Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

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

The nine lives of Donald J. Trump [link]

Global warming and the race for the White House [link]

Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept. [link]

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State [link]

This is crucial research for understanding Trump’s message on immigration: [link]

Climate change as an economic issue will hurt Clinton and the Democrats in 2016 election [link]

Perpetuation and moderation:  Trump’s Lincolnian rhetoric [link]

This Hilarious (But Accurate) Ad For A Gary Johnson Vote Is The Best Political Ad Ever [link]

745 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Thank you, Professor Curry, for retaining an appreciation of Gary Johnson’s humorous video in the midst of worldwide insanity.

  2. Re: Immigration. A right oriented site’s take on removal of 11 million illegal immigrants:

    This one surprised me a bit but leads to greater understanding of the reasons behind this issue not having been addressed with much enthusiasm since the 1970’s.

    Further associated data (yes, I understand some don’t care for Pew but it’s what I was able to find. Alternative sources appreciated):



  3. VIDEO: Time is Running Out – Help Us Expose the Koch Brothers’ War on Climate Science

    • “LIVESEY: While modest proposals put forward by the Obama administration and democrats to deal with this crisis are seen as woefully inadequate by climate scientists.”

      Is that an accurate characterization? Modest, and woefully inadequate according to a monolith known as ‘climate scientists’.

      Neither major candidate seems to have highlighted the topic much.

    • The Trump trainwreck is also derailing the Koch brothers.

      • Jim D,

        The Kochs despise Trump.

        By the way, I actually had a chance to meet and chat with Charlie Koch almost four decades ago. I found him boring.

        Dave Miller in Sacramento

      • Yes, he is bringing down their whole carefully cultivated Republican pay-for-play system.

      • The Kochs have been against Trump from the beginning. Bad choice on their part.

      • He is destroying what they have built in the Republican Party.

      • Jim D said:

        He is destroying what they have built in the Republican Party.

        And what have they “built in the Republican Party”?

        Half of a bipartisan tag team whose raison d’être, together with the Democratic Party, is to screw the great American unwashed?

      • What they have built is their influence in case you didn’t notice.

      • Jim D,

        And you really believe that influence doesn’t extend to both parties?

      • Koch’s influence is rather one-sided and self-serving. Maybe there is an example of that on the Dem side, but it is not obvious.

      • JIm D,

        The Koch brothers are “one-sided and self-serving”?

        “Maybe there is an example of that on the Dem side, but it is not obvious”?

        Do you really believe those hedge fund guys pouring tens of millions of dollars into Clinton’s campaign (can we say George Soros?) are doing it out of the sheer goodness of their hearts?

      • Has Trump said anything against hedge funds? I missed it. Why are they so against him, or is it Republicans they don’t like because they tend to destroy the economy? I don’t know. You tell me.

      • JIm D,

        Maybe this has something to do with it?

        Trump tax plan has big implications for Wall Street

        Maybe the hedge fund guys believe Trump is dead serious when he says:

        As part of this reform, we will eliminate the carried interest deduction and other special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors, and for people like me, but unfair to American workers.

        I’m sure there’s much more to it than that. The Rubin wing of the Democratic Party has always had inordinate influence over the Clintons when it comes to policies dealing with finance and the economy.

      • Or maybe they believe he would tank the economy with his unbalanced budget. They are wealthy enough already. All they need is a good economy, and they would put up with Hillary’s tax increase on those earning more than $1 million to get that and that she would also tax carried interest, capital gains tax, and various other anti-Wall Street measures in her proposals.

      • Jim D,

        You toss out one dimensional arguments like there was a prize waiting.

        To bad you can’t get to two dimensional space. Three is completely outside your grasp.

      • No, Jim D.

        The Kochs disagree with Trump ideologically.

        Look: why do you make this stuff up? I’m not shilling for anyone, neither the Kochs nor Trump. If you had actually bothered to follow the news during the last year on the Kochs as I have (having actually talked with Charlie Koch has caused me to be a bit curious about what he is doing), you would be, shall we say, a bit less lacking in accuracy.


      • Is it because Trump is not religious enough for them, since you seem to know about this stuff? Where is their disagreement? It is hard to place Trump ideologically since he only seems to stand for himself, so this is an interesting area to find out more about from those who know.

