe’s migrant crisis, which has seen more than 1 million refugees arrive over the past year, and it now has seats in eight of Germany’s 16 state assemblies.

    After two Islamist attacks and a shooting rampage by a mentally unstable teenager last month, Germans are on edge and the AfD is expected to make a strong showing in votes next month in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

    “Many people are increasingly feeling unsafe. Every law-abiding citizen should be in a position to defend themselves, their family and their friends,” Frauke Petry told the Funke Media Group in an interview published on Saturday.

    “We all know how long it takes until the police can get to the scene, especially in sparsely populated places,” she said.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-wing-leader-backs-citizens-arm-themselves-101701905.html?ref=gs

  32. Why Obama is the worst President in modern times:

    Scandals:

    IRS targets Obama’s enemies
    Benghazi
    Spying on the AP
    The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme
    Sebelius demands payment
    The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal
    The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree.
    Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets
    Solyndra
    New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation
    The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer
    Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act
    “I’ll Pass My Own Laws”
    NSA Spying on American People

    Foreign Policy
    Lack of solidarity with Israel
    Disaster with the Arab Spring
    Crimea
    Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over
    Handling of Syrian Red Line
    Calling ISIS “JV”
    Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement
    Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits
    Lack of Confidence by NATO nations
    Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Iran
    Paid $5 Billion & Released 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl
    Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval

    Allowed the building of Chinese bases in the South China Sea and off the coast of Somalia at the entrance to the gulf of Aden

    14. Paying ransom to Iranian for hostages- and using foreign currency in unmarked plane

    15. Lying about paying ransom (which media ignored!)

    Domestic Policy

    Failure to secure the Border
    Illegals bringing guns, drug and diseases through the southern border
    Bowe Bergdahl swap
    Passing on the keystone pipeline
    9 Trillion dollars more in debt
    Vast expansion of government
    Racial Division at all-time high
    Inviting Bomb Boy Ahmed to White House
    Disrespect for Cops
    Failed economic stimulus plan
    Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule
    China overtook America as world’s largest economy
    Double Downgrade
    Housing policies failed to stop foreclosures
    Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it
    Education policies failed to curb college costs
    Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid
    Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working
    Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%
    Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism
    Securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016
    Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to Czar Positions
    Mismanagement and cover up of Terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California
    Mismanagement of Gulf Oil Spill
    Disastrous Vetting Process of “Immigrants” from Muslim Nations

    http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/

  33. link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9L9ZiS7APE

    Hillary has Parkinson’s according to unnamed source in Secret Service.

  34. This is in part due to George Soros.

    BREAKING VIDEO: Protesters Block Trump Motorcade, JUMP ON VEHICLE!

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-protesters-block-jump-vehicle-trump-motorcade/

    • More peace and love, democracy and freedom from the Hillarymongers.

      • “More peace and love, democracy and freedom from the Hillarymongers.”

        An honest thinking person is capable of recognition that just because one is against a particular candidate does not mean that that one MUST be in the camp of the other.

        It ‘could’ be that the ‘protesters’ are paid shills of the RNC. ‘I have to emphasize that we have no evidence that such ‘shilling’ has ever taken place in the U.S. or that it is about to occur.’

        But: ‘“In any close election, because we have not done the simple things that could protect the motorcades, there will be room for doubt.”

        Ya’ll just crack me up.

        Judge Judy wouldn’t put up with your ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda.

      • Why not, LBJ set up the Warren Commission, and back then it was all they wanted to explain the facts of that matter?

      • Danny Thomas | August 20, 2016 at 11:21 am |

        “An honest thinking person is capable of”

        How would Double Dealing Danny know what an honest thinking person is capable of?

      • Danny Thomas

        Touch a nerve there ‘big’ Dave?

      • You wish. I’m 100% nerve free.

    • I have tickets to the Trump rally in Austin on Monday. In the military this would qualify me for hazardous duty pay. I’ll be ready for anything. Believe me. :-)

      • That’s awesome, David. Enjoy!

      • The Austin Rodeo is held there every year and we have box seats close enough to the chutes to get dirt kicked up on us in the extreme bull riding competition. It’ll be familiar given how many flags, patriotism, clowns, and bullsh*t I’ve seen there in the past. LOL

      • Hope he doesn’t have the teleprompters. They make him boring – low energy. Without them he is good for a few laughs, and you can gauge if the crowd are laughing at him or with him. Start a “build the wall” chant if he gets too boring.

      • Actually I’m hoping for some action outside with protesters. Liberal university town and all it’s a good possibility.

  35. From the article:

    George Soros’ Open Society Foundation admits influence and incredibly close links with UN migration representative and former Goldman Sachs executive Peter Sutherland in leaked document.
    The paper, which told of how the migrant crisis presented an “opportunity” for the foundation to extend its global influence and attract more money, mentions Sutherland’s pro-migrant work. The foundation notes that through Sutherland they have been able to advocate at an “elite level” behind the scenes.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/20/soros-leaks-un-chief-behind-scenes-advocate/

  36. Seems that Doubling Debt Donald’s debt is the double he amount he has claimed.

  37. Gee Dave,
    Here I was all worried aboutcha.

    • Danny Thomas | August 20, 2016 at 11:54 am | Reply

      Gee Dave,
      Here I was all worried aboutcha.

      —————————————————————

      Double Dealing Danny lies as easily as a rug.

  38. From the article:

    Al Gore, who has already has amassed a fortune pushing “global warming” propaganda, has received at least $30 million from George Soros to promote his cause.

    This new bombshell report shows covers the latest document dump from DCLeaks, a hacking website, which shows Soros through his Open Society Institute gave Gore a massive budget to spread Gore’s climate lies:

    http://endingthefed.com/hacked-emails-expose-who-is-really-behind-al-gores-global-warming-campaign.html

  39. From the article:

    Unleash Hell’: New Al Qaeda magazine describes in detail how to start huge forest fires across the U.S..with instructions on how to make ’ember bombs’
    Al Qaeda has called upon its followers to unleash massive forest fires upon the United States this summer.Published in the latest edition of the notorious terror magazine, ‘Inspire’, are graphic instructions for the creation and ignition of ’ember bombs’Detailed in the memorably titled, ‘It is of your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb’, the magazine encourages any would-be terrorist to target Montana, because of the rapid population growth in its wooded areas.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d46_1336103325

  40. Trump looks better and better every day. From the article:

    The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million.

    But while the move could avoid the awkwardness of Mr. Clinton jetting around the world asking for money while his wife is president, it did not resolve a more pressing question: how her administration would handle longtime donors seeking help from the United States, or whose interests might conflict with the country’s own.

    The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department — before, during and after Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary — criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?_r=0

    • We since the Ukrainian used a Foundation, it’s all good as form trumps substance. Wait, I got that backwards. The substance of a transaction trumps it’s form in most cases. Extreme wariness is called for when using form apprears to or does conceal substance. What I am trying to write is, Don’t Do It.

  41. How are we doing with higher education?

    Student loans as far as I know are at our around a 5% interest rate for a near unbreakable loan agreement. Income tax incenentives for higher education can be described as mostly static for a decade or so, with important parts of the law not indexed for annual inflation. If people wonder what the establishment looks like, I think the above is indicative. Why do young college students like Sanders? For some it’s their debt.

  42. Trump now leads by 2% in the USC Dornsife/LA Times poll.

    He leads in every age group, but his biggest gains have come with Black and Hispanic voters. Trump’s challenge with Black and Hispanic voters will be to get them to vote their pocket books — their material self-interest — and not loyalty to some racial or ethnic group.

    http://cesrusc.org/election/

    • Glenn –

      ==> Trump’s challenge with Black and Hispanic voters will be to get them to vote their pocket books — their material self-interest — and not loyalty to some racial or ethnic group. ==>

      Now there you go again. Perhaps you should consider that it isn’t that they don’t know their pocketbooks but that they disagree with you as to what is in their best economic interesting. Yes, it’s possible that they just disagree with you. An operational strategy based on the reasoning that they should follow your instructions as to what is in their best interest and vote accordingly is part of the reason why Republicans get so little support in minority communities.

      How condescending is it to think that 98% of the black community votes only out of “loyalty” as differentiated, of course, from the white community in their rationale for voting decisions?

      • Josh ua,

        The issue isn’t what I think. The issue is what Blacks and Hispanics think.

        The USC Dornsife/LA Times poll shows Trump’s appeal to be resonating with both Black and Hispanic voters, with his polling numbers showing significant upticks with both constituencies.

        You may not like the decisions these voters are making, but that’s your problem. You’ll just have to get over yourself.

      • One poll. Over the course of a couple of days. Nice approach to signal and noise there, Glenn. Rather in line with Trumps general approach, I might add.

      • Danny Thomas

        Josh,

        Glenn’s a Trump monger, dont’cha know.

      • Josh ua,

        Time will tell.

        Certainly the MSM proselytizes the same narrative you do. It cherry picks the worst case polls for Trump that cast him in the worst possible light.

        For instance, CBS Evening News last night featured a poll where Trump was trailing by 9% in the general (50% Clinton v. 41% Trump) and 83% amongst African Americans (85% Clinton v. 2% Trump). The coverage begins here at minute 07:10:

        http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/820-beachgoers-wary-of-zika-push-up-challenge-hopes-to-help-stop-military-suicides/

        The poll CBS uses is at the opposite end of the spectrum from other poll results announced last week: LA Times/USC (Trump +2), Rasmussen Reports (Clinton +2) and Zogby (Clinton +2).

        The images that CBS uses to portray Trump in the worst way possible are these:

        IMAGE: African American Electoral Support
        Hillary Clinton 85%
        Donald Trump 2%

        a; https://s3.postimg.org/ruu1r254j/Captura_de_pantalla_1358.png

        IMAGE: 2016 General Election Matchup
        Hillary Clinton 50%
        Donald Trump 41%

        a, https://s3.postimg.org/kv685prsz/Captura_de_pantalla_1359.png

        Hillary’s response to Trump’s outreach to Black and Hispanic voters was as follows. We’ll see how well it works:

      • Danny Thomas

        Josh,

        Just don’t ask Glenn to define MSM. ‘The media’ is only the ‘bad guys’ when it doesn’t fit the narrative of Trumpmongers such as Glenn.

      • Danny –

        The MSM must mean any reports that don’t overtly favor Trump. Amusing that Breitbart escapes any criticism for bias.

        All else are Hillarymongers.

        Notice how ANY poll aggregator is a Hillarymonger is, by definition, a Hillarymonger as they ALL show Clinton with a substantial lead.

        Here is note climate “skeptic” and libertarian J. Scott Armstrong…obviously a Hillarymonger:

        http://pollyvote.com/en/

      • You know, I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve come around to seeing that Glenn actually makes a good point. What AA’s don’t realize is how they’ve been fooled and duped by Democrats. What they need are white Republicans, with their superior intelligence, to whitesplain to them how people with superior intelligence like themselves see the situation and know better than they do what’s in their own best interests.

        What is hard to understand is why 99% of black voters reject the Republican Party even though Republicans, with deep respect and concern, have been kind enough for decades to condescend to explain to them what they should be doing (and would do, like vote for Trump, if they were only as smart as white Republicans)

        Instead, AA’s get all upset about unimportant stuff, like Trump re-tweeting white supremacists. If only blacks were smart enough to listen to people who know what would be good for them, like Glenn, and vote line white people do, they’d be so much better off!

      • Ah… that explains why Hillary staggers so much. She finds so many things staggeringly ignorant. It doesn’t have anything to do with her advanced age, failing health, or brain trauma from a recent fall. She’s just stunned by the ignorance of her political enemies. LOL

      • Danny,

        Getting buddy buddy with Josh makes sense, seeing as you are on track to be the next torch bearer. A shame, as you could be one of the better commentators, if you quit trying to score style points.

      • Josh ua said:

        Notice how ANY poll aggregator is a Hillarymonger…

        But CBS Evening News did not use a poll aggregator in its propagandizing. It used a poll that showed Trump to be trailing Clinton by 9 points.

        RCP’s poll average on Saturday was Clinton +5.7. That’s a far cry from Clinton +9, and also a long way from the RCP average on August 9 of Clinton +7.9.

    • One of the reasons that Trump’s appeals to Hispanics may have hit fertile ground is because there is such a huge gap between the opinion of Hispanic elites and that of the Hispanic rank and file.

      Take the issue of immigration, for instance. Here’s how Peter Skerry describes the gap that exists between Hispanic leaders and Hispanic commonfolk in Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority:

      THE LEADERSHIP’S OPEN BORDER STANCE

      Whatever its precise dimensions, there was throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s a discernible and substantial uneasiness among Mexican Americans with prevailing levels of immigration.

      Yet such views have infrequently been articulated by Mexican American leaders. Indeed, these leaders have, with few exceptions, advocated amnesty…with a zeal that belies the complicated crosscurrents within their communities….

      With regard to amnesty, the evidence indicates Mexican-American leaders have been far more supportive of the idea than their rank and file. In a 1984 study of attitudes toward immigration among Hispanics in Texas, de la Garza reported that Hispanics there were “much less supportive of amnesty for the undocumented than are local elites from across the Southwest. Forty-nine percent of Texas respondents, compared to almost 90 percent of community leaders in California, New Mexico, and elsewhere support amnesty.”….

      When de la Garza prodded these leaders…he found that only 22 percent of the leaders “responded that the presence of undocumented workers adversely affected the interests of the Chicano community.” De la Garza concluded….

      To the contrary, these leaders see no need to control the flow of undocumented workers except to protect the workers themselves. They do not see undocumented workers as contributing to the problems of the Chicano community.

      As the decade wore on, and the number of illegal immigrants steadily increased, Mexican-American leaders remained fixed in their stance — even in the face of research findings indicating that Mexican Americans already settled here were competing with illegals for jobs.

      Certainly, nothing that was said in the course of the continuing debate over immigration restriction would indicate that the leadership had significantly modified its views from what de la Garza had found at the beginning of the decade. Indeed, as leaders pointed with increasing outrage at substandard housing, inadequate barrio health-care facilities, and overcrowded schools, they seldom if ever acknowledged that solutions might at least in part be found in moderating the continuing influx of immigrants.

      Additional insight into the views of Mexican-American leaders is offered by de la Garza’s findings that “[a]lmost half of the respondents indicated they favored completely opening the U.S.-Mexican border.” Thus, 49 percent supported an “open border,” while 40 percent opposed it, and 11 percent were uncertain, leaving de la Garza to conclude: “Indeed, more respondents explicitly support this radical policy option than oppose it.”

      • And it doesn’t look like the opinions of rank and file Hispanics have changed much since the 1980s and 90s.

        A Gallup poll conducted in July of 2015 shows a majority of Hispanics still favor securing the border:

        And a majority also still do not favor an “open border”:

      • “even in the face of research findings indicating that Mexican Americans already settled here were competing with illegals for jobs”

        By “jobs” you mean drug dealers, right?

  43. From the article:

    Demonstrators gathered outside Parliament this afternoon to protest against Islam, which they claim is detrimental to women’s rights.
    The ‘Islam Kills Women’ gathering was organised by Anne-Marie Waters, one of the leaders of PEGIDA UK, along with the groups Sharia Watch and Examine-Islam.Org.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/20/islam-kills-women/

  44. From the article:

    Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.

    http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/huma-abedin-worked-at-a-radical-muslim-journal-for-10-years/

  45. So… in the past 7 days in the LA Times/USC Daybreak poll Clinton’s likely vote fell, day by day, 3.3% while Trump rose by 3.5%. Trump now has a 2% lead 45/43 and has the momentum back.

    If he stays disciplined and on message, which he has now done for a record-setting one week, he will keep rising and Clinton will keep falling at about the same rate.

    The next signal event I’m looking for over the next week is a new low (below 40% for Clinton) and a new high (above 47.5%) for Trump.

    If Trump gets over 50%, something nether of them have done before, it’s all over except the crying. Expectations for Trump in September policy debates are so low (due to lack of experience) and those for Hillary so high (because of so much experience) it’s a given that Trump will over perform and Hillary will under perform. This positioning is almost certainly deliberate. This is how savvy corporations manage their stock price – it’s called under-promise and over-deliver.

    It appears very likely that Trump will break the critical 50% barrier in the next two weeks as his campaign has just begun to respond in the same markets to Hillary’s well established saturation ad campaigns in the usual battleground states.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel. :-)

  46. LA Times/USC Daybreak Poll.

    The biggest difference with this poll from others, according to flash in the pan and 2016 failure Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight dot com, is that it is conducted entirely online. No phone polls. Younger voters are definitely harder to reach in phone polls and there’s also some reasonable speculation that shame prevents phone respondents from being as truthful if they are supporting Trump. Phone respondents are not anonymous and there’s much greater intimacy with the person asking the poll questions.

    Nate Silver’s poll aggregation and prediction algorithm has revealed itself to be deeply flawed. In the space of 24-48 hours during August his poll changed from a 50/50 horse race to a 90/10 slaughter. That is unrealistic. Voter sentiment doesn’t change that fast absent monumental change in one or the other candidates and no such change occurred. That’s a FAIL.

    • Nate Silver presents the odds of winning the electoral college based on state polls. These percentages, currenlty 85-15, can’t be compared with voting percentages. They also have popular vote percentages with Hillary up 49-42.

      • Actually, Silver doesn’t just use state polls. That would be Sam Wang, the cognitive scientist, over at Princeton Election Consortium.

        http://election.princeton.edu

      • Nate Cohn, who wrote the discussion about LA Times/Daybreak poll you linked isn’t old enough to shave, dummy. Try again.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=nate+cohn&espv=2&biw=1196&bih=736&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPu4qnk9TOAhWIwiYKHfwdCT8QsAQINg

        One glaring error the child made is intimating no other polls (none that he knows of!) split the democrat/republican voters in the sample unevenly. They phucking all do that which means you boy doesn’t know sh*t about political polls which I’ve been following since before he was born. It’s a well known fact there are more democrats than republicans and every poll skews their sample accordingly. That’s perfectly normal. It’s also perfectly normal to poll the same sample group (panel). They don’t search for 2000 good new phone numbers on each attempt. That would be stupid; a waste of time and makes consecutive polls not very comparable. I understand why you don’t think for yourself. With critical thinking skills as poor as yours I’d let someone else to do it for me too.