      • Jim D,

        No, the Kochs are fervent, and I mean really fervent atheists: I have my fervent moments, but I’m a real moderate atheist compared to them!

        I think the main ideological differences are the obvious ones: free trade and immigration. The Kochs are (sort of) libertarians, and all libertarians are free traders (though some libertarians would agree with Trump that the convoluted, negotiated “free-trade” deals such as NAFTA and TPP are more crony capitalism than true free trade). Libertarians are split on immigration, but the Kochs seem to be fervently pro-immigration (a cynic might say: cheap labor for big industrialists).

        To be sure, over the years I have seen lots of signs that the Kochs simply like to buy people who will stay bought. And, Trump is rich enough himself that they cannot buy him.

        Again, though, my brief conversation with Charlie Koch was that he was pleasant enough, just boring.


    • Billionaire hedge fund manager and Open Society “Grand Phobah” George Soros has been bankrolling Liberal and far-Left candidates, groups and initiatives in the US and elsewhere for years. He is the God Father of the Left but until now has conveniently (and totally purposely) escaped formal notice by the mainstream media while they gleefully focus on the Koch Brothers. Thanks largely to recent email dumps by WikiLeaks, Soros’ cover has been completely blown. The Koch Brothers have more than met their match!

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

  5. Clintonite Conspiracy Theories

    [T]he only thing the Clinton camp has to fear is the facts.

    Therefore, the campaign’s mission is to poison the well of public discussion in order to immunize Clinton from future factual disclosures. From now to Election Day, all facts are to be deemed suspect, no matter how verifiably true, since they might have bubbled to the surface through the machinations of “conspiracy theorists.”

    Who is feeding such destructive facts to these conspirators? Why, the Russians, of course….

    Certainly, we will not hear or read the truth in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any of the major electronic media, all of which are huddled in Hillary Clinton’s “Big Tent,” conspiring on how to defeat the conspiracy theorists that threaten the “her” they are “with.”

    Squeezed into a campaign tent that now houses the totality of the imperial military, “national security” and “free trade” establishment, Hillary’s legions resort to the broad brush strategy of truth pacification once known as McCarthyism, connecting dots between Russian “aggressors,” far-right domestic outliers, and everyone that refuses to accept Clinton as their savior from Trump’s America First Reich….

    Trump’s continued popularity with a white male constituency that was always assumed to be a bastion of the War Party, is seen as an existential threat to the legitimacy of the U.S. quest for global dominance….

    No wonder the Clintonites are in a frenzy of neo-McCarthyism and “conspiracy”-mongering. Clinton is the embodiment of U.S. imperialist policy in the 21st century – a lawless and maniacal banshee with no constraints, scruples or elementary notions of decency. One would have to harken back to Germany’s Third Reich to find a major power “diplomat” capable of cackling “We came, we saw, he died” over the body of a murdered head of state.

    Donald Trump has no legions of brown-shirts, but Clinton’s Big Tent contains the bulk of the fascist, racist murderers in the U.S. imperial juggernaut.

    • They got that exactly backwards. Clinton has said Trump is promoting every conspiracy theory out there, whether it’s birtherism, polling, election fraud, media conspiracies to make him look foolish by quoting him all the time, etc.

    • If this is presented as ‘factual’ then: ” From now to Election Day, all facts are to be deemed suspect, no matter how verifiably true, since they might have bubbled to the surface through the machinations of “conspiracy theorists.”

      We should be appropriately skeptical, of both sides. And we should also look backwards in time.

      Wonder what ‘true’ means?

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

  7. Articles about the election and Donald Trump all miss the key driving force that explains everything: the Tea Party is anti-establishment.

    • One of my ‘new’ favorites: To the Tea Party, compromise equals capitulation.

      Americans used to work together.

      • “Americans used to work together.”

        The two parties didn’t stop working together as recently as the tea party formed. Bi-partisan congeniality died when Bill Clinton was president in my opinion. But that’s just when I started paying much attention to it so it could have been something that never existed.

        Now that I think about it there wasn’t much working together in the Civil War era.