        So back to what’s unusual about Daybreak according to Nate Silver who at least knows his ass from elbow in how polls are conducted even if his failed miserably so far this year. Number 1 difference is it’s totally online. No people talking to people just computers talking to computers. Obviously that captures a different demographic than phone polls of people with listed phone numbers. Maybe you can figure out how it’s different without me belaboring the obvious for you. The second thing is it methodically samples 1/7th of its panel each day using the same unique subset repetitively then published the cumulative average every morning.. No other poll does this that I know of and I evidently know a lot more of than Cohn. The rest generally spend several days polling the entire panel then publishing weekly. The unique thing you get from LAT/USC method that’s interesting is it gives you an instant suggestion of how voters receive yesterday’s news. For analyzing Trump, who does something controversial and newsworthy once per week it gives you an amazing insight.

        Thanks for playing. There’;s a consolation prize waiting for you as you exit stage left.

      • Jimmy D

        State polls in battleground states are not meaningful at this point beyond two unavoidable facts:

        1) they’re horse races within the margin of error

        2) Clinton has been saturating them with negative campaign ads for many weeks and Trump just began responding in the TV market day before yesterday with his first ad-buy.

        This should be hugely alarming. Despite Hilly spending $150 million on negative campaign ads in battleground states she hasn’t pulled decisively ahead in any of them. This of course raises the question of what happens when Trump responds with a carpet bombing negative ad campaign of his own. We’ll know soon enough. I’m fairly certain the electoral vote race turns around just like the popular vote is doing. Trump hasn’t been doing any targeting with TV ad buys yet. He will and he’s got plenty of money to do it.

      • I think Trump has a problem of not knowing what the battleground states are. He keeps campaigning in irrelevant places like Texas. Perhaps his handlers need to gently tell him how these things work.

      • David –

        Let’s look at what Cohn says and compare it to your description of what he says, shall we?

        Here’s what he says:

        –snip–
        But very few high-quality public surveys — in fact, none that I’m aware of — regularly use self-reported past voting to adjust their samples.
        –snip–

        Let’s look at your description:

        –snip–
        One glaring error the child made is intimating no other polls (none that he knows of!) split the democrat/republican voters in the sample unevenly.
        –snip–

        Since you have such vast experience with polling, perhaps you could point to the other pollsters that adjust their samples based on self-report of past voting?

      • David –

        ==> One glaring error the child made is intimating no other polls (none that he knows of!) split the democrat/republican voters in the sample unevenly. ==>

        More beatifulness. It was that poll that led you to your “amazing insight’ that Trump’s convention bounce was twice that of Clinton’s.

        Lol.

    • David –

      ==> biggest difference with this poll from others, according to flash in the pan and 2016 failure Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight dot com, is that it is conducted entirely online. ==>

      Do you even try to interrogate your opinions before you state then with confidence? How can you be do confidently wrong so often?

      –snip–
      It’s different from other surveys because it’s a panel, which means it recontacts the same voters over and over. In 2012, a similar panel study done by RAND was considered a big success.
      –snip–

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/upshot/a-favorable-poll-for-donald-trump-has-a-major-problem.html?referer=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/

      ==> Nate Silver’s poll aggregation and prediction algorithm has revealed itself to be deeply flawed. In the space of 24-48 hours during August his poll changed from a 50/50 horse race to a 90/10 slaughter ==>

      Dude. You can’t blame Silver because you didn’t understand the nature of the “nowcast” and got so excited when it had Trump ahead for a short time before he cratered.

      The “polls plus,” which takes the most comprehensive approach hasn’t varied nearly that much (scroll down a bit to see the graph of the changes over time).

      http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=mobilebar&v=1#plus

      • It wasn’t an opinion. It was reporting what Silver said on TV today. Read harder.

      • I’m sorry. I missed the place where Nate Silver described Nowcast’s algorithm as so volatile that the odds of who would win can change from 50-50 to 90-10 in one day for some trivial remark made by one of the candidates. It took me by surprise that it was so flawed. In 30 years of following polls I’d never seen such a dramatic change in such a short time. So I no longer pay attention to it nor anything else from the same flawed source. Maybe Silver is good at fantasy football or something like that.

      • It is very nonlinear. You only have to be a few percent away from 50-50 for it to be a blowout.

      • ==> In 30 years of following polls I’d never seen such a dramatic change in such a short time. ==>

        Heh. When did you ever see a “nowcast” before. The explanation of the methodology is prominent and transparent. It’s in the very name. It is a forecast for what would happen if the vote were “today” – and it ALWAYS gives a different result than his other forecasts, in particular the “polls plus” forecast which is the most comprehensive and which projects what is likely to happen around election day by factoring in such considerations as the historical precedents and the state of the economy.

        Apparently, your approach to Silver’s forecasting is just as superficial as your approach to the LA Times forecasting (which is what lead you to get your “amazing insight” that Trump got twice the convention bounce as Clinton That was beautiful.)

      • And David –

        ==> I missed the place where Nate Silver described Nowcast’s algorithm as so volatile ==>

        I love your notion of accountability:

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

        –snip–
        Differences between polls-only and now-cast

        The now-cast is basically the polls-only model, except that we lie to our computer and tell it the election is today.
        As a result, the now-cast is very aggressive. It’s much more confident than polls-plus or polls-only; it weights recent polls more heavily and is more aggressive in calculating a trend line.
        There could be some big differences around the conventions. The polls-only and polls-plus models discount polls taken just after the conventions, whereas the now-cast will work to quickly capture the convention bounce.
        –snip–

      • This is also beautiful:

        ==> It took me by surprise that it was so flawed. In 30 years of following polls I’d never seen such a dramatic change in such a short time. ==>

        So let’s recap. As soon as the “Nowcast” projected Trump in the lead, you were on here promoting it excitedly. But you never bothered to look at the methodology to see why it had such a dramatic change from previously, over a short period of time, to project Trump in the lead.

        Then when Trump cratered in the “Nowcast” you say its volatility caught you by surprise, and at that point you decided to look at the methodology.

        That’s beautiful. Really.

        And of course, because the methodology of that poll makes it volatile, you reject the other 538 polls that use different methodologies, and instead promote the LA Times poll – when it changes notably over the course of a couple of days. I’m sure that whether or not Trump is ahead of behind had nothing to do with which polls your promote.

        I love you, man!

    • David –

      Once again, let’s compare your description of what Silver says to what he actually says

      Your version:

      –snip–
      The biggest difference with this poll from others, according to flash in the pan and 2016 failure Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight dot com, is that it is conducted entirely online.
      –snip–

      What Silver says:

      Scroll down the page and check out the chart. It lists seven, that’s right, seven, online polls:

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

      And also:

      –snip–
      As you can see, the LA Times poll has the strongest house effect of any major pollster: a raw house effect of about 6 points in Trump’s direction, or a discounted one of about 4 points. Other Internet-based polls have been a mixed bag. The UPI/CVoter tracking poll has also been Trump-leaning. Ipsos/Reuters formerly had a strong Clinton-leaning house effect but, after a methodology change, it has pretty much gone away.5 Other prolific online polling firms, such as Morning Consult, YouGov and SurveyMonkey, don’t have strong house effects.
      –snip–

      I love you, man.

  47. Americans are fed up with the mainstream media.

    Prior to the start of Donald Trump’s rally in Frederick, Virginia on Saturday, the crowd chanted “Do you job!” at a crew from CNN.

    But they weren’t done.
    Moments later, they chanted, “tell the truth!” as well.

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-trump-crowd-chants-job-cnn-crew/

    • The MSM is in the throes of a more acute credibility crisis than what climate scientists are, and it doesn’t get much worse than that.

      • There have been some complaints about Breitbart’s Bannon joining Team Trump. I would find it questionable in a more normal election year. But what with most of the mainstream media in the tank for Billary and on top of that, rationalizing it, I don’t have a problem with this. Fair’s fair!!

      • Jim2,
        “I don’t have a problem with this. Fair’s fair!”

        Wow! Sanctioned bias? Seriously! That’s just amazing.

        This must mean you’ll now accept MSNBC and Pew. Fair’s fair. Right?

  48. From the article:

    These States Are at the Greatest Risk of Having Their Voting Process Hacked

    Despite the inherent security risks, 31 states use the Internet to collect votes in some way.

    Not everything belongs on the Internet, and the American electoral process is a textbook example. But 31 states don’t see it that way.

    The recent cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee has raised the specter of an Internet-based assault on the democratic process in the U.S., leading computer security experts to call on the federal government to do more to protect the voting process from hackers.

    Since national elections involve some 9,000 separate jurisdictions, and they use a variety of technologies, the problem at first appears to be hopelessly complex. But there is a simple way to manage the risk of cybercrime: keep voting off the Internet.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602142/these-states-are-at-the-greatest-risk-of-having-their-voting-process-hacked/

    • jim2,

      If one wanted to steal an election, would one want to “manage the risk of cybercrime”?

      There are a lot of people out there advocating to make election fraud and electon theft as easy as possible.

  49. Danny Thomas

    Evidence that things are beginning to improve for the middle class: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/is-the-us-staging-a-middle-class-comeback

    Maybe there is something to the effects of Obama’s policies after all.

  50. Senator Jeff Sessions in an interview where he explains how allowing in large numbers of low-skilled immigrants into a labor market already saturated with low-skilled workers is a bad thing for labor. But, on the other hand, he says, it’s a great thing for the elites who employ low-skilled labor.

    VIDEO: Sen. Sessions: Trump Has Not Changed His Position On Deporting Illegal Aliens
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/21/sen_sessions_trump_has_not_changed_his_position_of_deportation_of_illegals.html

    • Danny Thomas

      Interesting.

      Does he explain why when federal policies cover the entirety of the U.S. some areas have social unrest and others do not?

      Why did the social unrest occur in Milwaukee and not elsewhere Glenn?

      • Danny Thomas,

        Why do you hate working-class Americans so much?

        Granted, there are Americans whose self-interests are served by Clinton’s and Obama’s open-border policies. Sessions acknowledges this. But these policies do not serve the self-interests of working-class Americans.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,

        Why do you not answer questions then ask them as a form of debate. There’s a reason Mosher frowns on that. It’s weak.

      • Danny Thomas

        Glenn,
        “Why do you hate working-class Americans so much?”

        Danny,
        “So Glenn, when did you stop beating your wife and kids?”

      • Danny Thomas

        Nice crayon work. How does that lead to unrest in Milwaukee and not elsewhere?

  51. Descriptive Donald’s new campaign’s new chief executive has a knack for descriptive ways to describe GOP leaders.

  52. From the article (this is interesting :) )

    On Friday, the New York Times reported that Clinton told FBI officials former Secretary of State Colin Powell had advised her to use a personal email account while she held the Secretary of State office herself.

    “Her people have been trying to pin it on me,” Powell, 79, told PEOPLE Saturday night at the Apollo in the Hamptons 2016 Night of Legends fête in East Hampton, New York.

    “The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,” Powell added.

    Why does the former diplomat believe this to be the case?

    “Why do you think?” he said. “It doesn’t bother me. But it’s okay; I’m free.”

    http://www.people.com/article/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-pinning-email-scandal-on-him

  53. From the article:

    With Google demonstrating its political clout by essentially writing the “Net Neutrality” regulatory language, Oracle and others are stepping up funding for a Silicon Valley attack dog to level the playing field.

    Silicon Valley has earned the nickname “Valley of the Democrats” from the TechCrunch blog because of its symbiotic business relationship with Washington. But as Breitbart News reported last year, Google’s $16,830,000 in lobbying expenditure dominated the $139.5 million spent by both the computer and Internet industries.

    In the twelve weeks proceeding the “Net Neutrality” vote, Google’s Chairman Eric Schmidt functioned as one of the 11 members on the “Democratic Victory Task Force,” according to a document leaked by the Naked Capitalism blog. Schmidt helped craft the “National Narrative Project” to serve as the key strategy for the Democratic Party to “fight to reclaim state houses, win governorships, take back the House and Senate and protect the White House.” He is also a leading force behind ‘FWD.US,’ a Silicon Valley tech community effort to push open-borders immigration reform.
    ..
    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/21/oracle-funds-anti-google-effort-outs-obama-hillary-clinton/

  54. Biden will head to Turkey this week to try to patch things up with Erdogan.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/20/europe/biden-erdogan-gulen-us-turkey-trip/

    But in an article published by TeleSur and one of the Mexico City dailies yesterday, Jaime Jalife argues that the rupture of Turkey with US/NATO and its simultaneous incorporation into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is already a done deal.

    Jalife is gobsmacked that Turkey’s historic about face, and the solidificaiton of the Russia/Turkey/Iran/China axis, has all but been ignored by the Western mainstream media:

    The most striking point is the deafening silence of the Western media, typically cacophonous, with the singular exception of the Israeli press, which has expressed concern.

    http://www.telesurtv.net/bloggers/EU-sale-de-Turquia-Rusia-llega-a-Iran-chinos-en-Siria-y-Putin-en-Crimea-20160821-0002.html

    Jalife concludes that,

    Obama is playing golf on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard less than three months before the crucial presidential election of his successor, whom he will bequeath the global chaos sowed by his dual confrontations with Russia and China.

    The quagmire the former USSR fell into with its failed war in Afghanistan, which led to its implosion, prevented its access to the warm seas.

    But today, 37 years later, Russia has two access routes to the warm seas: one with its connection to the Mediterranean Sea, reinforced by its reconciliation with Turkey, and a second with Iran, which can provide a super strategic outlet to the Indian ocean.

  55. US Hawks Advance a War Agenda in Syria
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/21/us-hawks-advance-a-war-agenda-in-syria/

    The U.S. government, having illegally sent American troops into Syria, is now threatening to attack the Syrian military if it endangers those troops, an Orwellian twist that marks a dangerous escalation….

    The upshot is the latest example of how Washington’s vast pro-war foreign-policy establishment continues to get its way despite President Barack Obama’s efforts to limit military involvement in the Middle East. Establishment of a no-fly zone in northern Syria has long been a neocon priority. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, a neocon favorite at this point, reiterated her call for a no-fly zone as recently as April during a televised debate with Bernie Sanders.

    Obama has opposed a no-fly zone because it would draw the U.S. into a direct conflict with the Assad government and likely its Russian and Iranian backers as well. But now with the U.S. promising to continue patrolling the skies over Hasakah, he finds himself backing into a no-fly zone regardless….

    [T]he issue is whether pro-Hillary forces are pulling strings to make events in Syria go her way….

    [T]he hawks seem to be winning since U.S. foreign policy has turned distinctly more robust since the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in late July….

    Omran Daqneesh, the dazed and dirt-encrusted five-year-old boy who has become “a symbol of Aleppo’s suffering,” according to The New York Times, is one example of how the campaign has borne fruit. Lina Sergie Attar’s powerful Aug. 13 Times opinion piece, “Watching My Beloved Aleppo Rip Itself Apart,” was another, while the rabidly anti-Assad Guardian has hardly let a day go by without running a heart-rending tale about this or that horror that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin have visited on Syria’s civilian population.

    Context, balance, and plain accuracy have fallen by the wayside as various media outlets hop on the pro-war bandwagon….

    While trumpeting the fate of Omran Daqneesh, who was shaken but apparently not seriously hurt, why has The New York Times failed to report the plight of 12-year-old Abdullah Issa, whose throat was slit last month by members of a U.S.-backed rebel force known as Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zinki because he had allegedly fought on the government side?….

    A happy romp in the skies over Hasakah would serve the Clinton campaign well. It would show that toughness pays, as Clinton has repeatedly argued. But the trouble with war is that it is rarely goes according to plan….

    China has declared its support for Assad and has even sent military advisers to help his regime in its fight with the rebels, thereby introducing yet another explosive element into the mix.

    This is more intervention than one small country can handle, and tripwires are therefore multiplying. Obama’s aggressive actions in Hasakah may help Clinton against Trump but they could all too easily blow up in the administration’s face. War, indeed, packs just as many surprises as politics.

  56. From the article:

    Sunni extremists are infiltrating the United States with the help of alien smugglers in South America and are crossing U.S. borders with ease, according to a U.S. South Command intelligence report.

    The Command’s J-2 intelligence directorate reported recently in internal channels that “special interest aliens” are working with a known alien smuggling network in Latin America to reach the United States. The smuggling network was not identified.

    Army Col. Lisa A. Garcia, a Southcom spokeswoman, did not address the intelligence report directly but said Sunni terrorist infiltration is a security concern.

    “Networks that specialize in smuggling individuals from regions of terrorist concern, mainly from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the Middle East, and East Africa, are indeed a concern for Southcom and other interagency security partners who support our country’s national security,” Garcia told the Washington Free Beacon.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/southern-command-warns-sunni-extremists-infiltrating-south/

  57. The Dimowits and Soros get a pass from the MSM. In the meantime, CBS does a story on Trump as a kid throwing rocks. Pathetic. From the article:

    But two-and-a-half months later, when the internal workings of a powerful political network palmed off as a tax-exempt “social welfare” agency supposedly dedicated to doing good were released to the public — unveiling the big money ties to many of the left’s top social causes — the Times kept its readers in the dark. (RELATED: Leaked Soros Memo: Refugee Crisis ‘New Normal,’ Gives ‘New Opportunities For Global Influence)

    Even as the Times ignored the major role Soros’s Open Society Foundations network has played in American policy-making, the paper wrote stories focusing on the role of wealthy donors in the Republican party. (RELATED: Board Memo: Soros Organization Tried To Influence Supreme Court Ruling On Immigration)

    Investor’s Business Daily wrote an editorial slamming the Times, CNN, CBS News and the Washington Post for remaining silent on the subject entirely.

    The documents “provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things,” the editors wrote in an article titled “The Bizarre Media Blackout Of Hacked George Soros Documents.”

    “We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them,” the editors noted. “Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/new-york-times-washington-post-wont-cover-soros-leaks/

  58. Article clip @jim2 | August 22, 2016 at 11:02 am in moderation

  59. Clinton campaign manager suggests Donald Trump may be a ‘puppet for the Kremlin’
    http://www.businessinsider.com/robby-mook-donald-trump-kremlin-puppet-2016-8

    “We need Donald Trump to explain to us the extent to which the hand of the Kremlin is at the core of his campaign,” Mook said.

  60. Democratic mega-donors plow money into Senate, Clinton bids
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/outside-groups-rush-help-clinton-trump-senate-hopefuls-153131639–election.html

    Democratic mega-donors, including George Soros and Tom Steyer, are putting millions of dollars into efforts to put Hillary Clinton in the White House and win control of the Senate….

    Yet few of the GOP’s biggest donors have put major money into Trump efforts, a striking change from four years ago when Mitt Romney had more million-dollar donors on his side than did President Barack Obama.

  61. Dimowits in charge of Google – what will they do? From the article:

    New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo is calling on Google to “fix” its search engine results to hide evidence of Hillary Clinton’s failing health.
    “Go online and put down, ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ and take a look at the videos yourself,” Rudy Giuliani recently said on Fox News, during an argument about how sick Clinton really is.

    Manjoo of the Times called for Google to “fix” the problem of search results possibly hurting the Democratic nominee.

    “Google should fix this. It shouldn’t give quarter to conspiracy theorists,” Manjoo tweeted.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/21/nyt-tech-columnist-calls-google-suppress-hillary-health-info/

  62. The Clintons have already been here before. May they visit here again real soon now. From the article:

    The sprawling fundraising scandal ultimately led to 22 guilty pleas on various violations of election laws. Among the Clinton fundraisers and friends who pleaded guilty were John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady, and Michael Brown, son of the late Clinton commerce secretary Ron Brown. But a lot was never learned, even after the revelations that Clinton had personally authorized offering donors Oval Office meetings and use of the Lincoln bedroom. A total of 120 participants in the fundraising scandal either fled the country, asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or otherwise avoided questioning. The stonewalling worked, just as Hillary Clinton hopes it will with the Clinton Foundation, her private e-mail server, and Benghazi.

    But there is one change that might undermine the stone wall: The Internet is ubiquitous, as it was not in 1996. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told CNN on August 1, “We have quite a lot of material (from the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton Foundation), so I think we will stagger it in different batches when we are ready to publish each batch.” Assange has told reporters he plans to detonate his e-mail bombs at key points during the campaign, such as just prior to each of the three presidential debates.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/22/john-fund-wikileaks-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-democrats/

  63. https://thinkprogress.org/democratic-platform-calls-for-wwii-scale-mobilization-to-solve-climate-crisis-d2f84c22f9ca#.rk8uyt36t
    WWII-scale mobilization? Does Romm understand what we did during World War II? No consumer goods produced for years? Rationing butter?
    I really think that someone should ask Hillary Clinton if this is what she is planning to do. And if so, someone should let the American people know about it, as they will not approve.

  64. From the article:

    “Once, the American Left told itself that it spoke truth to power,” Joel Pollak writes in his new book. “Today it cannot even speak the truth itself.”

    The two sentences work as the thesis of See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle. The book, hitting store shelves in the midst of a presidential election debating the issues Pollak dissects within, arrives at an opportune time.

    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/22/joel-pollak-spotlights-see-no-evil-left/

  65. Danny Thomas

    For anyone interested in Moody Analytics and their take on Trump’s economics it’s here: https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf
    “The upshot of Mr. Trump’s economic
    policy positions under almost any scenario is
    that the U.S. economy will be more isolated
    and diminished.”

    and Clinton’s: https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-07-28-The-Macroeconomic-Consequences-of-Secretary-Clintons-Economic-Policies.pdf
    “Nonetheless, the upshot of our analysis
    is that Secretary Clinton’s economic policies
    when taken together will result in a stronger
    U.S. economy under almost any scenario.”

    (I didn’t write ’em, I’m just posting ’em).

    • Moody’s. Yes. Wasn’t that the credit rating agency that gave all of those toxic derivatives AAA credit ratings?

      Of course, they haven’t got an agenda. Totally impartial.

      Riiiiiiiiiiight!

      • Danny Thomas

        AK,
        Well if one’s being open about the discussion Moody’s would have to be suspect all things (money, money, money) considered. But they did provide their data and methods in their ‘dark arts’. Having said that, I couldn’t find a non ‘the media’ alternative. Suggestions would appreciated.

        My issue with Trump all along has related to policies or in many instances a lack of. Here, with the economic plans, we have some meat on the bones.

        I figured I’d catch flak but oh well. If it ain’t all about Trump good/Clinton bad then flak is to be had. Happy to look at alternatives. You’re usually pretty darn good at linking and explaining and not just waving things away unlike some.

        Please provide a suggestion or link if you’re aware of a ‘better’ analysis.

        Mark Zandi seems to be well respected, worked for McCain, contributed to McCain and Clinton’s campaign and both Clinton and Trump don’t seem to be big fans. When both teams are not please with officiating that usually means the refs did a ‘reasonable’ job.

        Here’s a politifact rating a Clinton ‘half true’ but there’s more discussion you might find of interest. It says Zandi confirmed he’s a dem. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/hillary-clinton/clinton-trump-both-say-moodys-economist-others-tea/

        From it: “He has advised and worked on issues for politicians on both sides of the aisle for many years.”

        Lots of congressional testimony too.

        Here’s a right leaning view of Trump’s ‘current’ view of addressing immigration. It concludes: ” Not only would it cost the public fiscally, but it would also greatly burden the economy. https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-budgetary-and-economic-costs-of-addressing-unauthorized-immigration-alt/

      • Would Moody’s be part of the Wall Street establishment that owns Clinton?

        That’s a rhetorical question for Double Dealing Danny.
        .

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        Well congrats. You got the air moving with lots of arm waving. The question now is do you have an alternative resource which is not ‘the media’? (That’s NOT a rhetorical question). I’d be happy to look at it.

        Signed DDD,

      • Having said that, I couldn’t find a non ‘the media’ alternative. Suggestions would appreciated.

        The Rise of Manufacturing Marks the Fall of Globalization AFAIK it’s open access. It isn’t going to be a detailed analysis in the format of Moody’s, but it offers a foundation for understanding.

        Credit rating is a complex subject, but always depends on assuming debtors will continue to act in the way they did before. (I know whereof I speak, the bank I worked for was, AFAIK, the first to develop an automated credit analyzing algorithm for mortgages.)

        So, an analysis by a credit rating agency is going to have that unwarranted assumption built in allover. But things aren’t the same. “Globalization” was built on continually cheaper transportation, driven by innovations such as containerized cargo. With standardized containers.

        But there’s a new, faster, positive feedback process in play, driven by automation. A good analogy would be how the positive feedback in building the downdraft of cooling air in a T-storm (usually) chokes off the updraft of warm humid air blowing in along the surface.

        This is “changing everything”, as Bill Gates is purported to have said about the Internet. And Trump’s focus on nationalism and protective tariffs feeds right into it.

        So, no. I don’t believe anybody can predict the outcomes of either policy. Those who think they can are obsolete.

        We’ll just have to vote blind. But consider, the people who have been victimized by the last few decades of “Globalization” have a lot less to lose, and more to potentially gain from a really radical change (Trump) while the entire “establishment” has more to lose, and less to gain.

      • AK,

        Thanks for that link. It’s a side discussion and as you know not about Trumps policies.

        “So, no. I don’t believe anybody can predict the outcomes of either policy.”

        Yeah. I did call it ‘dark arts’ but the effort entailed googling economists views of trumps economic plans and again adding ‘conservative’ in front of the same but all came up less than positive towards Trump. The Moody’s piece at least showed and told not just told.

        So based on ‘can’t be predicted’ anyone (including Trump) who suggests they have answers to those issues must be wrong based on your view. Does that jive with your view? If so, Trump can’t help ‘the blacks’, ‘the middle class’, or any other ‘group’. So your support is that ‘the other guy can’t either’ so we can just eliminate any economic discussion.

      • It’s a side discussion and as you know not about Trumps policies.

        Wrong!

        We’re not talking about “Trump[‘]s policies” here, we’re talking about the effect of “Trump[‘]s policies”. Which depends on the system they’re having an effect on. Which system is continually changing, at rates that can suddenly accelerate.

        That was the point of my analysis of Moody’s: they assume that most things aren’t going to change, at least not very fast. But things are changing. And that change is accelerating.

        So based on ‘can’t be predicted’ anyone (including Trump) who suggests they have answers to those issues must be wrong based on your view. Does that jive with your view?

        Well, not really. Trump’s ideas involve a retrenchment from the prior “Globalization”, that was primarily fostered by the likes of containerized cargo, and other economic factors that have had similar effects.

        If those factors were still dominant, I could guess (with some assurance, but not much) that his target audience are SOL, and his proposals would be like trying to swim upstream in the Amazon.

        But they’re not. His proposal might help, if they’re implemented with the right synchronization with the new trends. I’d say Clinton’s wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in the nether regions of helping the victims of “Globalization”. They’ll just drag them down to the same level as the poorest unskilled workers in India, Viet Nam, and the Chinese hinterlands.

      • AK,

        “I don’t believe anybody can predict the outcomes of either policy.” This confuses me when the attempt is to apply their ‘effects’. I can be dense but this doesn’t compute.

      • “I don’t believe anybody can predict the outcomes of either policy.” This confuses me when the attempt is to apply their ‘effects’.

        Well, I guess I was using the terms differently. “Outcomes” was intended to apply to the entire range of metrics, while “helping the victims of ‘Globalization’” was more specific.

      • AK,
        Okay. Thanks.

        I’ve tried to find other sources than Moody, but the one’s who’ve written are largely negative. Moody showed the data a methods allowing parsing so it’s the best of that approach vs. ‘the media’. There are a few other more ‘left’ relative equals but the background of Moody’s author tilted the scales.

        Appreciate it.

      • Also same group that had every economist and political pundit crying about the economic doom that would result from them downgrading the US’s credit rating.

  66. Double Dealing Danny thinks a biased source “Wall Street”, one that is running against Trump, is better than no source at all.

    I disagree. That’s like saying eating sh*t is better than skipping a meal.

  67. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/08/15/on-proposals-for-economic-growth-trump-hillary/#2945eb826e23

    On Proposals For Economic Growth, Trump Beats Hillary

    I’m no fan of Donald Trump’s naked appeals to white nationalism, his checkered business record, and his chaotic approach to policy. But Trump’s economic address last week at the Detroit Economic Club did contain several sound proposals—most importantly, on tax reform—ideas that shouldn’t be dismissed simply because they came from a deeply flawed messenger.

    The fact is that the Obama recovery has been sluggish, and millions of workers remain mired in low-paying or part-time work. As Hillary Clinton put it recently, “I think we’ve had a period where the gains have gone to the wealthy…

    –more at link

    • From the ‘more at link’:
      “But by aligning his plan more closely with the one proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, Trump has improved it substantially. The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, scored Trump’s original proposal as increasing the federal deficit by $10 trillion in its first decade. The House GOP plan, by contrast, would increase the deficit by $191 billion in its first ten years, according to the Foundation, with deficit reductions in later years thanks to robust economic growth.”

      Preceeded by:
      “Trump’s tax-reform plan is imperfect. (For more on its imperfections, read Ryan Ellis.)” So I read Ryan Ellis: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/08/09/donald-trumps-tax-plan-is-a-big-capital-gains-mystery/#c1b95a875c7c
      Interesting headline: “Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Is a Big Capital Gains Mystery”

      But these are both still ‘the media’ and show no numbers or methods.

      The bio for the author states: “led by Forbes Opinion Editor Avik Roy”. Not much there so looking further he’s a financial guy and seems to have decent cred but disavows the republican party (racial reasons). Seems like a reasonable middle of the road so unlike the responses to the first post, won’t arm wave him away. Worth considering.

      • “The Media” is short for the mainstream media or MSM. Forbes isn’t even close to being MSM. It’s a bi-weekly financial magazine rated 94 among all US magazines with an audited circulation of just under a million.

        Fox News is MSM. Top dawg at the moment. They get close to 2 million viewers during the day and twice that during prime time in the evening. The O’Reilly Factor, the most watched program on cable news, gets 3.5 million viewers tuning at 8PM EST every single day.

        It’s probably not awfully fair for Trump to complain much as Fox loves him more than anyone else and America loves Fox more than any other MSM outlet. Fox is unique in that regard though. The rest of the MSM pretty much disses him at every opportunity.

        In print media MSM examples are New York Times and LA Times which have daily circulations of well under 1 million daily and that is 30 times Fortune Magazine.

        I really wish you’d get a clue Double Dealing Danny.

      • Dave,

        I’m doing my best to ‘get a clue’. So according to you, Fortune is to be trusted because it’s not well read. Therefore: “Owning up to global warming
        It’s time for Americans to face reality about climate change.”

        Senior editor, David Kirkpatrick, Fortune
        http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/24/technology/fastforward_fortune/
        (In case the above to too dated for your tastes)

        And: http://fortune.com/2016/08/22/clinton-trump-economists/
        “Economists Say Trump Is Their Third Choice for President”

        And: http://fortune.com/donald-trump-businessman/
        HE ALWAYS COMES FIRST
        HE WANTS YOU TO KNOW HOW RICH HE IS (3.72B$ per Fortune)
        HE SUES FIRST, ASKS QUESTIONS LATER
        HE’S TAKEN ON DEBT RECKLESSLY
        HE THINKS HE’S GREAT AT EVERYTHING

        Okay. I get it. TYVM!

      • Trust but verify. Fortune isn’t notorious for partisan bias that I’m aware of of. The New York Times is biased. The LA Times. Fox News. All MSM and all pretty far from objection. Besides I’m not the one who came up with this media canard that’s taking up so much of your tiny brain so assuming I’m obligated to play along is a stupid mistake. Peachy don’t play that game.

      • In the Trump Third Choice Among Economists, Fortune was simply reporting a survey result of some obscure (at least to me) organization of private economists. I didn’t see anything remarkably wrong. Fortune stuck to the facts. Whether the survey itself was worth a tinker’s damn is another question entirely.

        At this point, if you were honest, you’d agree there’s a range of assessments from ostensible unbiased experts in economy about Trump’s economic plan. Some, like Forbes, received it quite well. But you aren’t honest and everyone knows that. So you won’t agree.

        The bottom line is that economics is a soft science with competing overlapping schools of thought. Your problem is that Trump’s economic plan isn’t crazy at all and wins respect in some unbiased expert circles as often as it gets panned in others. You need crazy to pillory him and Trump is being reasonable in the opinion of a number of economics experts. You can’t deal with reasonable. It’s beyond you. Over your pay grade. So you make attempt after intellectually dishonest attempt to make anything that doesn’t fit into your squinched up poorly informed world view seem ridiculous. That’s why you’re Double Dealing Danny.

      • Danny Thomas

        Hmmm. Too bad there Dave. My time stamp: 10:40, yours 11:37.

        My comment: “Seems like a reasonable middle of the road so unlike the responses to the first post, won’t arm wave him away. Worth considering.”
        Reference: Your Forbes link.

        “Yours: “At this point, if you were honest, you’d agree there’s a range of assessments from ostensible unbiased experts in economy about Trump’s economic plan. Some, like Forbes, received it quite well. But you aren’t honest and everyone knows that. So you won’t agree.”

        Got any Honest in ya there Dave? Backtracking due and apologies accepted.

  68. From the article:

    US have ignored the leak of thousands of emails from billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation by the activist hacker group DCLeaks. The OSF is the vehicle through which Soros has funneled billions of dollars over the past two decades to non-profit organizations in the US and throughout the world.

    According to the documents, Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor. So it is likely the case that the media’s support for Clinton has played some role in the mainstream media’s bid to bury the story.

    It is also likely however, that at least some news editors failed to understand why the leaked documents were worth covering. Most of the information was already public knowledge. Soros’s massive funding of far-left groups in the US and throughout the world has been documented for more than a decade.

    But failing to see the significance of the wider story because many of the details were already known is a case of missing the forest for the trees. The DCLeaks document dump is a major story because it exposes the forest of Soros’s funding networks.

    The first thing that we see is the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s philanthropic project. No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts. No policy area is left untouched.

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Soross-campaign-of-global-chaos-464770

    • More …

      On the surface, the vast number of groups and people he supports seem unrelated. After all, what does climate change have to do with illegal African immigration to Israel? What does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Greek immigration policies? But the fact is that Soros-backed projects share basic common attributes.

      They all work to weaken the ability of national and local authorities in Western democracies to uphold the laws and values of their nations and communities.

      They all work to hinder free markets, whether those markets are financial, ideological, political or scientific. They do so in the name of democracy, human rights, economic, racial and sexual justice and other lofty terms.

    • This is a great article. It ties together a lot of the problems we see today that seem disjoint and unrelated, but they aren’t unrelated.

  69. Fortune Magazine

    http://fortune.com/2016/08/03/donald-trump-infrastructure/

    Reuters – not detailed but well worth reading for insight into making the economy great again in Trump’s definition of great:

    Why Donald Trump wants to hike taxes on hedge-fund billionaires

    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/09/10/heres-why-other-billionaires-hate-donald-trumps-economic-ideas/

    • David,

      Wait. So now we’re okay with MORE debt :”The fact that the Republican nominee has evidently become comfortable with higher debt levels may offer a solution to this conundrum.” (He has said in the past that “He Loves Debt, guess $20 trillion ain’t enuf?)

      “the Donald Trump candidacy is actually evidence that, for the first time in more than three decades, America’s ideological center is shifting left again.” (from your fortune link)

      • I’m ambivalent about debt. Interest rates are so low that if the government can find someone to buy it then that’s not a problem in and of itself. I have a problem in how the money is spent not in how it’s acquired.

        I’d say write that down but you won’t and you’ll go right on being Double Dealing Danny who forgot I ever wrote what I just wrote because it’s too reasonable and you can’t deal with reasonable arguments.

      • The problem isn’t, nor has it historically ever been, debt per se, but unproductive debt:

        The rise of unproductive debt
        http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/the-rise-of-unproductive-debt/

        Of concern is the productivity of that debt. The next chart looks at the annual change in credit and compares it with the annual change in nominal GDP.

        In the late 1970s an extra dollar in private debt delivered around $1.80 in GDP growth. In the period immediately prior to the Great Recession (what Australians call the global financial crisis) an extra dollar in debt was giving us around 40 cents more in GDP – not the best return on investment.

        Why was our debt becoming increasing non-productive over time? It’s a good question and I am not sure I know the answer.

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

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

      • Well it’s in the platform and we all know how important platforms are: “Republicans believe that reducing the multi-trillion dollar debt is imperative for the well-being of this country. We should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt.” https://www.gop.com/topic/budget-and-spending-national-debt/canonical/

        There’s even a petition: https://www.gop.com/stop-the-spending/?

        But only 9242 have signed on and petition is dated 1-16-2015.

        Maybe debt isn’t that much of a concern after all as long as it’s ‘productive’.

      • The rise of unproductive debt-why is it increasingly unproductive? I don’t know the answer either but Robert Gordon has written a good book looking into the question “The rise and fall of American growth:the US standard of living since the Civil War”

  70. More from that article:

    In many ways, Donald Trump’s campaign is a direct response not to Clinton, but to Soros himself.