        Upon what do you base your opinion Double Deal?

      • Danny Thomas

        Can’t ya think of even one example of American’s working together Dave?

        I think you can, but don’t think you’re putting in much effort here.

        Hint. Look before and after the Civil War.

      • Americans work together when it is to their mutual benefit. Obviously the issues of the day, if acted on, benefit one group against others. Trump will bring more groups together. Obama has fanned the flames of difference politics. You got what you voted for.

      • “Trump will bring more groups together.”

        Evidence to date might show otherwise. Are we basing the conclusion on hindcasting, or forecasting?

      • Trump has the balz to reach out to African-Americans and Latinos. He is trying to bring them together, not point out false differences. Of course, he is talking to the law abiding segments of those groups, not the law breakers, gangs, etc.

      • Forecasting it is.

        So would you be so kind as to run your ‘model’ in hindcast and tell us how he’s done to date? Somewhere I’ve read if a model is incapable of capturing a particular (political) climate based on actual observation it’s usefulness going forward is suspect.

        70 years is over two ‘climate’ time scales so should be a reasonable representation.

        But there is that whole ‘faith’ conversation which can be laid out about now.

      • Why are you classifying Trump’s behavior as a “model?” Makes zero sense.

      • That’s a valid question.

        My thinking is we have a proxy (polls) which show a reflection of folks by category and their responses to input (Trump’s ‘behavior’……..interesting perspective by the by). So far, that proxy shows a less that positive response.

        Your ‘forecast’ must be based on something. Might we ask what? (I think mine is an equally valid question).

      • jim2,

        Your ‘forecast’ must be based on something.

        Looks like selective amnesia from where I’m sitting. Call it flawed hindcasting.

      • Wow! Now there is an article that could be used to teach a graduate level class on how ideology warps and poisons the mind. It was like listening to Mao describe a Disney show. Every shadow has a sinister interpretation and the whole world is a pit of insanity, except of course, for the writer. Then you get to the end and the agenda that explains it all jumps off the page and screams, ‘Where’s my Mommy? Save Mother Earth. Vote Green (and don’t worry about Green Fascists. Haven’t I already told you where all the fascists are to be found? Look elsewhere cause we’re just a walk through the tulips here, under the Green dome. Besides, our shirts are green!).’ Trump’s raging racism? “…the Americans and Saudis created the international jihadist network nearly four decades ago and have now come to rely on Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world.” People actually paid this guy to write this crapola. Sounds like they cribbed it from some very old files belonging to the Soviet Union’s politburo. Not that I don’t agree with some of it, but someone has been playing whack-a-mole with this guy’s brain.

      • Please explain to me how you tell the difference between compromise and capitulation. I’m with the Tea Party on this. And the Tea Party is specific in naming one group that is always doing the capitulating.
        I’ll give you a hint. When you go into a negotiation and get nothing you wanted and the other side got more than they wanted you don’t come out and claim yourself to be a brilliant negotiator.

    • Trump killed the Tea Party. They were in DC, and are part of what Trump calls the failed Washington insiders now. Breitbart has some choice words about the weakness of certain TP members in Congress, and that is Trump’s mouthpiece.

      • The Tea Party is a symptom not a party. Tea Partiers are angry that the country no longer lives within its means and that it’s being led over the cliff by politicians who rob from the productive to buy votes or fecklessly feign principled opposition to ‘communism’ or ‘state socialism’ — what’s the difference? — both of which present the most serious challenge to the future of Western civilization, which depends on respecting free choice and individual rights. The so-called ‘conservative’ politicians and commentators are part of the problem and Tea Partiers know it– the blue cities of America are lost and the Republican establishment has no solutions for that because it starts with a need to shrink an out-of-control federal government that funds global warming propaganda and the Leftist-liberal Public Education Complex.

      • The Left does not want to admit that since FY 2000 spending on Social Programs has increased by nearly $2 Trillion raising it to $3 Trillion out of a $4 Trillion budget. They don’t want to admit the Defense budget has increased by only $300 Billion since FY 2000 to $600 Billion. The Left does not want to admit the Bush tax cuts on the rich were only $100 Billion per year and are now gone. The Left yearns for the “Golden Days” of greater income equality of the 1950s and 1960s when, in their mind, it was because of the higher marginal tax rate at 91% and the rich paid for everything. In fact during that period those paying the 91% rate paid less than .5% of tax revenue and the total tax on all Individuals, as a % of GDP, was less than it is now.