    By calling for the erection of a border wall, supporting Britain’s exit from the EU, supporting Israel, supporting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and supporting the police against BLM, Trump acts as a direct foil to Soros’s multi-billion dollar efforts.

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Soross-campaign-of-global-chaos-464770

  71. Mexicans are to modern democrats like Clinton as blacks were to civil rights era democrats like Lyndon Johnson.

    It was sicking with LBJ and its still sickening today. Read about it:

    http://www.snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/

    • Johnson, regardless of his motives, realigned the Democratic Party to become the party of the working class and identity politics. The Republican Party became the party of the affluent and the bigots.

      Reagan achieved another realignment with his own version of identity politics, luring a hefty chunk of working-class voters into the Republican fold with his appeal to evangelical Christians.

      Now the Democratic Party has completely thrown the working class under the bus. It has become the party of identity politics, the super wealthy and the “well educated” — those with “university” as they say here in Mexico.

      Trump is making a pitch to the working class, trying to lure them into the Republican fold with an appeal to their material self-interest. We’ll see how it goes. He probably only has until Labor Day to find his footing for the final lap of the campagin.

  72. The Direct Democracy President

    This REALLY deserves a read.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149321013966/the-direct-democracy-president

    To many people – if not most – Donald Trump looks like the type of candidate who would become a “strongman” president, ignoring the advice of experts and the opinion of the people. That’s the persuasion framework that Clinton has created in your mind, probably with the help of the Master Persuader I call Godzilla.

    But does the evidence support that view? I see the opposite.

    Months ago, when Trump stumbled on his answer about criminal penalties for women who seek illegal abortions, the public went nuts, and Trump immediately corrected his position. That’s direct democracy. Trump heard the opinion of the majority and instantly adopted it.

    Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration. The public felt his position was too extreme, and let him know. Eventually, Trump softened his stance to talk about countries of origin, not religion. The public still wasn’t pleased, so Trump softened again to his current position of “extreme vetting.” That evolution in policy looks like direct democracy to me. The public told Trump what it wanted, and Trump evolved to it.

    Likewise, we found out this week that Trump’s plan to deport 11 million…

    –more at link

  73. The Direct Democracy President

    This REALLY deserves a read.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149321013966/the-direct-democracy-president

    To many people – if not most – Donald Trump looks like the type of candidate who would become a “strongman” president, ignoring the advice of experts and the opinion of the people. That’s the persuasion framework that Clinton has created in your mind, probably with the help of the Master Persuader I call Godzilla.

    But does the evidence support that view? I see the opposite.

    Months ago, when Trump stumbled on his answer about crimina1 pena1ties for women who seek i11egal abortions, the public went nuts, and Trump immediately corrected his position. That’s direct democracy. Trump heard the opinion of the majority and instantly adopted it.

    Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration. The public felt his position was too extreme, and let him know. Eventually, Trump softened his stance to talk about countries of origin, not religion. The public still wasn’t pleased, so Trump softened again to his current position of “extreme vetting.” That evolution in policy looks like direct democracy to me. The public told Trump what it wanted, and Trump evolved to it.

    Likewise, we found out this week that Trump’s plan to deport 11 million…

    –more at link

    • Hillary’s MSM, however, is doing everything in its power to cast Trump’s softer stance on deportations as a “flip-flop,” and to keep in the public eye what he said during the primary. Here’s an example:

      Trump says he is not flip-flopping on immigration
      http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/08/22/donald-trump-immigration-not-flip-flopping-schneider-dnt-lead.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-immigration/

      What the MSM is not informing the public of is Clinton’s recent promise to stop all non-criminal deportations:

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

    • Trump is honing his immigration policy so that it pretty well fits with what most Americans want:

      1) The border secured — put an end to the stealth open-border policy that Obama has implemented
      2) Compassion and fairness towards those who have already reached the United States
      3) Better screening of visa applicants to insure:

      a) They meet security requirements and don’t present a threat to American citizens, and
      b) They don’t flood US labor markets and drive down wages for native-born Americans

      Here’s how Kellyanne Conway articulates the revamped policy in an interview yesterday:

      VIDEO: Conway — Trump Will Deport Those Who Have Been Convicted Of Crime, Will Build Wall
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/22/conway_trump_will_deport_those_who_have_been_convicted_of_crime_will_build_wall.html

      It’s standard practice for a candidate to moderate his or her positions from the primary to the general, but the MSM seems intent on making this as difficult as possible for Trump. Instead of calling it “direct democracy” as Adams does, they seem to prefer to call it “flip-flopping.”

      • Trump is negotiating with the public. He’s making a deal with us.

        Anyone who has bothered to listen to him should have seen this coming. I have been saying for quite some time that his seemingly extreme positions that cause controversy (and YUGE free press coverage) are just opening positions which get negotiated down. He doesn’t telegraph where in the middle he’s willing to settle. He probably doesn’t know that himself at the outset. He just knows he’ll listen and progress towards a handshake or call off the negotiation. That’s straight out of the “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” where the goal is either win-win or no-deal. No deal is a good one unless both sides are happy with the terms.

        He’s all about making good deals. Terrific deals. Win-win deals. Believe me. :-)

      • “He’s all about making good deals. Terrific deals. Win-win deals. Believe me. :-) ”

        For whom? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9

      • I don’t read anything on the Huffington Post.

      • But the answer to your question is he’s making a deal with a majority, issue by issue. A clear majority objects to something and he changes it. The result is that he doesn’t pay any attention to Republican party platform. He’s as independent as indendent gets and that’s why he’s leading large among independents. Independents decide the elections nowdays.

        In any case you obviously didn’t read Scott Adam’s article but chose to comment on it anyway. That’s why your nick is Double Dealing Danny. Is it uncomfortable being you? I’d be tempted to stick my head in the oven and check out if I were you. Unimaginable having so little integrity.

  74. From the article:

    But the exchanges, among 725 pages of correspondence from Abedin disclosed as part of a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch, illustrate the way the Clintons’ international network of friends and donors was able to get access to Hillary Clinton and her inner circle during her tenure running the State Department.

    The release of the correspondence follows previous disclosures of internal emails showing a similar pattern of access for foundation contributors, and it comes as Republicans allege that Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, used her perch in the Obama administration to trade favors for donations. Clinton and the foundation have vigorously denied the charge.

    [Emails show that Clinton Foundation donors got access at State Department]

    The disclosures also cast new doubts on Clinton’s past claim that she turned over all her work-related email from her private server to the State Department for eventual release to the public.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

    • New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors
      http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/6883911647.html

      Crown Prince of Bahrain Forced to Go Through Foundation to See Clinton, after Pledging $32 Million to Clinton Global Initiative.

      Hollywood Executive Casey Wasserman, Slimfast Mogul Daniel Abraham, Controversial Appointee Rajiv Fernando also among Clinton Foundation Donors Granted Special Favors from Clinton State Department.

  75. From my daily email missives from Texas Monthly:

    Trumped

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is in Texas today, holding a private fundraising event in Fort Worth before heading to Austin for another private fundraiser and a public rally later tonight.

    It’s kind of weird for Trump to be in Texas at this point in the election—especially considering he was just here in June for a few days holding rallies and fundraisers across the state—and it’s maybe even weirder for Trump to be in Austin, of all places, Texas’s most liberal city.

    According to the Dallas Morning News, this is the latest election-cycle visit to Texas by a presidential candidate in twenty years. But then again, Trump’s not exactly a normal candidate, either. And though he’s been slipping in the polls here as of late, Texas has apparently been pretty good to him. According to the Austin American-Statesman, the Trump campaign has raised more than $5 million in Texas through the end of July, making the Lone Star State the nation’s biggest Trump donor. That still pales in comparison to how much Texans forked over for Ted Cruz ($19.8 million) and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton ($13.3 million), but as the Statesman notes, Trump took a little while to get his fundraising act together.

    According to the Texas Tribune, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and ex-governor Rick Perry will be on board as Trump mills about Texas, but Governor Greg Abbott won’t be around (he’ll be in the hospital receiving treatment for burns he suffered a while ago), and recent Trump convert George P. Bush also won’t participate. Cruz, obviously, won’t be seen with Trump during his visit, either. Oh, and Robert Morrow, the eccentric Travis County GOP chairman, will be standing outside Trump’s rally in Austin, wearing a jester’s hat and holding a big sign that accuses Trump of raping a child. So, there’s that.

    • Having lived in Austin for 23 years now the “liberal” label is a bit misleading.

      I moved here after 20 years living in Orange County, California. Orange County has a reputation as the most conservative stronghold in perhaps the most liberal state in the union. The most liberal county in Texas (Travis, where Austin is located) is virtually indistinguishable from the most conservative county in California as far as political ideologies of the inhabitants.

  76. We need to get this bastard out of our business. From the article:

    A top priority of liberal billionaire George Soros is to enlarge the U.S. electorate by 10 million voters by 2018, according to leaked documents.

    The plan to grow the electorate by millions of voters was discussed during a May 2014 board meeting of the Open Society Foundations, a liberal grant-making group founded by Soros. A 220-page guide detailing the plan was among more than 2,500 hacked Soros documents released by DC Leaks, which publishes documents from influential officials around the world.

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/soros-aims-to-enlarge-electorate-by-10-million/

  77. Todd Miller makes an empirical claim in this article which is actually true.

    Tomgram: Todd Miller, The Great Mexican Wall Deception
    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176179/tomgram%3A_todd_miller%2C_the_great_mexican_wall_deception/#more

    Net Mexican immigration to the United States is at an all-time high.

    But the number of immigrants who enter the United States by sneaking across the border has slowly dwindled away, so much so to that the number is nearing historical lows.

    The way that Mexican immigrants enter the US. now is with temporary visas. While Clinton was Secretary of State, the number of these issued by the State Department almost doubled.

    With the help of a friendly U.S. State Department, immigrants no longer have to sneak across the border. They just walk across and through the Border Patrol check point with their newly minted visa.

    • Correct. It shouldn’t be harder for a Mexican to get a US visa stamped on his passport than it is for an American to get a Mexican visa. That’s pretty standard reciprocity. The hitch is that those who use a visa can’t really commute because the entry and exit frequency is tracked. So they have to stay once they’re here in violation of the visa’s time limit. The other hitch is getting a passport in the first place for non-criminals in Mexico. This lends legitimacy to Trump’s assertion that those who cross the border illegally aren’t respectable law-abiding Mexican citizens who can simply get a passport, enter legally, then illegally overstay the visa.

    • Correct. It shouldn’t be harder for a Mexican to get a US visa stamped on his passport than it is for an American to get a Mexican visa. That’s pretty standard reciprocity. The hitch is that those who use a visa can’t really commute because the entry and exit frequency is tracked. So they have to stay once they’re here in violation of the visa’s time limit. The other hitch is getting a passport in the first place for non-crimiinals in Mexico. This lends legitimacy to Trump’s assertion that those who cross the border illlegally aren’t respectable law-abiding Mexican citizens who can simply get a passport, enter legally, then illlegally overstay the visa.

      The exception is temporary workers who commute to the US for a few months, work some construction, live 6 guys in a cheap apartment, send the money home while here, then return to be with their family. Lather rinse and repeat. That’s common in Texas and no one really complains about it.

  78. From the article:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

    At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

    Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

    http://www.herald-dispatch.com/ap/ap_nation/many-donors-to-clinton-foundation-met-with-her-at-state/article_f42d8429-796b-5b57-a83f-226f11118caa.html

  79. Danny Thomas

    That darn Obama Immigration policy (looks like Trumps a buyer at the current ‘price’): http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-23/trump-floats-obama-like-deportation-plan-and-fans-don-t-mind

    Think Bloomberg fits Springers ‘well not that many folks read it so it’s not MSM’ criteria.

    Ball’s in play!

    • Pay attention Double Dealing Danny. I told you I’m not the author of nor a player in the MSM isn’t trustworthy game. I merely corrected your uninformed notion of who is and isn’t considered MSM so you can at least play the game who I seem to recall as the game’s originator. Or maybe it was Stehle. I don’t pay much attention to either of them. Too time consuming they’re both windbags who get into boring handbag fights with other girls like you.

      • corrected:

        play the game WITH JIM2 who I seem to recall as the game’s originator

      • Danny Thomas

        IIRC, the term I used was ‘the media’. But we’re all about ‘the honesty and the integrity’ right ‘big’ Dave.

        So far the trifecta has been nailed. Aiming for the superfecta?

      • Media is uselessly broad term out of context. In political contexts it is usually a shortened form of mainstream media or MSM.

        If you are applying a different definition in this context then you’ll need to clarify. Will you? Doubtful. Because you Double Dealing Danny and Double Dealing Danny deals in ambiguities. He wallows in it like a pig in sh*t.

      • David,

        “Media is uselessly broad term out of context.” Not my term, I’m just pointing out the uses of it. Tell ‘others’, not me.

        And you’ve downplayed the protests at the Austin rally. Notice you didnt’ mention this: “The Trump Sandwich: White bread, full of bologna, side of Russian dressing, a little pickle, with a wall of Mexican chips.
        Disclaimer: If you come in to order this you may not get what you were told you were buying.” http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/08/22/canadian-deli-drops-donald-trump-themed-boloney-sandwich-after-receiving/

    • If one reads the article, and not just the headline, it explains where Trump’s policy differs from that of Obama and Clinton.

      One key question is: What does Clinton propose to do about the historically high levels of legal immigration that Clinton and Obama have ushered in, most of it comprised of immigrants with extremely low educational achievement? Is this a policy that most Americans agree with?

      TRUMP

      • “…cut legal immigration levels…”

      • “….not clamoring for expulsion of undocumented people en masse.”

      • “….avoid any discussion of what to do about undocumented immigrants until steps are taken to stop their flow into the U.S.”

      • …’You don’t debate how you’re going to bail out the boat until you plug the hole.”

      • …”opposition to granting undocumented immigrants legal status.”

      • “…build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and…slash legal-immigration flows….”

      CLINTON

      • “….proposes a path to citizenship through legislation…”

      • “…executive leniency on deportation beyond what Obama has offered…”

      The article quotes one Trump supporter: “You do one thing in a primary to get our core people—it’s just American politics.” Naturally, having done this, Trump is now trying to get his policy back to the center, more in alignment with what most Americans want. This is SOP in presidential politics, but like I commented above, the MSM is trying to make this difficult for him.

      • And look who’s leading the charge against Trump for trying to moderate his immigrattion stance, besides the MSM. Who would have ever thunk it?

        “Trump’s stated position in the last 24 hours is utterly mind boggling,” warned Rick Tyler, a former spokesman for Texas Senator Ted Cruz. “If he gets tagged with the amnesty label, it’s over. He’s going to lose a huge portion of what has up until now been his core support.”

  80. I have just been watching a one hour programme on British tv about Donald trump.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to cross his new campaign manager….

    Trump was his usual pompous very loud self, shouting at his mass rallies and seemingly making things up as he went along.

    However, there was one segment where he was speaking at a very small event in Scotland. In complete contrast to his mass rally performances-and I use the word performance deliberately- trump was calm and sensible and reflective. An altogether more likeable and reasonable person. Does the private trump have anything in common with mass rally trump? Will he be more reasonable and responsible than many of his supporters and opponents believe?

    Tonyb

  81. Just bizarre –

    Pretty funny –

    The amount that Trump’s campaign pays for renting office space in his own building skyrockets after he stops “self-financing” his campaign and starts paying for the rent with other people’s money.

    Must be coincidence.

    • The amount that Trump’s campaign pays for renting office space in his own building skyrockets after he stops “self-financing” his campaign and starts paying for the rent with other people’s money.

      Must be coincidence.

      Yes, coincidence with him tripling his space to 3 floors instead of 1 as he builds out his campaign staff.

    • I would consider that a plus. He makes the most of any given situation.

  82. From the article:

    Huma Abedin must be a remarkable woman: She has held down four of the worst jobs in politics, several of them simultaneously: right hand to Hillary Rodham Clinton, fixer and patron-patronizer for the Clinton Foundation, an editor of a journal spawned by a major al-Qaeda financier, and wife to Anthony Weiner.

    Mrs. Carlos Danger has some explaining to do.

    So does Mrs. Clinton. More, in fact.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439258/hillary-clinton-huma-abedin-troubling-questions-influence-peddling-corruption

  83. From the article:

    Yet, our best estimates find that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance appears to have lowered employment rates of low-wage workers. This negative unintended consequence (which are predicted by some of the existing economic literature) is concerning and needs to be followed closely in future years, because the long-run effects are likely to be greater as businesses and workers have more time to adapt to the ordinance. Finally, we find only modest impacts on earnings. The effects of disemployment appear to be roughly offsetting the gain in hourly wage rates, leaving the earnings for the average low-wage worker unchanged. Of course, we are talking about the average result.

    More specifically, we find that median wages for low-wage workers (those earning less than $11 per hour during the 2nd quarter of 2014) rose by $1.18 per hour, and we estimate that the impact of the Ordinance was to increase these workers’ median wage by $0.73 per hour. Further, while these low-wage workers increased their likelihood of being employed relative to prior years, this increase was less than in comparison regions. We estimate that the impact of the Ordinance was a 1.1 percentage point decrease in likelihood of low-wage Seattle workers remaining employed. While these low-wage workers increased their quarterly earnings relative to prior years, the estimated impact of the Ordinance on earnings is small and sensitive to the choice of comparison region. Finally, for those who kept their job, the Ordinance appears to have improved wages and earnings, but decreased their likelihood of being employed in Seattle relative other parts of the state of Washington.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-23/something-unexpected-happened-when-seattle-raised-minimum-wage

  84. Back from Trump rally. Videos don’t do them justice. The stadium seats were packed full (6500) and the floor nearly filled. 8000+. Gals sitting to my right drove in from San Antonio. I’ve never seen the parking there overflow so much and I’ve been to a lot of big rodeos and county fairs there.

    The videos of these things sure don’t do them justice. There were at least as many women as men and all ages. Mostly white but there were two black evangelical preachers warming up the crowd plus a few other Texans then Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, and former NYC mayor Rudy Guilliani. It was tough not to cry when about 10 mothers of children killed by illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists. The local woman whose husband and son were mowed down in Italy not long ago, the mother of our ambassador in Libya, a legal Mexican immigrant whose son was killed by an illegal, a Hebrew immigrant with a dead son, and several others from Orlando, San Bernadino, Fort Hood all got up and spoke for a minute each.

    The cheering and clapping was intense and there was plenty of “build that wall”, “lock her up”, and “U S A”. The Austin PD was there in multitudes and were cheered for along time when Trump thanked them. I was close to a knot of cops and the chief. They sure loved the support. Only 4 protesters total were outside the event. I sh*t you not. Four. There were four interruptions by protesters inside. Trump never said a word except once while they were escorted out but the crowd chanted “get ’em out” each time. The one comment he made was “You know the Bernie Sanders protesters are a lot more interesting than these. Very low energy.” That got a good laugh.

    All in all great fun. I timed the end of the speech perfectly and was walking out the door on the final “Make America Great Again”. It still took me 15 minutes to get out of the parking lot. I bet the people who left last waited an hour. Scores of police directing traffic. It felt quite safe.

  85. And he stuck to message perfectly. A few ad hoc comments not on the teleprompters usually preceded by a “by the way” and the “low energy” comment about the protesters wasn’t teleprompted.

    Looks like Trump is perfectly capable of being “presidential” on demand for as long as he chooses. Two more weeks of it and the memories of primary candidate Trump will be gone.

    Full event here:

  86. Oops sorry. Snagged the wrong youtube vid…

  87. Thanks for the various replies concerning my observation of the two sides of Trump. I will try to watch some of the videos posted here later.

    Will those who like his rumbustious style feel ‘sold out’ by his more mellow persona? Will those who already thoroughly dislike him be prepared to think again, or even realise he has another side? In short will he risk alienating friend and foe?

    I don’t know the answer but suspect that-like Brexit- the opinion polls don’t capture the full support for Trump as many people will not want to admit their support of ideas that don’t play well in much of the MSM and the political elite.

    tonyb

    • Speaking for myself, I feel the fate of the US as we have known it is at stake. Call it nationalism if you like, but there is value in preserving a culture that has prevailed through so many travails (even though I know we are “only” a couple hundred years old :) .)

      I want him to do whatever it takes to win.

    • tony –

      The following video is rather long, but you might find that it gives insight into the factors behind who does and doesn’t support Trump:

      http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/08/09/why-the-centre-cannot-hold/

      Further, there is no evidence that I know of that supports your speculation as to why the polls wouldn’t show the full support for Trump.

      Thus far, counter to David’s amusing theory, online polls don’t favor Trump relative to other kinds of polls (in fact, on average he performs very slightly worse in the online polls), and Trump did not outperformed the polls in the primaries. Trump sychophants and toadies like to make that claim, but they conflate the effect of undecided voters during polling reaching a decision to vote with the “Bradley effect” resulting from social-desirability bias.

      • BTW –

        It’s Judith’s bud, Jonathan Haidt. He does discuss, to a small amount, Brexit (and how opinions on the death penalty correlated more strongly with Brexit votes than economic status)….

        The most relevant part is from around 10 minutes to 41 minutes…with the part from around 30-41 minutes most pertinent to the characteristics of Trump supporters.

      • And one more thing…despite much speculation about a ;potential “Bradley effect” with Obama’s candidacy, note that he actually outperformed the polling in the 2012 election.

        Re: 2008:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06poll.html?_r=0

  88. “Will those who like his rumbustious style feel ‘sold out’ by his more mellow persona? ”

    I would not call it more mellow. More focused is apt.

    The two black preachers warming up the crowds were dissing President Johnson. LBJ, early 1960s, John F. Kennedy’s VP, and author of Great Society program addressing poverty and racial injustice. The president who privately said “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”. LBJ purposely locked in a government-dependent poverty class and made sure they knew which party was giving them the free soup and free housing.

    From memory it went like this: “We traded our black families and black communities for bowls of soup from the white man. Now most of our young black men are unemployed or in jail, our mothers single and living on welfare in broken down inner cities, our children in schools that aren’t teaching them anything. This has got to stop. Donald Trump says this has got to stop. I say it’s got to stop. Donald Trump wants to help us rebuild our communities, our schools, and our families. Stop the crime and make our neighborhoods safe. Bust up the gangs and stop the bullets. Give us back the self-respect we deserve with good jobs, good schools, and intact families. We need this man to bring about these changes. The democrats have ruined us. Obama hasn’t helped he only made it worse. We can’t afford any more of their failed policies. We need change and we need it now.”

    It was quite moving. I’ve long said we need to disassemble the poverty stricken inner cities by any means necessary. I don’t know how it can be done but I know it must be done. It won’t be cheap or easy but all Americans deserve safe streets, good public schools, job opportunities, and intact families with a mother and father. The republic won’t survive without it.

    • The political elite, the lobbyists, the bankers, those with vested interests and those resistant to populist change have surely come too much to the fore in American politics over the last decade or two.

      I do not feel America is as vigorous, or as enterprising or as willing to protect and promote freedoms as it was in the recent past. In short it probably needs a ‘reset’ and Clinton is certainly not the right person to do that, she is surely very much the ‘business as usual’ candidate. Trump is more likely to be a catalyst for change, but whether he is the right catalyst he has not yet definitively shown.

      I will watch the various videos including the one posted by Joshua and see whether the glimpses I saw of a more reasonable and reasoned Trump that might make him Presidential material are carried through elsewhere.

      It is not my country of course and I don’t have a vote, but it seems to me that Jim summed up the situation with his comment at 7.30am.

      As regards ‘hidden’ support I was able to ‘feel’ for myself that the brexit vote and desire for change was much stronger than the govt, political elite, pollsters, business leaders and academics realised.

      I am not in tune with America in the same way, but it is obvious there are a lot of dissatisfied voters, and those who rarely vote, and Clinton will have to do a better job of rousting out her supporters than our govt did in mobilising ‘remain’ supporters if the Presidential vote is to go the way she and the establishment expect.

      If Danny reads this I would be interested to hear if there is anything Trump can do at this late stage to win his vote as Trump has presented a certain persona that obviously does not appeal to Danny. Can he and others like him, change their minds?

      tonyb

      • I will watch the various videos including the one posted by Joshua and see whether the glimpses I saw of a more reasonable and reasoned Trump that might make him Presidential material are carried through elsewhere.

        If you can find his Apprentice shows, and watch and listen to him in the boardroom, after the contestants left the room, I think that’s the real Trump, and it’s this new guy, the one most his employees love, and the strangers he’s helped appreciate, and apparently there are a lot of these people, many who never knew who helped them(insiders are leaking some of these cases).

      • Danny is sitting on the fence. It’s just that the vast majority of his arrows land on the “right” side. Go figure.

      • Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        Hi Tony,
        Thank you for asking. That you did says something, although I’ve no idea what. Maybe it has something to do with my 9432 mostly negative towards Trump comments vs. 30 negative about Clinton.

        Forgive this long tirade but here goes.

        WHERE HAVE ALL THE SKEPTICS GONE? Many rail against the ‘faith’ of the CAGW’ers yet profess that same sort of ‘faith’ that Trump is some savior.

        America is great, thank you very much. Warts and all. Yes, it can be greater.

        Jim2 states: “Danny is sitting on the fence. It’s just that the vast majority of his arrows land on the “right” side. “(Thank you Jim for recognition that I do post some anti Clinton) “Go figure.” And right now that fence is hurting my hiney. We’re dealing with a freak show.

        The left is an easy target. Quite obviously there is a strong ‘right’ leaning to this blog. Which is why my ‘tendency’ is to take on the right. The sheer numbers of ‘anti’ left here take care of the that side. They go after Clinton (rightfully, she’s been careless and reckless and her e-mail and foundation oriented issues are obviously serious concerns). They go after Obama (for example the immigration issue while conveniently ignoring it’s been an issue since the 70’s and even even Trump is showing that his ‘science is unsettled’ on this issue). The lack of skepticism towards Trump here actually fascinates me, and spinning up those not skeptical is so very entertaining. When I post about Clinton it’s pretty much crickets.

        Jim2 has been railing on Soros recently. With good reason.

        I just discovered this yesterday. Robert Mercer, a hedge fund manager who does a lot (millions) of high frequency stock trades and makes millions on pennies in seconds.

        Turns out, those who wish to tax this type of trading have become his target. Examples include Senator John McCain (Rep.) Representative Peter DeFazio (Dem).
        https://theintercept.com/2016/08/23/trumps-new-billionaire-backer-also-funds-huge-stockpile-of-human-urine/ (Kinda funny, especially the P
        AC’s name at end)
        http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/azdc/2016/08/23/robert-mercer-funding-tv-attack-john-mccain-donald-trump/89122878/

        Mercer is a major backer of Breitbart (See Soros) and a large contributor to Trump. And he’s trying to buy elections to insure that his business won’t be taxed. And he’s got Trump’s ear and has stacked Trump’s campaign with his cronies. Just as sickening as the other side.

        It’s all about money. Clinton, Trump, and soooo many Pac’s and Super pacs. And this is with the Koch’s on the sideline. We couldn’t get one of those two on the phone (Clinton/Trump) but if one with money calls they’d each respond.

        Had a long discussion with my sis today telling her she should be thankful Trump exists. The obstructive nature within the Republican party is regretful. Tea Partiers behave as if compromise is capitulation (not my words but I’ve adopted them). We can’t even agree to take on Zika which affects AMERICANS no matter their politics. And those AMERICANS are ‘unborn’ which ‘the right’ as Jim2 worries about usually express concern about unborn.

        So Trump’s ‘blowing up’ the Republican party can’t do much but improve it. In the discussion with my sis I pointed this out and stated that I (we?) can only hope that the Hillary (let’s call it) phenomena (showing her a$$) (and Bernie’s involvement) will lead to an equal reaction to the democratic party.

        So part of the answer to your question (sorry this has taken so long) is for Trump to adopt Hillary’s ‘let’s get the money out of politics’ with a REAL policy in detail and have that be HIS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. That might be the difference maker. I’m about 51% Clinton 49% Trump. I fear an alternative vote would be a waste but these two parties stink as they stand. There needs to be a friggin’ American party and that does not exist right now.

        I actually like some portions of his policies. He’s socially left in talk (but not so much in actions). He’s a business guy (and has done well) and I respect and appreciate that. He’s got to get more detailed and offer policies and not just point out problems. He’s a jerrk like a Springer but even a Springer has value. (Think the ‘j’ word got me modded)

        I really don’t know what I’m going to do at this point. (Thanks for reading)

        Now I’ll await the flak.

      • Danny Thomas

        A representation of actual leadership from one not yet in office and who “might have had an appointment” but made the effort to address an issue leading to deformities and death (anyone who wishes to consider this as ‘hillarymongering’ I’ll state up front that I respect her choice to act) : https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/clinton-proposes-new-federal-fund-to-combat-zika-virus/2016/08/24/d5c7ba36-69ed-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html

      • hmmm.

        ==> I think that’s the real Trump, <==

        So the "real" Trump is the guy we saw on a TV show….because why would someone on a TV show present anything other than the unvarnished truth?

        ==> and the strangers he’s helped appreciate, and apparently there are a lot of these people, many who never knew who helped them(insiders are leaking some of these cases). <==

        Yeah. Like the long line of people in Atlantic City who say that Trump shortchanged them and made empty promises, or the long line of creditors and sub-contractors left holding the bag?

        Oh. Wait.

      • Yeah. Like the long line of people in Atlantic City who say that Trump shortchanged them and made empty promises, or the long line of creditors and sub-contractors left holding the bag?

        The market for Casio’s changed between starting that project and it getting finished, he filed bankruptcy instead of losing potentially tens of millions of dollar on it, he pulled the plug on it. This is what corporations do when a project no longer looks to be profitable, whether new product, medicine or real state.
        Once he filed bankruptcy he is not allowed to deal with the creditors, the courts do that.

      • Lol. Have s listen.

        http://www.npr.org/2016/03/17/470806232/opening-the-books-on-donald-trumps-business-deals-in-atlantic-city

        Then come back andb see if you still want to play apologist.

      • @Tony

        Trump polls a lot higher in online polls than telephone polls. Trump’s been branded a bigot and racist so there’s a lot of people who don’t believe it but don’t want to admit to another person in a phone call they are voting for him.

        It’s not safe, physically, in some situations to be a Trump supporter.

        I’m wondering how much bigger his rallies would be if people weren’t afraid for their safety to attend. When other members of my family found out me and my millennial daughter were going they were concerned for our safety. I was modestly concerned myself because I wouldn’t be able to carry a gun or even a taser between the parking lot and the arena. That’s not right when people fear for their safety just because they support an unpopular presidential candidate.

        Speaking of my millennial daughter she says she doesn’t understand the polling that says kids her age and hispanics in general are so skewed against Trump. For one she’s half hispanic herself and loves Trump and two like many her age a lot of her life revolves around facebook and she says practically her friends, many hispanic, are Trump supporters.

        Like Brexit, I suppose we won’t find out how many stealth Trump supporters are out there until the votes are counted in November. This is exactly why ballots are secret.

      • Danny

        Thanks for your long and interesting reply. Your political elite (and the associated ruling classes of bankers, lobbyists and others) need a rocket up their backsides, they have become so arrogant and complacent

        We gave one to our establishment with Brexit. This is your Brexit in as much, as Jim remarks, this is probably the last chance to change course should you want to regain something of that brash, brave, truculent, infuriating, freewheeling, soul that has underpinned the US for much of my lifetime and now seems to be slipping into history.

        I think both candidates are not of the calibre that would be expected of a great democracy but at least trump-for all his many flaws, is much more likely to light the blue touch paper. Who knows, he might turn out to be much more reasoned and reasonable than you expect, after all, he was able to change the mind of our mutual friend David, who at first was very sceptical of the man.

        tonyb

      • –snip–
        As of this writing, and with all polls factored into the model and under moderate smoothing, Clinton’s lead in the national polling average is 7.4 percentage points, 47.5 percent to Trump’s 40.1 percent. If you eliminate live-caller—i.e., talking to a human being who would totally judge you if you said you were supporting that lout Donald Trump—the margin narrows to 5.1 percentage points, 44.2 percent to 39.1 percent. If you count only live-caller polls, Clinton’s lead is 9.6 percentage points, 48.7 percent to 39.1 percent. So Trump slips 4.5 percentage points in live-caller polls versus all others, and 2.3 percentage points to the overall average. (Most of the big-name polls use live-caller.)

        Trump “consistently performs better,” as Conway says, in the sense that the race is tighter outside of live-caller polls. But it’s not his support that changes. You’ll notice that movement is almost entirely within Clinton’s support, while Trump’s is basically the same throughout. If there’s any inter-methodology disparity here, it’s that respondents are more likely to tell a fellow human that they support Clinton than they are to tell some tricksy robot.
        –snip–

      • OK, here’s one more.

        https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/08/Inet_Polls.jpg&w=1484

        But one has to wonder whether or not any amount of evidence will stop David from making that wrong claim.

      • Clinton’s lead certainly isn’t insurmountable, especially given that she’s such a week candidate and the even split in the electorate generally and the mediocre state of the economy.

        But if you’re going to state over and over that Trimp does better in online polling, and fabricated a cause for that to happen, that had nothing to do with whether or not the polls are correct that Clinton is leading.

  89. http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2016-08-23/nine-reasons-why-trump-is-in-austin/

    This was a very unusual rally. It’s the latest date for a presidential rally in Texas in modern history.

    The story above gets the stadium capacity wrong. It’s 25,000 square feet arena floor not 25,000 people. I looked it up. The capacity is 6500 seated around the floor and another 3000 seated on the floor itself. The stadium seats were completely filled and the stadium floor had no seats it was almost completely filled with people standing up. Given the standing audience I’m pretty sure the 9500 official capacity must have been exceeded. Like I said I’d never seen that many people packed into it before. Rodeos only pack the stands not the floor and usually the stands aren’t much more than half full except for Extreme Bull Riding which was the most popular rodeo day.

    I’m still reading the story. Will probably have more comments on it.

  90. So the New Atheists, who hold themselves out to be the arbiters of the one true science, don’t like Trump.

    Who wudda ever thunk it?

    Trump’s Anti-Science Campaign
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-anti-science-campaign

    The differences between the candidates and their parties could not be more stark…. While she hasn’t gone as far as Bernie Sanders in arguing for a carbon tax, Clinton has spoken out strongly about the need to address climate change….

    On the level of party platforms, too, the differences are extreme. Perhaps in response to Trump’s candidacy, the 2016 Republican Party platform extends policy proposals that were, in 2012, already anti-science. The platform proposes eliminating the current Administration’s Clean Power Plan; prohibiting the E.P.A. from regulating carbon dioxide; officially declaring that climate change is “far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue”; and dissenting from international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The platform also claims that it is illegal to contribute to the U.N.’s Framework Convention for Climate Change and its Green Climate Fund because of the Palestinian Authority’s membership in the United Nations. It opposes embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning for research purposes.

    The positions taken by Trump and the Republicans have consequences beyond science itself. Essentially, they are betting that, for a significant portion of the country, empirical reality doesn’t matter; they are also signalling that empirical reasoning won’t be the basis of their public policy. Today, of course, we face global challenges such as climate change, which are more urgent than any we have ever confronted. These challenges require a sober assessment of reality. When science is distorted on the campaign trail, it may produce applause lines. But if those distortions lead to bad public policy, the quality of people’s lives will suffer.

  91. From the article:

    Further suspicions of a quid pro quo also have surfaced because while the CFIUS deliberations were taking place, people who stood to profit from Uranium One sale donated more than $2.6 million to the Clinton Foundation and an investment bank with connections to the Russian government paid former president Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a speech more than his usual fee. Even before the sale was under consideration the Clinton Foundation received $31.3 million in donations from one person, Frank Giustra, who stood to benefit from the sale. Some of the donations were not properly disclosed at the time.

    http://circa.com/politics/election-2016/clinton-warned-in-2009-memo-that-russian-uranium-moves-were-bad-for-us-europe

  92. all things in moderation they say :)

  93. I find this irresponsible. If one truly cares about ‘making America great’ and lives matter (no matter if their skin color, or if they wear blue) then say what will ‘fix it’ NOW and don’t hold America (or Chicago) hostage until one gets elected (or loses) to say what the ‘fix’ is. Just asinine.

    “TRUMP: You have unbelievable — how? By being very much tougher than they are right now. They right now are not tough. I mean, I could tell you this very long and quite boring story. But when I was in Chicago, I got to meet a couple of very tough police. I said, how do you stop this? How do you stop this? If you were put in charge to a specific person, do you think you could stop this? He said, Mr. Trump I would be able to stop it in one week and I believed him 100 percent.