        The Left does not want to admit that the Effective Tax rate on all Income Taxes during those “Golden Days” was 11-13% and today it stands at 14.7%. They don’t accept that during those “Golden Days” the EffectiveTax rate on the top 1% was in the 30-31% range and if the current Effective Tax rate of 27% on the 1% was raised to that rate, it would bring in only an additional, paltry $50 to $70 Billion per year while the deficit is $600 Billion.

        The Left is obsessed with increasing Taxes while in reality increasing Taxes is chicken feed compared to the explosion of Entitlements that has happened since FY2000 and is expected to happen in the next few years. Spending on Social Programs by FY 2020 is projected to increase by $600 Billion, which equals the entire Defense Budget amount today and that amount in Obama’s FY2020 Budget. The Social Security and Medicare Programs alone add $401 Billion to the deficit, ( increasing in the out years) even though the Huffington Post loyalists are told repeatedly that those two programs do not add to the deficit.

        When will the Left and The Huffington Post come clean and face reality?

      • American wealth as a whole has grown, but it is owned by less people, and the middle class are not getting any benefit from that wealth, while some at the top have many times more than they know what to do with, and would not might contributing to the country via more taxes because that also helps the General Welfare that the constitution says taxes are for.

      • Well, I rather like your graph as well. Related to that long term trend, if the ratio of Defense spending to Social Program spending in the mid-1950s were still in effect today, the Defense budget would be $9 Trillion instead of the actual amount of $600 Billion.

        I started using FY 2000 as a base when I was comparing the growth in Debt Held by the Public for the 15 years after WWII, which was 1% until 1960, to the growth for the 15 years after FY 2000. That was 300%. The standard line, by you know who, was that we grew out of the debt burden post WWII (true) and we can do it again. Maybe not true. So I wanted to see what caused the Debt Held by the Public to go from $3.4 Trillion in FY 2000 to a projected $14 Trillion at the end of this Fiscal Year.

        The problem is two fold- Entitlement growth curve and slower growth in productivity during this century. Productivity growth affects standard of living but also growth in the tax base. Taxes can be raised all anyone wants but if there is anemic growth in GDP and thus Adjusted Gross Income it is all for naught. During Clinton’s 8 years AGI rose by 73%. From 2000 to 2013 (last IRS report) it rose 42%. Waiting on 2014 report which should be a little better but still not comparable to 20th century growth.

      • Ceresco,
        Thank you.
        “During Clinton’s 8 years AGI rose by 73%. From 2000 to 2013 (last IRS report) it rose 42%.”

        Isn’t this citation an argument for policies such as Clinton’s (presuming hers are much like his)? Of the 2000-2013 time frame, the first 8 were Bush’s. Reps dominated the House during the 2000 and on time, and about an equal split in the Senate. So I’m not quite clear on why this is all laid at the feet of ‘the left’. (I see it as an issue in general, not party specific).

        I guess it would help to define ‘entitlements’. To be clear, we agree that this is a serious issue. I, like you, have concern that banking on growth (GDP) soley as an answer is less than prudent. Spending should be reigned in.

      • CD –

        ==> when, in their mind, it was because of the higher marginal tax rate at 91% and the rich paid for everything…. ==>

        I always love it when people explain what millions of people, as a single entity, think.

        It seems to me that “the left” includes a lot of people who think that there a great many cause-and-effect factors that have contributed to the current state of the economy in comparison to the state of the economy at various points in the past.

        Should we say that “the right” attributes the current state of the economy, relatively, to kids not praying in schools, people wishing others “Happy Hollidays” instead of “Merry Christmas?” Or perhaps they say that the current state of the economy is attributable to the changes in tax policy of the sort that you say is insignificant as a matter of scale?