    When O’Reilly pushed for more details, Trump said this unnamed officer did not elaborate on what he would do, but the candidate said the officer “wants to use tough police tactics.” He continued:

    TRUMP: All I know is this. I went to a top police officer in Chicago who is not the police chief, and he — I could see by the way he was dealing with his people, he was a rough, tough guy, they respected him greatly. I said, how do you think you do it? He said Mr. Trump, within one week we could stop much of this horror show that’s going on.

    O’REILLY: But he didn’t tell you exactly precisely how.

    TRUMP: No, I didn’t ask him. Because I’m not the mayor of Chicago. But I’ll tell you what. I sent his name in and I said you probably should hire this guy. Because you have, you know, the expression you have nothing to lose. Look at what’s going on in Chicago. It’s horrible. This guy felt totally competent that he could stop it at a very short period of time.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/23/donald-trump-says-chicago-police-could-stop-surging-violence-by-being-much-tougher/?utm_term=.3034ba74cef9

    Playing chess with the lives of real people? Really? Didn’t even ask, because he’s not the mayor of Chicago yet wants to be President of the ENTIRE U.S., but he ‘sent his name in’? Really?

    But it’s probably a problem with the MSM.

    • Yeah, so Trump talks to a senior police officer in Chicago who says if he’s allowed to do his job the way he wants to do it he can stop a lot of violence in black communities very quickly.

      Danny doesn’t believe the black police officer. I guess they’re too prone to jive talkin’ in Double Dealing Danny’s mind.

      • “Danny doesn’t believe the black police officer.” Danny didn’t talk with ‘police officer’, Trump said that he (Trump) did. And the article didn’t state the ‘race’ of the officer that I could find. I did a ‘find’ search and the word “black” was not found within said article.

        My objection stands. IF (big if) the conversation took place and Trump ‘know’s’ how to ‘fix it’ (as only he does as he states) then it’s irresponsible for him not to state specifics.

        Additionally, if he ‘knows’, why didn’t he implement ‘the fix’ prior to his cancelled rally as he (Trump) said said rally was cancelled due to safety concerns.

        Finally, “if he’s allowed to do his job the way he wants to do it” well ‘what if’ what he wanted to do was improper? Trump would not be aware because Trump did not ask what said officer would do.

      • Danny Thomas

        Hmmm. A follow up article. Dated August 29, 2016.

        Danny revises his position. Danny doesn’t believe Trump about being able to ‘fix it’ in Chicago: ““All I can do is, from the top, I would be very, very strong in terms of being a cheerleader for the police,” he said. “They do a great job and they are not recognized for it.”

        Yeah! That’ll fix it!

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/29/chicago-police-to-trump-if-you-have-a-magic-bullet-to-stop-the-violence-let-us-know/?utm_term=.ba53ada8f024

        But there’s probably a problem with the reporting.

    • Danny –

      It looks like you forgot:

      –snip–
      “I have a message for all of you: The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon, and I mean very soon, will come to an end. Beginning on January 20th of 2017, safety will be restored,”

      –snip–

      Relax. Trump will win (it may not look like it, but the LA Times polls says that he’ll win, there were a lot of people at the recent rally in Texas, and although he didn’t outperform the polls in the primary, he will in the general because…well…because)..and when he does, there’s nothing to worry about. Crime and violence will end on January 20th. We’ll all be safe.

      You don’t need any details or plans. Trump’s a good negotiator. He’s a tough guy. He’s got big hands.

      (As an aside, I do recommend that you watch that Jonathan Haidt video I linked upstairs in this thread. I disagree with Haidt about much, but I think that he does give some pretty good insight into what makes Trump supporters tick. Think of our friends here if you watch that video and let me know what you think.

  94. If one were skeptical, one would naturally wonder why one would donate money to a ‘corrupt’ organization.

    So on the other hand, one might not be aware of the ‘corrupt nature’ of said organization. Which in turn means one has not done one’s homework.

    “Trump’s name is listed on the Clinton Foundation’s website as having given between $100,001 and $250,000.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/trump-clinton-foundation-donation/

    But there may be a problem with the MSM reporting.

  95. Donna Brazile: Trump’s pitch to blacks is deluded

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/24/trump-black-voters-democrats-donna-brazile/89221932/

    It’s a pitch to whites just as much. Brazile might be too dense to see that.

    The fact that he isn’t having rallies in Watts is a red herring. Hillary Clinton doesn’t hold rallies there either. Black folks have cable TV, internet, and smart phones. They can’t miss his message to them.

    The thing of it is that if blacks brush off his advances and continue to vote like one giant tribe for a party that has not brought the tribe up out of mean streets, poverty, and prison to join with mainstream America that pisses off white people and the white people decide to do a little tribal voting of their own for Donald Trump.

    Trump in other words divests himself of racist label by this outreach program. Whether it’s embraced by the black community or not it looks fantastic to the white community. Trump is now holding the high ground lock, stock, and barrel in the race relations department.

    It’s a brilliant move. Trump wins either way.

    • “Trump is now holding the high ground lock, stock, and barrel in the race relations department.”

      Keep telling yourself that. (Chose the “Fortune” article since you’ve sanctioned it’s use): http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

      • Read harder Danny.

        First of all the article talks mostly about Mexicans. There’s no love lost between Blacks and Mexicans. The conciliatory gestures to Mexicans are in a different form. That’s immigration. Do you see many black people complaining about the plight of illegal Mexicans fercrisakes?

        Regardless of your reference’s dearth of evidence of anti-black racism the point remains that Trump wins whether or not blacks think he’s really on their side. If they reject his offers to do everything he can to help lift inner cities out of the poverty cycle of single mothers, deadly gang violence, drugs, failing schools, and so forth the fact remains that he made the offer to help and was rejected. In the eyes of many white people that absolves him of sin and puts the it on the black community for rejecting his offer.

        Now imagine if whites were observed voting 99% for one candidate that wasn’t the favorite of blacks. That would appear they were voting as a race not individual thinking persons. A white mob if you would. Why then should an unbiased white person who sees blacks voting 99% one way not look at that as a black mob and vote against that mob’s selection just on principle? You think whites are immune to clinging together with their own race and voting against the black mob.

        Trump expands his base either way. With more blacks, more whites, or more of both. He can’t lose. There’s only one move for Trump and he’s doing it.

      • Danny Thomas

        So no ‘black officer’ David? Where’s the ‘honesty’ David? Some people have concerns about other people’s ‘honesty’, David.

        You’re actually not even recognizing you’re making my point for me even when I consider your ‘dearth of evidence’ (black officer and all). Playing ‘politics’ with peoples lives is irresponsible. IF Trump knows ‘the fix’ (he’s says he’s gonna ‘fix it’, right?) then he MUST produce the goods. Period. And do it now. There are people paying for his ‘politics’ with their lives on a daily basis in Chicago. (http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides). Supporting Trump holding back the ‘fix’ is immoral.

        “He can’t lose. There’s only one move for Trump and he’s doing it.” This is imbicillic (new word?). If he knows ‘the fix’ and implements he’s proven his worth and word. That almost by itself could get him elected, dontcha think? Not doing so, and that behavior leads to one ‘black’ person’s death (challenging to even type that) and it’s reinforcement of his ‘tendencies’. That makes Trump roadside animal carcass.

        Do you think things thru? Your rose colored glasses need re-tinting.

      • Trump doesn’t know the fix. The “top level, but not the chief” black officer didn’t give Trump any detail. He only told Trump he knew how. Maybe Trump was late for an appointment and didn’t have time for an interview so he delegated by passing the cop’s name along to someone who could follow up. Your melodramatic cries that Trump owes it to humanity to have personally followed up is on the short list for the stupidest posturing ever.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Your melodramatic cries that Trump owes it to humanity to have personally followed up is on the short list for the stupidest posturing ever.”

        It’s simple David. It’s called ‘leadership’. IF Trump even knows the guy who ‘knows how to fix it’ but because “Maybe Trump was late for an appointment and didn’t have time for an interview” then Trump’s priorities are skewed and this is further evidence of his lack of capability and that he is not presidential material.

        It is what it is, no matter how much you wish to make it a pretzel instead.

        That you are choosing to justify that Trump doesn’t ‘owe it to humanity’ says much.

        Give it up.

      • You’re confusing Trump’s no-lose strategy with a 30 second clip from an O’Reilly interview about ending black on black violence in Chicago. The win-win strategy is Trump trying to woo the black vote by offering to work hard to fix broken inner city schools, rejuvenate infrastructure, bring good jobs back, in addition to ending the gun violence. If he wins some black votes great, if not it’s blacks rejecting Trump after a sincere offer to help. Biting the hand trying to help you isn’t looked upon with favor.

      • Danny Thomas

        “The win-win strategy is Trump trying to woo the black vote by offering to work hard to fix broken inner city schools, rejuvenate infrastructure, bring good jobs back, in addition to ending the gun violence. ”

        He’s saying he ‘know’s’ how to ‘fix it’ in general Dave. Specifically, in this case, he says he know’s (or know’s who knows) how to ‘fix it’ in Chicago, Dave.

        “In addition to ending the gun violence”? He hasn’t done that Dave, but says he knows how to. And he chose to not ask the question. That is the definition of irresponsibility.

        He could have ‘made Chicago great’ but your excuse for him was ‘maybe he had an appointment. Doing something says much more than bs’ing something.

        Geeze.

      • Pay attention, Double Deal. I write this using simple declarative sentences so you might be able to understand it.

        The mayor of Chicago is a Democrat.

        The mayor is the head of the police department.

        Chicago politics are notoriously corrupt at all levels.

        A high ranking police officer who is not the chief talking to Trump is going outside the chain of command.

        A police officer caught going outside the chain of command is likely to have it adversely effect his career.

        Given the refusal of Trump to let out any information regarding the identity of the officer and no information about what this officer believes is needed to stop Chicago’s crime problem it strongly suggests to me that Trump talked to the officer in confidence and that Trump promised to protect his identity.

        I’d guess the recommendation from the officer about how to fix the crime problems was to replace the corrupt mayor and chief of police.

        Trumps’ mysterious “I gave his name to someone with a recommendation to hire this guy” would seem to preclude his current employer which is the city of Chicago.

        What does that leave us for where a high ranking police officer who may have enough insider knowledge of Chicago’s corrupt mayor and police chief to get them impeached and locked up should go? The answer is the FBI.

        The FBI investigates corrupt mayors.

        http://www.citymayors.com/politics/us-corrupt-mayors.html

        My best guess is that the FBI is the “they” in “they should hire this guy” and the job would be to lead an undercover task force to investigate criminal corruption in the Chicago mayor’s office.

        I’m sure Chicago’s mayor is smart enough to have figured out who Trump’s “they” is too.

      • Pay attention, Double Deal. I write this using simple declarative sentences so you might be able to understand it.

        The mayor of Chicago is a Democrat.

        The mayor is the head of the police department.

        Chicago politics are notoriously corrupt at all levels.

        A high ranking police officer who is not the chief talking to Trump is going outside the chain of command.

        A police officer caught going outside the chain of command is likely to have it adversely effect his career.

        Given the refusal of Trump to let out any information regarding the identity of the officer and no information about what this officer believes is needed to stop Chicago’s crime problem it strongly suggests to me that Trump talked to the officer in confidence and that Trump promised to protect his identity.

        I’d guess the recommendation from the officer about how to fix the crime problems was to replace the corrupt mayor and chief of police.

        Trumps’ mysterious “I gave his name to someone with a recommendation to hire this guy” would seem to preclude his current employer which is the city of Chicago.

        What does that leave us for where a high ranking police officer who may have enough insider knowledge of Chicago’s corrupt mayor and police chief to get them impeached and locked up should go? The answer is the FBI.

        The FBI investigates corrupt mayors.

        http://www.citymayors.com/politics/us-corrupt-mayors.html

        My best guess is that the FBI is the “they” in “they should hire this guy” and the job would be to lead an undercover task force to investigate crimiinal corruption in the Chicago mayor’s office.

        I’m sure Chicago’s mayor is smart enough to have figured out who Trump’s “they” is too.

      • So little time and so many assumptions and assertions.

        You assert, ‘high ranking’ where Trump stated top. Top could apply to the highest ranked rookie academy graduate from last week as opposed to one higher ranked in chain of command.

        A police officer going outside the chain of command assertion follows ignoring alternative results.

        Next paragraph contains multiple assumption that “strongly suggests” a conclusion but lacks evidence. (aka pulled outta somewhere)

        Followed by ‘your guess’………..now THERE is evidence.

        Then you ‘preclude’ and tail off not completing the thought.

        To wrap it all up your ‘foundation’ of your so called argument based on the above is dramatically presented as going to the Fed. The ‘corrupt’ FBI (didn’t indict Clinton so Obama controls as puppetmaster making one wonder would Trump bother with that?)

        Actual words from the article as opposed to your vivid imagination: “but the candidate said the officer “wants to use tough police tactics.” “I could see by the way he was dealing with his people, he was a rough, tough guy, they respected him greatly. ” (Maybe he’s a Kung Fu master?)

        “O’REILLY: But he didn’t tell you exactly precisely how.

        TRUMP: No, I didn’t ask him. Because I’m not the mayor of Chicago. But I’ll tell you what. I sent his name in and I said you probably should hire this guy.”
        (Note, Trump didn’t say……..No, I didn’t ask him because I had a meeting or appointment)

        Hire him, Dave. Those are Trumps words. At the FBI, hiring paperwork wouldn’t even get done in ‘one week’ much less ‘fixing it’ in Chicago. That’d make Trump’s veracity questionable.

        “He said that he would be “a cheerleader for the police” if elected.” A cheerleader? With pom-poms? All while not ‘fixing it’ even though he ‘knows how’ because he ‘might have a meeting or appointment’ after expressing: “Look at what’s going on in Chicago. It’s horrible.”

        Where’s the honesty Dave? Irresponsibility at it’s finest. How can you support that so Trump’s ‘win-win’ (except for those affected by Chicago’s crime) goes well?

        You’re getting sillier in your pretzel making.

      • You asked. I answered. I had zero expectation of any constructive response from you. This conversation is over.

  96. For your consideration Double Deal Dan…

    Blacks are banding together in a monolithic voting block and deciding who becomes president. Able to do that because whites are voting their conscience, not their race, and are split.

    As a white voter do I like blacks deciding who is president by voting their race rather than their conscience? No way. I’m gonna vote for the other guy and take that power to decide the election away from them.

    Certainly not all whites would toss Hillary under the bus of in tribal solidarity of course but enough of them will, especially when Trump has made such an earnest effort dispel the notion that he doesn’t want to help the black community.

    So this took all the talking heads by surprise. Again. And none of them know how to react. They know what he’s doing and it’s just shocking. Trump has his one token African-American. Maybe three or five counting some black cops and such. How dare he try to outbid the democrats to buy more of their votes! That’s so out of bounds… somehow. Not sure exactly how but they know he shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules of the game like this by trying to poach pet special interest group members who are owned by a different white master!

    Too funny.

    • You should have heard Trump’s two African Americans, evengelical preachers, warming up the crowd live like I did. They’s just so passionate. Black merchants of glorious god fearing fury. Two of them now not just one. It’s almost enough to want to join a black church to get me some of that fear of god on a weekly basis. Believe me.

    • Danny Thomas

      Trump should have ‘people’ in his campaign and should have policies which ‘people’ support while actually behaving (‘fixing it’ in Chicago, for example) as if ‘people’ matter.

      What one person/party does in no way should provide support for negative behavior on the part of the other. And that’s not funny.

      • I really can’t decipher that. Please try again using completely different words. Good words. Not confusing words. Maybe terrific words. That will help. Trust me. It will help a lot.

  97. Two weeks have passed since Donald Trump made his last gaffe. The “second amendment folks” on August 9th.

    In the two weeks since Trump has slowly but surely closed the RCP poll average gap by almost 3 points. He trails by 5. If he keeps his up he’ll be in the lead by 5 for the first debate.

    O M G

    He’s gotta phuck up soon, right? Two weeks and still on message. Two weeks and boners. This is impossible!!!!

    HA HA HA – he fooled ya. He’s been able to restrain himself whenever he wanted all this time.

    Timing is everything.

  98. A Clinton Family Value: ‘Humanitarian’ War
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/23/a-clinton-family-value-humanitarian-war/

    The current debate over the future of U.S. foreign policy is largely over whether the U.S. should continue its self-anointed role as the policeman of the world, or whether it might be wise for the next administration to put, in the words of Donald J. Trump, “America First.”

    On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for a more active U.S. foreign policy. The 2016 election is shaping up to be, among other things, a battle between the inarticulate isolationism of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s liberal interventionism. Hers is an approach which came into vogue during the administration of her husband….

    During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. military was dispatched on ostensibly humanitarian grounds in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), and Kosovo (1999). Clinton also directed airstrikes on Sudan….

    Clinton bombed Iraq (1998) over its violations of the NATO enforced no-fly zones. That same year, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law which stipulated that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”…

    Kosovo set a pattern that has held in subsequent interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Advertised (all, or, in part) as interventions on behalf of suffering Muslims, they invariably end up strengthening the hand of those who are declared enemies of the U.S.: Sunni Islamic extremists.

    By the end of Bill Clinton’s tenure, the prudence exhibited by George H.W. Bush had long since vanished. Given her record, should Hillary Clinton win in November, the elder Bush’s foreign policy “realism” will have little chance of reappearing.

  99. Some great things from my daily email from Texas Monthly:

    Penetrating Message
    Austin was certainly kept weird during Wednesday’s campus carry protest by students at the University of Texas. Hundreds of protesters wielded dildos of all shapes and sizes: short and thick, long and thin, pink, purple, beige, and black. They strapped them to their backpacks or simply held them in their hands and waved them around, chanting things such as, “If you pack heat, we’re packing meat!” according to the Austin American-Statesman.

    Organizers distributed 4,300 dildos in preparation for the protest, which the Dallas Morning News said was expected to be the largest anti-gun protest Texas has ever seen.

    The San Antonio Express-News has 45 photos and a video of the protest, which is probably more dildo imagery than you can handle this morning, but it’s still a once-in-a-lifetime sight.

    Earlier this week, a federal judge rejected a request from a group of UT professors asking for an injunction to stop campus carry before the semester started, according to the Statesman. The attempt to stop the campus carry law, which officially went into effect August 1, was pretty much expected to flop in court.

    In its sheer absurdity alone, the sex-toy protest is sure to send deep vibrations across the state. But it’s unclear if state lawmakers will be stimulated enough for real change to come.