        Personally, I think some of the causality rests in a growth in the tendency for people to think that they can describe the thinking of millions of people – which, of course can easily simplified and characterized as wrong – as if is a single entity

        John Stuart Mill:

        In almost every one of the leading controversies. . . both sides were in the right in what they affirmed, though in the wrong in what they denied; and that if either could have been made to take the others’ views in addition to its own, little more would have been needed to make its doctrine correct..

      • Joshua

        I am sure millions agree with this statement. When someone has a Liberal by the balls on substance, the Liberal always tries to change the subject and goes to style points.

        I brought up the 91% tax issue because ever since the income inequality issue became vogue, the airwaves have been blanketed with statements by politicians and celebrities citing the good ol days when the rich paid their “fair share” and that a larger middle class was a result. It is repeated ad nauseam in all quarters, including the Liberal blogs. When prominent Democrats discuss the two items, the implication is that there is a causative relationship. Bernie Boy mentioned it several times. He reached millions Millions also believe that SS and Medicare do not add to the deficit despite the fact that the SS Trustees Report states it adds $409 Billion. Why do they believe that? Because politicians repeat it constantly.

        Here is another example where millions believe something they were told by a politician. Bernie said in a televised speech that Corporations are not paying their “fair share” of taxes. Specifically he said in 1953 Corporations paid 30% of Federal Tax revenue but today it is only 10%. So, I looked it up. He was absolutely right. Except! He left out a little detail. In 1953 Corporations and Businesses paid $3 Billion in SS Payroll Taxes. Today they pay over $500 Billion in SS and Medicare Payroll Taxes. Also, in 1953 some of the taxes counted as Corporation Taxes were paid by Individuals who were incorporated under Chapter S of the Tax Code. In 1986 they began to shift their taxes over to the Individual Income Tax Column and were counted as Individual Income Taxes. Today that is hundreds of billions of dollars of income. A fair comparison would require either the 1953 amount be adjusted downward or the current amount be adjusted upwards. I don’t know what the exact % is that Corporations pay today but it is significantly more than the 10% of Federal Revenue and may even be close to 30%. But Sanders was able to get millions to believe what he wanted them to believe regardless of the facts.

      • Danny

        I don’t think anyone has clean hands on spending. I picked on the Left since I was looking back at the history of where these programs started. FDR had a large majority of Democrats in Congress in 1935 when SS passed. LBJ had a large majority of Democrats in Congress in 1965 when Medicare and Medicaid and the War on Poverty were passed. Without a Super Majority in the Senate a small group can filibuster and any attempt to change the trajectory of spending on Entitlements will be defeated. Like Wagathon said the establishment Republicans are complicit as well. But I am not sure how many Tea Party Seniors will be panting over cuts to SS or Medicare. Like the old saying ” Don’t cut you. Don’t cut me. Cut that fella behind the Tree.” I spent 20 years cutting public budgets. No one ever thinks they deserve to be cut.

        I think Clinton should be lauded for what he did. That includes working with a majority of Republicans in Congress to hold down spending to 30% during his 8 years vs the much higher amount under Bush. But I believe that Presidents get too much blame and too much credit for economic success and failure. I don’t blame Carter for the Stagflation of his term. The Federal Reserve probably has had more impact on events leading to the 11 Recessions since WWII than any President. And given that the Clinton growth in AGI was largely affected by the Technology boom and specifically by the Internet Bubble, unless his Vice President invented the Internet, I am not sure how much credit Clinton should get for the economic growth. But he was there so good for him.

        I note that Income Inequality increased markedly under Clinton. The number of Millionaires went from 66,000 to 240,000 and the top 5% share of aggregate income went from 17% to 21%. And that was after he increased taxes on the wealthy, which sort of blows the theory of reducing income inequality by increasing taxes on the wealthy. But I see good out of this. While in the mid 1950s there were 2.5 Million households making the equivalent of todays’ $100,000, there are now 22 million making that amount. During Clinton’s 8 years, the number of households making over $200,000 tripled going from 900,000 to 2,700,000. How is that a bad thing?

      • Ceresco,

        I think we’d agree as stated before that first we must define ‘entitlement’.

        “But I am not sure how many Tea Party Seniors will be panting over cuts to SS or Medicare.” Me too, unless they’re panting because those may actually be cut. Oh. And due to my age and participation (contribution) to date, I’d be panting also.