    San Antonio Express News: Photos: Students storm UT armed with colorful dildos and a powerful message: ‘Cocks Not Glocks’
    http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Students-storm-UT-armed-with-colorful-dildos-and-9182709.php?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thursday%2008.25.16%20SoT&utm_term=The%20State%20of%20Texas#photo-10823675

  100. And Ted Cruz may have committed political hara-kiri in Texas:

    Turning Against Ted

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told supporters at a private fundraiser in Austin on Tuesday that he thinks ex-governor Rick Perry could take Ted Cruz’s Senate seat in the 2018 election, according to the Texas Tribune.

    “I’ve been hearing a lot about that and I don’t know if he wants to do it, but boy, will he do well,” Trump was recorded saying in a 34-second audio clip released on Wednesday by left-leaning political action committee Lone Star Project.

    “People love him in Texas, and he was one great governor. I don’t know what he’s going to do but you are one popular guy all over, but in Texas in particular.”

    That’s high praise for someone who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” and a “barking carnival act.” Perry was reportedly in the room to support Trump when the real estate mogul made his comment, prompted by a question from the crowd about the two-time failed presidential candidate’s possible chances to win the Senate seat.

    It’s unclear if Perry is interested in challenging Cruz, but a recent poll showed he’d have a really good chance of winning. Must be the glasses.

    • I’d like to see Perry appointed to Energy Secretary in Trump’s cabinet. Perry’s experience is extensive and unique. Under Perry’s long watch as the longest serving governor of Texas ever these items that were under his watch are of particular interest:

      1) Texas has its own independent electrical grid separate from the other two US grids (eastern and western).

      2) Texas has by far the largest amount of wind energy production in the nation feeding its grid.

      3) Texas has yuge oil and natural gas production.

      4) Texas has vast refinery capacity.

      5) Texas has enormous energy exports both foreign and domestic

      Perry knows energy and has expressed the same thing as Trump in that unleashing the US energy sector will go a long towards fixing the economic and energy security problems facing the nation.

      Under a Trump administration with Perry as Secretary of Energy the US could quickly achieve independence from foreign oil producers and thus untangle the complex and difficult relations we have with oil producers in the Middle East and elsewhere who export both oil and terrorism to us.

    • Yup. Cruz is out. He’ll lose the next primary. The US senate would like nothing more than to see him go too. He’s not a team player.

  101. And more on the veteran who killed five police officers in Dallas last month:

    Trauma of War

    Micah Johnson, the veteran who killed five officers in Dallas last month, had a number of mental problems likely attributed to post-traumatic stress disorder related to his military service in Afghanistan, according Veterans Affairs records obtained by the Dallas Morning News.

    Johnson reportedly told military medical staff that he was paranoid, couldn’t sleep, and repeatedly heard mortar fire echoing through his head.

    On July 7, Johnson shot and killed five police officers in downtown Dallas before he was killed by a police-operated robot bomb.

    According to the Morning News, Johnson’s mental health record stretches back to January 2011, before he was deployed, when he wandered into police headquarters in Mesquite looking “visibly upset and bouncing from side to side,” police records show. He began receiving treatment at the Dallas VA in 2014, shortly after he was released from service in Afghanistan. He told medical staff that he felt “stress, anger, road rage” and that his “heart feels like someone is pinching it,” but he said he wasn’t suicidal or homicidal, and VA doctors didn’t prescribe anti-psychotics.

    • While many employed by VA Health Care are former military none of them are active duty military. They’re federal civil service employees.

      The article appears to be wrong where it reads “told military medical staff” and should be “told VA medical staff”.

      Just sayin’.

  102. Vice chief predicts old media ‘bloodbath’
    https://www.ft.com/content/2af8b846-6a0e-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f

    Shane Smith, the co-founder and chief executive of Vice, the online news producer shaking up its old-school rivals, has predicted a “bloodbath” among the world’s biggest media companies as they fight for a future in an industry still coming to terms with digital disruption….

    Mr Smith added: “There is a revolution going on in media. It’s scary, and it’s fast, and it’s going to be ugly.

    “In the long term, it means a changing playing field, a mild to medium dose of chaos, and a fast-moving, ever-shifting, highly volatile marketplace, in which only the most nimble and dynamic companies will survive.”

    As far as I’m concerned, the bloodbath can’t happen soon enough:

    American journalism is collapsing before our eyes
    http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

    [S]omething [is] happening before our eyes : the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

    The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

    The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

    The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

    Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does….

    By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

  103. Stoking Russia Panic for Partisan Gain Will Have a Long-Term Price for Peace
    http://fair.org/home/stoking-russia-panic-for-partisan-gain-will-have-a-long-term-price-for-peace/

    On Saturday’s episode of AM Joy with Joy Ann Reid, guest Malcolm Nance, a former Naval intelligence officer, summed up MSNBC’s Russia panic with this quote:

    Joy Ann Reid: Because from what I’ve seen, the only people not with Hillary Clinton at this point…are people in the Jill Stein camp. Jill Stein was sitting at Putin’s table right with General Flynn.

    Malcolm Nance: Jill Stein has a show on Russia Today.

    Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein doesn’t have a show at all, let alone on RT. She once attended a function hosted by RT, which, by our current standards of liberal discourse, makes her a Kremlin agent, but the fact that such a demonstrably false statement could be made on cable news to thousands of people without anyone bothering to correct it shows how easy Russia panic is to stoke.

    Earlier in the segment, Nance made the claim that “someone” in Trump’s campaign “may” be an “agent of Russia,” citing a recent report in the Financial Times (8/19/16) alleging that Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort’s former translator “may” have “links” to Russian intelligence.

    The irony, of course, is that Nance himself has far more recent and better documented ties to US intelligence, but MSNBC feels no need to convince viewers he is not a CIA plant spreading disinformation….

    According to leading pro-Democratic media, the US cannot possibly work with Russia; they are fundamentally adversarial. This type of macho posturing, previously the domain of Fox News, has become increasingly commonplace as the Clinton camp drives home the talking point that Trump is a Kremlin agent….

    [T]o give the Trump charges more moral urgency, liberal pundits are dusting off old Cold War panic and playing up the reach, scope and sinister motives of Russia.

    The effects of this, if and when Clinton takes the White House, will be hard to downplay. How can the US negotiate the end of the Syrian conflict or the Ukrainian crisis if the public, even MSNBC-watching liberals, views Russia as irredeemably aggressive and incapable of ever being a US “friend”? In the interest of short-term partisan gain, pundits on America’s nominally liberal cable network are damaging the prospects of normalizing relations with Russia for years to come.

  104. The Obamacare Death Spiral
    https://www.popularresistance.org/the-obamacare-death-spiral/

    Obamacare is in big trouble. Major insurers—Aetna, Humana, and United Health (the nation’s largest)—are pulling out of most exchanges. Remaining companies are seeking double-digit premium increases (at least 25% in 20 different states, some over 60%), while increasingly offering only “narrow network” plans that severely restrict available doctors and hospitals. With these developments, the scam of Obamacare, and its inevitable failure, are becoming too obvious for even the mainstream media to ignore….

    Obamacare was not designed to, and does not, provide healthcare to anyone. The subsidies it pays go to health insurance companies; not to doctors or patients. It does not, and cannot, ensure universal healthcare coverage. It can only enhance “access” to healthcare—which means actually forcing everyone to purchase whatever profitable insurance plans the private companies decide to provide, at whatever price they decide to charge….

    Obamacare was a political and economic bailout for the private health insurance industry, just as his Quantitative Easing was for the despised banks—a way to pour public money into them to keep them afloat, and keep their CEOs’ plutocratic incomes flowing….

    The Republicans did not cast a single vote for the ACA and did not block anything. It was Obama himself, in connivance with conservative Democrats like Max Baucus, who nixed any public option….

    This is the liberal fiction of the Democrats, generated to maintain their support among left-liberals: that politicians like Obama and the Clintons, no matter what terrible policies they actually institute, are deep-down, forced-into-hiding, progressives, frustrated by Republican intransigence….

    Do liberal defenders of Obamacare really think that millions of healthy young adults, struggling to pay their student loans, will be persuaded by that nice President they voted for that it’s their civic duty to pay an extra $3000-a-year to make sure Joe Swedish (Anthem’s CEO) gets his $13 million compensation package? Suddenly, the Ayn-Ranidan every-person-making-his-or-her-own-choices market ideology, which governs the politicians and CEOs, becomes a social-duty ideology for healthy working-class citizens. Thus, liberalism appears….

    What’s actually happening is that millions of people are doing the math, paying some extra taxes, and keeping the rest for beer and rent….

    [T]he Hillary administration will doggedly seek a way to revive the dying for-profit healthcare insurance industry. She’ll find some way to pitch reforms based on ameliorating particular problems of some liberally-favored identity group, as a cover for siphoning more public money into an obscene corporate cabal that supplies increasingly degraded healthcare for everyone.

    It’s going to take a fight—the kind of fight lefties were unwilling to engage in with Obama—against Hillary and the Democratic Establishment.

    • The fundamental question has always been: is it fair to make healthy people subsidize less healthy people?

      As long as you draw the line for “healthy” low enough to include a large majority, you’ll never get the votes for making them help pay for those who aren’t.

      • The healthy subsidizing the sick has been a de facto standard for as long as emergency rooms have been legally unable, since 1986, to turn anyone away for lack of ability to pay.

        https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/

        This is why hospitals charge so much. Those able to pay foot the bill for those unable to pay.

      • AK,
        Thought you might find these interesting: http://www.btlonline.org/2016/seg/160902af-btl-woolhandler.html

        Leads to: http://www.pnhp.org/

      • The fundamental question has always been: is it fair to make healthy people subsidize less healthy people?
        As long as you draw the line for “healthy” low enough to include a large majority, you’ll never get the votes for making them help pay for those who aren’t.

        This I’ll disagree with. Few people get through life without significant medical needs, even if you are healthy until you get cancer at 60, at which time, you might need a million dollars of care.
        Now, even if you pay for insurance for your whole life, you likely won’t actual pay that much.
        Insurance amortizes these costs across a group of people, which sooner or later most will need expensive care.
        Of course from the consumers point of view, we’d like to buy insurance a month before we get sick, and stop a month after, but someone has to pay for it.
        Insurance companies can not lose 100’s of millions a year and stay in business. I trust for profit insurance for my healthcare, because they can change, quickly, and it’s in their best interest to not waste money, and invest in care that reduces costs. Personally I have been treated quite fairly, though I know many aren’t.
        IMHO insurance should be mandated (pending agreement with the voting public), no cap’s, no pre-existing conditions, with rates cost plus, where plus is based on customer satisfaction, maybe measured by a disinterested 3rd party, as opposed to getting bonuses based on wait times, and clever people just removing people from waiting list (like the VA).
        I don’t want single payer, with the VA as an example of what can go wrong, and the gov is never efficient in it’s operations, and because much of it’s operations are coded into law, it is near impossible to get enough people to agree to make needed changes.

      • This I’ll disagree with. Few people get through life without significant medical needs, even if you are healthy until you get cancer at 60, at which time, you might need a million dollars of care.

        That’s not the issue. If you have individual coverage, there’s a plethora of insurance companies out there ready to analyze your personal risk, and you can pick the combination of premium and coverage you prefer. Most popular plans will guarantee future premiums in some form, such as not pricing up for conditions that occur during coverage.

        But that estimate of personal risk will change from one person to another, because the real risk changes. With a free market in insurance, many competing would-be coverers will probably provide a reasonably good deal to every (potential) customer.

        But some people are healthier than others. Some people already have conditions when they apply that make them worse risks. For individual coverage, their premiums should, and will, be higher.

        But most people in the US get insurance through group coverage, primarily through employment. (This may not be as universal as it was when I worked in the business.) Here, everybody gets rates based on the group risk, but employer contributions and tax breaks help hide the extra payment/risk for healthy people vs. less healthy.

        For many decades (through the ’90’s AFAIK) this system worked fairly well, but it’s breaking down now. Between the vast numbers of employees being transferred to part-time, the capacity for healthy employees to “opt out” and go individual or via other groups, and the need to extend coverage to the growing number of people who don’t get it through their employers, group rates are simply becoming more selective, and the groups with looser membership requirements simply fill up with people with higher claims levels.

        Single-payer doesn’t solve this problem, it simply throws everybody into the same group, or groups by age/residence, etc. The subsidies will just get more extreme.

        Ultimately it’s a problem with contradictory definitions of “fairness”: is it “fair” to make healthy people subsidize less-healthy? Is it fair that somebody with a condition that “isn’t their fault” should have to pay higher premiums than somebody without?

      • Danny Thomas

        AK,
        “Ultimately it’s a problem with contradictory definitions of “fairness”: is it “fair” to make healthy people subsidize less-healthy? Is it fair that somebody with a condition that “isn’t their fault” should have to pay higher premiums than somebody without?”
        Great questions. And the answer(s)?

        Should ‘the family’ of a society take care of it’s infirm and elderly, or leave them (us?) to the fates.

      • And the answer(s)?

        I don’t have a simple one. It’s one of the hard questions.

      • Danny Thomas

        Yep. Me also.

        I’m all about cross state lines offerings of insurance. We do it for cars and houses, as well as life insurance. HSA’s and deductible are part of it also but need to be convertible. Folks can do with their money as they please, but taxes would need to be returned if they do. Mixed on single payer but think it can be ‘foundational’ and maybe for ‘catastrophe’.

        There’s a solution out there we just gotta dig.

      • I’m all about cross state lines offerings of insurance. We do it for cars and houses, as well as life insurance. HSA’s and deductible are part of it also but need to be convertible. Folks can do with their money as they please, but taxes would need to be returned if they do. Mixed on single payer but think it can be ‘foundational’ and maybe for ‘catastrophe’.

        For the damage, waste, and poor coverage, it would have been cheaper to move people who truly can’t afford insurance into medicaid.
        And everyone else has to buy in(based on my recommendations above).

        But I also think that should be put up to a vote by the people.

      • Danny Thomas

        Micro,

        “But I also think that should be put up to a vote by the people.” It was. Thru our representative form. And they didn’t read it and messed it up. But the basis is there and can be improved IMO. The entire health care system is based on ‘for profit’ which implies retaining as much $$$$ as possible. Incentives are provided for not providing care. Seems counterintuitive.

        I don’t know if you had a chance to read the interview here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/19/week-in-review-politics-edition-7/#comment-806618. She promotes single payer but even if you’re not enamored she provides some interesting insight.

    • Can’t we all just not get sick?

  105. The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech, by Kimberly Strassel

    I Find that Offensive!, by Claire Fox

    Strassel’s chapters on the politicization of the IRS in Obama’s hands make for a striking summary of Chicago skullduggery. In 2012, an election year, the IRS, led by liberal operative Lois Lerner, systematically sidelined conservative (often Tea Party) organizations. The broadest and deepest scandal in IRS history is more than three years old, but there is little chance that Obama’s Chicago-ized Justice Department will hold anyone accountable. Strassel also discusses the attempts led by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois to criminalize criticism of the standard-issue UN position on climate change. The senators insist that manmade climate change is a matter of “settled science.” But climate is always changing, and science is never settled….

    Strassel’s Intimidation is a bleak but essential tour of contemporary liberals’ affinity for repressing free speech.

    In I Find that Offensive!, Claire Fox of the British Institute of Ideas explains why the left-liberal disdain for free expression has taken hold in academia. In the United States, free-speech advocates such as F.I.R.E (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) point to the misuse of title IX of the 1972 Education Act, which banned discrimination based on sex, as the source of the problem. In recent years, the Obama Justice Department has unilaterally expanded Title IX’s ambit to include speech that might cause offense….

    British and American academics have turned against the Enlightenment ideal of reasoned debate….

    Shorn of a commitment to reason, young campus snowflakes came to believe that a verbal lashing could do the same kind of damage as a whiplashing….

    Fragile, prone to mental illness, ill-educated, and entitled, today’s college students feel the obligation to tell others, including their teachers, what they can say and how they should live.

    Strassel’s Intimidation and Fox’s I Find that Offensive are marvelously complementary. Together, they sound an alarm bell. They explain why, having been failed by their educational systems, self-governing peoples, who once relied on free and open debate, will have a hard time making a go of it down the road.

  106. Ruh-Roh! Hilly’s got some ‘splainin to do. State Dept found Benghazi documents amongst the emails Hilly deleted. Those 33,000 deleted emails weren’t all about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding after all. Shocker.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13/


    Court Orders New Clinton Email Production by September 13

    State Admits Benghazi Material in New Cache of Emails Clinton Failed to Produce

    (Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a federal court has ordered the State Department to review newly found Clinton emails and turn over responsive records by September 13. And, in two other Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the State Department is scheduled to release additional emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system beginning September 30. In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department.

    –more at link

  107. Wikileaks is chumming the water in preparation for another document release. That’s gonna leave a mark.

    http://www.infowars.com/assange-new-hillary-info-could-swing-election-if-it-catches-fire/

  108. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149368755381/clinton-dodges-the-health-question-on-kimmel

    SCOTT ADAMS’ BLOG

    TOP TECH

    BERKELEY START-UPS
    Clinton Dodges the Health Question on Kimmel
    Posted August 23rd, 2016 @ 9:07am in #Trump #Clinton

    Watch the first minute of this clip to see Hillary Clinton use the “liar’s dodge” to avoid Jimmy Kimmel’s direct question “Are you in good health?”

    When you ask an honest, healthy person if they are in good health, they say, “Yes.” They might also ask why you are inquiring. They might add some details. But they usually answer the question.

    Clinton never answered the question about her health. All she did was mock the Trump supporters who keep bringing it up. Clinton intentionally avoided the question while skillfully making you think she addressed it.

    –more from Scott at link

    direct link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt22Y9-dfNk

  109. Danny Thomas

    “Ann Coulter, the conservative author — who is promoting a new book titled “In Trump We Trust” — seemed almost apoplectic Wednesday night during Mr. Hannity’s broadcast with Mr. Trump.”

    “A spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, said on CNN that Mr. Trump was merely changing the “words” he was using, not the proposals themselves.”

    “In a Fox News interview Monday night, Mr. Trump praised Mr. Obama for having aggressively deported immigrants in the United States illegally during his tenure in office, a reality that has long angered immigrants and Latino activists. “Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws.,” Mr. Trump said. “Well, I’m going to do the same thing.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration.html?_r=0

    http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/25/on-immigration-policy-partisan-differences-but-also-some-common-ground/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=0c83742938-Weekly_Aug_25_20168_25_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-0c83742938-399622865

    • If you will recall early this year I was railing against Trump for his position on mass deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants and building a wall and said I could never get behind anything like that.

      Then if you will recall when it boiled down to either Trump or Hillary and I got behind Trump I was asked how I could suddenly accept his position on illegal Mexicans.

      The final thing I want you to remember is that I said he’d never actually be able to get those things done and that’s how I could look past it.

      Well, here we are today and Trump’s mass deportation position didn’t even survive until the first presidential debate. I was right on that part. You can’t break up families or deport whole families even if most or all of them are illegal immigrants. That’s just not how the vast majority of Americans roll and that policy could never, ever survive to implementation. And it didn’t.

      On the wall, I’ve been sold on that. Mostly because the US Border Patrol says we need it not because a bunch of knuckle dragging bigots say we need it and not because a bunch of paranoid babies say we need it to stop drugs and terrorists.

      And finally, I said Trump is a deal maker and like any good negotiator he starts with an extreme position that he doesn’t expect to be accepted as presented and waits for a counter-offer. After several rounds it either leads to a handshake or both parties walk away. On immigration I believe he’s got the handshake.

      Too bad Jeb Bush was so low energy. Trump clobbered him in the primaries and then within months usurped his position on immigration Too funny. This is what we can expect from a Trump presidency. Pomp and bluster, showmanship and publicity, and at the end of the day a good deal.

    • link: http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/25/ann-coulter-criticizes-trumps-latest-immigration-comments-hannity

      I haven’t been an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh fan since Bill Clinton left office. Back in the 1990’s I thought they were great. Now I think they’re irrelevant and boring. Their use-by date is long past.

      • “I haven’t been an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh fan”

        Yep. If that ain’t MSM, I don’t know what is. Talking heads are talking heads.
        Coulter wants $$$$ and gets it selling books. Limbaugh does the same pandering to his audience for ratings.

        Just posted their views and didn’t sanction.

        IMO it is the sign of a good leader to accept input and modify a position based on that input. I’m not critical of his choice to modify. I gleefully criticize monolithically calling any ‘group’ rapists and criminals to gain votes. Makes him a politician and not an ‘outsider’.

  110. Shifty Hillary … from the article:

    “I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those,” McCullough explained. “They are characterizing them as OrCon, ‘originator control,’ so I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them.”

    “Which agency?” Chaffetz interjected.

    “I can’t say that in an open hearing sir,” McCullough replied.

    “So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us, as members of Congress, to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance, in a non-protected format to see. That’s correct?” Chaffetz responded, in obvious disbelief.

    McCullough responded that he could not tell the committee in an open hearing even what the emails were about, let alone reveal their specific contents.

    “I don’t want to violate that, but the concern is it was already violated by Hillary Clinton,” Chaffetz told the IG. “It was her choice, and she set it up, and she created this problem, and she created this mess. We shouldn’t have to go through this, but she did that.”

    “This is the segment of emails that I had to have people in my office read-in to particular programs to even see these emails,” McCullough responded. “We didn’t posses the required clearances.”

    “So even the Inspector General for ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) didn’t have the requisite security clearances?” Chaffetz pressed, seeking to clarify McCullough’s statement.

    “That’s correct. I had to get read-ins for them,” McCullough said.

    “Wow,” Chaffetz said. “Unbelievable. What a mess.”

    On Aug. 16, the FBI pledged to release to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee some 14,900 previously undisclosed documents related to the investigation into Clinton’s private email server.

    Chaffetz: ‘Even I am not sufficiently cleared’

    By Aug. 22, Chaffetz once again went public, explaining security clearances were needed to review the heavily redacted materials.

    “As the chairman of the chief investigative body in the House, it is significant I can’t even read these documents in their entirety,” Chaffetz told Fox News. “This shows how dangerous it was to have this intelligence, highly classified to this day, on the former secretary’s unsecured personal server where it was vulnerable.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/13-of-abedin-emails-100-redacted/

  111. In the “too funny” department…

    1/3 OF ABEDIN EMAILS 100% REDACTED
    Information on Clinton server too sensitive even for Congress

    Video of congressional hearing shocked congressman says –

    “So the emails in question, which Hillary said weren’t classified, and sent out to people who weren’t cleared, are so classified that not even members of Congress can read them?”

    “That’s correct sir.”

    “What agency has marked these emails too sensitive for congress?”

    “I can’t even tell you the agency’s name in an open hearing, sir.”

    link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_sWq-Pl3Xw

    • Watch for it on WikiLeaks.

      • AK,

        Since our own government can’t be trusted to comply with open records laws, WikiLeaks seems to be the only shot at government transparency that we have.

      • With our burgeoning and highly secretive security state, it wants to know everything about us, but it wants us to know nothing about it.

      • Y’know, there’s all sorts of rumors floating around the intelligence fiction world (which may actually be more accurate than supposedly “real” reports) of government agencies whose very existence is classified top-secret. (Along with rumors of security classifications similarly protected.)

      • And then the defenders of our hallowed security state trot out their “scientists” to accuse Trump and his followers of having an “authoritarian personality,” such as in the lecture Jonathan Haidt gave to the American Psychological Assocation a couple of weeks ago (which Joshua linked to above). The part about Trump and his supporters “authoritarians” begins at minute 00:32:25:

        VIDEO: Why the centre cannot hold in America, Europe, and psychology
        http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/08/09/why-the-centre-cannot-hold/

        Really, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

        Haidt definitely needs to get out more, maybe take a look at some of the things Clinton did as Secretary of State, or some of the thuggish behavior perpetrated against Trump supporters, instead of relying exclusively on his surveys where he asks people to self-analyze themselves. Do he and his fellow researchers really expect control freaks to admit they’re control freaks?

        VIDEO: Outrageous violence against Trump supporters
        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBpRexwiPg

        Haidt does, however, point out something very important: the extreme amount of political bias that infects the psychologists’ community. This makes it even more difficult to explain Haidt’s total blindness to the authoritarianism which infects the other side of the political aisle.

      • Oops! Should read:

        This makes it even more difficult to explain Haidt’s total blindness to the authoritarianism which infects his own side of the political aisle.

      • Glenn –

        Haidt presents data to support his analysis. Where do you think the flaw is with his data, or do just assume that he just has to be wrong because you disagree with him?

        There is much that Haidt says that I disagree with, but the problem is that I have to be quite suspicious about my own disagreement because of his evidence-based approach.

        ==> instead of relying exclusively on his surveys where he asks people to self-analyze themselves. ==>

        What do you know about his methodology for measuring “authoritarianism?” What sorts of questions do you think that he asks in order to assess something like authoritarianism? Do you suppose that he asks people something on the order of: “Are you an authoritarian?”

  112. From the article:

    The crazy, conspiratorial, paranoid world of Hillary Clinton

    Hillary Clinton never met a tax she didn’t want to raise, a government regulation she thought was too lenient, or a small business she couldn’t care less about.

    Remember what her former boss Barack Obama said: “You didn’t build that.” To them, only government builds things.

    More to the point, Hillary was never going to talk about cutting taxes and red tape and helping small businesses. Let me take you back to 1993, when Hillary was secretly crafting the government takeover of the U.S. health-care system. When it was pointed out to her the devastating consequences some of her plans would have for small businesses, she famously screeched: “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized entrepreneur in America.”

    Those 10 words say more about her utter contempt for the free market than any 10 words she has ever spoken. Spoken spontaneously, without scripting, they revealed the true Hillary.

    But, as Hillary said, that’s not what she went to Reno to talk about. What she did say was carefully scripted, well-planned and even coordinated with her friends in the press, who had been laying the groundwork for the attack speech in which she did what she always does with her adversaries according to the rulebook of her smear-artist mentor, Saul Alinsky.

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/the-crazy-conspiratorial-paranoid-world-of-hillary-clinton/

  113. Another case of an ‘attempt’ at voter fraud? :” Donald Trump’s new presidential campaign chief is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

    Fully expect to hear the condemnation and calls to action against. Or do we expect crickets?

    • They’re really grasping at straws now. Looks like desperation. It’s obvious the guy lives in Florida and he’s moved. Forgetting to register in a new county, IF HE ISN’T still there and the article does not state the county of his residence, isn’t exactly like Billary’s rapes, killing an ambassador, or screwing up the Middle East. I could go on, but the point it made.

      • I didn’t equate it. But will question your apparent acceptance of ” Bannon’s enrollment is apparent violation of crucial swing state’s election law requiring voters to be legal residents of county they register in.”

        Here’s another: “Bannon apparently bought the house for his ex-wife, a Tea Party activist, but never lived there.” Never lived there? That’d be a concern right? Then it goes further to state: ” Before that, he was registered to vote in a different Miami house for two years. But according to The Guardian, Bannon didn’t live in that house either.”

        http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-trump-ceo-steve-bannon-might-be-illegally-registered-to-vote-in-fl/

        Are we now sanctioning breaking voting laws, or the potential of?

      • Hey Double Dealing Danny, I gots a question for you.

        Can homeless people vote?

        Followup in case you answer in the affirmative.

        What address do they use?

    • Danny

      I know nothing at all about the guy, but anything in the Guardian these days should be examined very carefully. Once a fine campaigning newspaper it postures to a diminishing band of labour activists who will believe bad of anyone remotely right wing.

      IF the story is true however, it would seem an incredible oversight by the Trump campaign team that they didn’t check out this sort of elementary fact as I understand Bannon consistently campaigns about voter fraud.

      tonyb

      • TonyB,
        It’s ‘the Guardian’ and sure, as a part of MSM should be fact checked or at least one should look for alternative sources.

        I too was struck that the Bannon of ‘the election is or will be rigged’ Breitbart fame would be amenable to not watching his p’s and q’s. Posted to see just how far some will go in defense of the indefensible. Turned out to be a reasonable assumption.

        Detail is important for an applicant to the highest office in the U.S. Is Trump (or those he’s chosen as underlings) detailed?: ww.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/25/how-donald-trump-almost-missed-the-ballot-in-minnesota-and-what-that-says-about-his-campaign/

        Where’s the skepticism?

      • I see no evidence offered whatsoever where the guy actually lives. This is all based on a hypothetical! Do you guys not agree? Did I miss some statement of fact somewhere?

    • Under Florida law, voters must be legal residents of the state and of the county where they register to vote. Guidelines from the Florida department of state say that Florida courts and state authorities have defined legal residency as the place “where a person mentally intends to make his or her permanent residence”.

      This would seem to be saying that as long as he considers himself working in temporary situations out of a “mental” permanent residence there, he’s good.

      • AK,

        Would a reasonable person evaluate the circumstance to confirm that Bannon ‘mentally’ plans to permanently live in a structure which is due for demolition?

      • AK

        What an astonishing definition! I understand the owner of the property intends to demolish the place so perhaps Bannon mentally sees himself as a latter day Stig of the dump?

        Whether he has done anything wrong I am sure will come out in the next day or two. It seems rather slapdash however that this apparent voting anomaly wasn’t dealt with by Bannon before it became big news.

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        Thank you! There’s a reason, ‘reason’ is part of your moniker here.

        Good news! AK’s justification appears to allow you to vote after all. You do plan to head to Florida, right?

      • “Residency” applies to the county or voting district, not the building. I can certainly see somebody who considers himself working on temporary jobs out of a “home base” that’s his ex-wife’s residence (with her consent). Or, since he temporarily isn’t living there, a former residence that’s being demolished while he engages in finding a new “home base”.

        It’s a state of mind: “I’m here temporarily but I really live in Florida”. For that matter, I didn’t see anything about a forwarding address. Did they even check?

      • It seems rather slapdash however that this apparent voting anomaly wasn’t dealt with by Bannon before it became big news.

        I doubt it. Why should they care. It’s just more free publicity.

        Do you suppose anybody who’s even considering voting for him will care?

      • No state requires that a person must have a legal mailing address in the state to vote there. That’s unconstitutional. It would disenfranchise the homeless. A social security number is required for proof of US citizenship. Given that you can register to vote wherever the phuck you want to call home that year.

        Write that down.

      • David,
        “A social security number is required for proof of US citizenship.” Nope.
        https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

        It takes mo’ than that in Tejas!

        A better question is can a ‘homeless’ person register to vote easily? https://texaselectionlaw.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/a-question-about-homeless-voting/
        And can they do so by providing an address at which they do not reside?
        (even if it’s a park bench).

        “To be fair, I’ll grant you that “some limited charitable resources for getting a picture I.D.” isn’t the same thing as “no resources for getting a picture I.D.” It would be inaccurate to say that there are no avenues by which an impoverished homeless person could get the materials necessary to register to vote and cast a ballot.

        But some things are just inherently harder to do when you don’t have a fixed residence address. For instance, there’s the problem of providing a residence for purposes of identifying a voting precinct.”

        If you don’t reside in a precinct and cast a vote there, is that okay? (Don’t tell folks that this might defeat districting lines.)

        All Tony B has to do is gain dual citizenship and ‘mentally’ move to Florida. Or he could use your address and vote in Texas. Guessing you’re a-okay with that.

      • Funny stuff.

        The Florida statute says “mentally intends”. And it’s the county where the mental intent lies not any certain address.

        You boys are more comical than the residency “test”.

        Applicant: Gee, I think I’d like to make that county my permanent home. I seen pictures and I like the area.

        State: Congratulations son, you passed! Here’s your voter registration care and voting location. Welcome to Florida.

      • As usual, Double Dealing Danny is wrong. A social security number is sufficient. Country of birth is part of the SSN record. If someone doesn’t have a social security number a birth certificate can be substituted.

        The bottom line is you have to be able to prove you’re an American citizen. Where in the US you live is irrelevant. Suffrage is a constitutional right. Show me in the constitution where a street address is a requirement for suffrage.

        A picture ID isn’t in the constitution either and that’s why SCOTUS shot down all those laws.

        Those are the facts.

        Of course Double Dealing Danny never lets facts get in the way his beliefs.

      • Danny Thomas

        David,
        If you were actually reading and not presuming, you would have seen that one can acquire a SSN w/o being a citizen.

        Here it is again: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

        It says, in part: “Generally, only noncitizens authorized to
        work in the United States by the Department
        of Homeland Security (DHS) can get a Social
        Security number. Social Security numbers
        are used to report a person’s wages to the
        government and to determine a person’s
        eligibility for Social Security benefits. You
        need a Social Security number to work, collect
        Social Security benefits, and receive some other
        government services. ”

        Quit being a smart arse and trying just being smart.

      • Would I be okay with Bannon registering to vote at my home address?

        Hell yeah!

        I’m running for office this year and he’d sure as hell vote for me.

      • Danny Thomas

        Interesting that you’re willing to support voter fraud in Texas by allowing Bannon to register there using your address when apparently he lives in California (or is it Florida, or D.C.), while having not even a park bench in Texas reported.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/bannons-bad-news/497612/
        which states: “Bannon also lives in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. According to tax records, the D.C. residence “is actually owned by Mostafa El-Gindy, an Egyptian businessman and former member of parliament.”
        and L.A. Times says: “The Laguna Beach resident and former Navy officer “………………http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-campaign-shakeup-20160817-snap-story.html

        And I suppose you’re supporting the potential for fraud in Florida equally.
        http://www.salon.com/2016/08/26/election-fraud-steve-bannons-residency-issues-explained-by-breitbart-news-articles/
        (You go Breitbart….voter fraud is a serious concern and you must expose the truth).

        And if you look more deeply (in lieu of just taking up a position of defending) there may be tax issues between domiciles in Florida vs. California vs. Washington D.C.

        But you see, I’m skeptical, so I look for myself.

      • “If you vote at a precinct where you don’t reside is that okay?”

        Sure. You can walk in any voting location anywhere in the country and ask for a provisional ballot.

        The bottom line however remains if you aren’t registered to vote at that location your vote won’t be counted.

        The reason for this is that ballots are tailored for local districts. You can’t vote for a local school board candidate, for instance, unless you claim permanent residence in his district. And as we already covered you only have to intend for a place to be your permanent residence.

        The only real kind of voter fraud is voting more than one time in one location or voting when you’re not a citizen. Everything within that framework is legal.

      • Danny Thomas

        Showing ignorance again (your really should stop, it’s not a good look on you): “The only real kind of voter fraud is voting more than one time in one location or voting when you’re not a citizen.”

        Vote buying isn’t fraud? How about impersonating another? Official misconduct? Voting while deceased?

        https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_fraud#Types_of_voter_fraud

      • Thanks, Double Deal. I know ignorance looks bad on me. You wear it quite well though.

        Which one of those types of fraud are you accusing Bannon of committing?

      • Danny Thomas

        I personally am not accusing him of any. But Breitbart might have issue with him in a couple of ways. If you’ll read the offerings you can figure them out Dave.

        First clue is that when it was realized that he was registered to vote in at an address to a vacant property slated for demolition his registration was changed.

        You can figure out the rest if you try. I understand it might be a challenge, but you can do it.

  114. From the article:

    Blue State Blues: Fact-Check — Top 20 Lies in Hillary’s ‘Alt-Right’ Speech

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/26/blue-state-blues-fact-check-top-20-lies-hillarys-alt-right-speech/

  115. From the article:

    Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
    will quigg hillary

    This interview took place after a KKK rally in California in March.

    Reporter: Who do you like for president, sir.

    Will Quigg: Hillary Clinton.

    Reporter: Do you think whites are superior to Blacks and Latinos?

    Will Quigg: Well we are God’s chosen people.

    This would make a good Trump ad!

    Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group announced earlier this year.
    ,,,
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-kkk-grand-dragon-endorses-hillary-clinton/

    • Danny Thomas

      Jim2,

      Being skeptical, I looked further.

      (Quigg in Sept, 2015)?: “@realDonaldTrump You Sir are the only hope we have of getting WHITE AMERICA BACK! WE all will be voting for you! CHURCH OF INVISABLE EMPIRE” Google Invisible empire for more if you choose.

      A bit more: “Clinton has yet to address the unexpected new endorsement, but some analysts say Quigg’s statements seem “suspect.”
      “Based on his past statements, it doesn’t appear highly credible that he has changed his effusive allegiance to Donald Trump,” Brian Levin, a former New York police officer who is director of the Centre for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, told the Telegraph. “The timing seems suspect. I think this is a function of not wanting to undermine the Trump campaign.”

      http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president

      (I thought we were suspicious of ‘the media’.)

    • If semen stains could endorse they’d endorse Hillary.

      A good ad would be Bill Clinton ejaculating “Hillary 2016” buttons with little tails on them swimming towards Monica Lewinski.