        And a biggie, which many don’t wish to discuss is a quite large catch-all:

        “According to USDA, the largest farm businesses receive the majority of farm subsidy payments. In 2009, the top 12 percent of farm businesses took in 62 percent of all federal farm payments; the average payment to large, commercial farms (with annual sales over $250,000) was $31,700 while farms with lower sales received only $4,500 per year. Those reaping the most benefits also have incomes twice as high as the average U.S. household.” Is that not a distribution of wealth?

        “Food stamps and nutrition,$756 billion over 10 years” which seemingly indirectly creates a farm subsidy. (Not arguing against the farm bill as folks need food. Think, however, this is a less than efficient venue and the SNAP and food stamp programs could be better managed by being separated out. And they need to be managed better). If my math is correct that $150/month per participant using 45 million on food stamps/SNAP. 1 in 7 people in the U.S. That’s a biggie. Can be used at the highest priced store, no shopping around for ‘the greatest deal’ required.


        w/r/t B. Clinton. Not sure we can parse out the specific income changes due to implementation of NAFTA as well as the tax changes during the same time frame. But I’ve not evaluated deeply.

        Interesting conversation and perspectives, thank you. Economics is IMO such a ‘grey’ science. But I think your offering is an indication that ‘trickle down’ hasn’t come to pass in the form hoped. And, the ‘war on poverty’ hasn’t either. The pendulum swings to extremes yet the balance seems to lie in the middle.

        Apologies, but I’ve gotten way off your track. I blame entitlements (became a rabbit hole).

      • Danny Thomas

        Author is from Brookings. Very interesting read IMO about deconstructing ‘how we got here’.

        Think many others may find this to be of interest.

      • CK –

        in my experience, most liberals think that the cause of increase in income inequality is multi-fsctoral.

        Included among those factors, would be…increases in the disparity between executive pay and average salaries; relatedly, the reduced percentage of unionized workers; relatedly, the loss of good jobs in the manufacturing sector; relatedly, the failure of wages to increase commensurate with increases in productivity and profitability; relatedly, the movement of many jobs overseas; the increase in high skilled jobs requiring high levels of education – in relative terms – which exacerbates the existing disparity in income associated with disparity in educational access and attainment; the increased influence of conservatives such as the Tea Party conservatives who systematically attack labor, the government role in addressing income disparity, etc.; increases in the percentages of minority youth imprisoned for drug offenses, etc. Would tax policy go on that list? No doubt. But methinks your simplistic attribution of cause and effect in the thinking of those you demonize also suggests another cause that many liberals think explains incrrased income inequality; political extremism.

        Further, I wonder what you think about this (from Wikipedia):

        Economists Piketty and Saez reported in 2007, that U.S. taxes on the rich had declined over the 1979-2004 period, contributing to increasing after-tax income inequality. While dramatic reductions in the top marginal income tax rate contributed somewhat to worsening inequality, other changes to the tax code (e.g., corporate, capital gains, estate, and gift taxes) had more significant impact. Considering all federal taxes, including the payroll tax, the effective tax rate on the top 0.01% fell dramatically, from 59.3% in 1979 to 34.7% in 2004. CBO reported an effective tax rate decline from 42.9% in 1979 to 32.3% in 2004 for the top 0.01%, using a different income measurement. In other words, the effective tax rate on the very highest income taxpayers fell by about one quarter.

      • J

        You made my point and then you unmade it and then made it again. What are we to do with you.

        This debate is not about whether there is income inequality. You took exception to me saying millions of Liberals blamed it on the top marginal rate. Having Presidential Candidates suggest just that repeatedly should settle that question.

        New topics. Related to the cause, of which you have laid out several that I agree with. I would add demographics. Proportionally there are more highly educated two income families and more under educated single mother families than 60 years ago. That creates a bifurcation with more highly paid families with median family incomes over $90,000 and more single mother families with median family incomes of $30,000. The disparity of those incomes has grown as well as the relative size of each subgroup.

        But this is my major point. Note the Piketty and Suarz statement. Income inequality in “after tax income”. Much discussion has also been about pre-tax income. So the question is how does “after tax income” lead to income inequality of pre-tax or Adjusted Gross Income? The assumption must be that the rich takes those monies and invests them to generate future earnings adding to greater AGI. No problem. But how much does that add to future earnings? Lets say a taxpayer earns $ 1 Million and pays $100,000 less in taxes ( choose any number, it is the principle that counts). He does this for 10 years with a nest egg of $1 Million. He invests it and gets a nice return of 10%. His Gross Income is now $1.1 Million after 10 years. Then another 10 years and he gets up over $1.2 million. Etc etc. That is fine so the guy increases his income by at least $200,000. But it is over 20 years later.

        That covers those individuals who were part of the 3600 taxpayers earning over $1 Million in 1979. And those individuals made out, most likely even better than that hypothetical case.

        But that is not the cause of the MAJOR change in Income Inequality. It is not just that the few made much, much more. It is that many, many more were making much more. That 3600 of Millionaires in 1979 ballooned to 240,000 by 2004. The question is how did those taxpayers making under $1 Million get over $1 Million. Certainly not just by reinvesting their after tax earnings. Some sure. But from 1992 to 2000 there were over 400 Millionaires being created every week. That is more Millionaires each week being created than were being created over the entire 20 year period from 1944 to 1964. They were not becoming Millionaires at such a rapid pace due to just reinvesting the after tax earnings. Also, the number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 exploded from 94,000 in 1979 to over 3 Million in 2004. I suggest that the larger impact on Income Inequality comes from those additional 2.9 Million making over $200,000 than from the added income by those 3600 earning over $1 Million in 1979. As a percent of Total Income shifted to the over $200,000 crowd this is borne out by the data. In 1979 those 3600 earned .6% of the total. By 2004, the top 9700 earned 3.8% of total income. After adjusting for the increase in tax payers from 3600 to 9700 then, yes that group increased its share by a couple of percentage points. But the share going to those making over $200,000 went from 11% to 25%. A larger amount going to some of whom may consider themselves to be Middle Class if they live around NYC or San Francisco.

        Bottom line-increasing after tax income for a few has had less impact on Income Inequality than a multitude of other factors.

      • Joshua:

        the reduced percentage of unionized workers

        The union model didn’t seem to pan out for many.

        the loss of good jobs in the manufacturing sector

        A higher than optimal corporate tax rate. Lower skilled jobs moving to where labor costs less. Raw material import tariffs. Foreign competition.

        the failure of wages to increase commensurate with increases in productivity and profitability

        Seems like a judgment call. Automation brings productivity increases and the costs of the machines is paid for by the company. I assume Caribou opened more locations and had greater profitability while adding employees and had more profitability. So the employees get paid more now?

        the movement of many jobs overseas

        Corporate tax rates front and center. Congress just doesn’t do economics well. Globalization which is inevitable, efficient and natural. See: 6 maps that could change your perspective on the world. Natural in that distributed networks are found in nature.

        the increase in high skilled jobs requiring high levels of education

        The increase in high skilled job is a good thing. Education results, well.

      • CK –

        ==> He invests it and gets a nice return of 10%. His Gross Income is now $1.1 Million after 10 years. Then another 10 years and he gets up over $1.2 million. Etc etc. That is fine so the guy increases his income by at least $200,000. But it is over 20 years later. ==>

        Seems to me that wealth inequality is what’s more significant, although people often wind up focusing on income inequality (because they haven’t really thought it through and are reaching to understand the basic problem with relatively few having so incredibly much compared to a huge amount having not nearly as much or practically nothing in relative terms). So, to evaluate your argument, I’d need to see you account for compound interest.

  8. In Florida:

    • 855,000 mail ballots cast so far in the primaries.

    • 386,000 are voters who haven’t voted in a primary election before or have only voted once

    • Of these 386,000 new primary voters:

    — 86,000 Democrats
    — 90,000 Republicans
    — 210,000 no party preference

    Absentee ballot returns show spike in unlikely voters weighing in on Florida’s primary

    The political team at the Florida Chamber of Commerce has come across a remarkable trend this campaign season: a huge spike in mail voting by people who rarely vote in primary elections….

    “This is huge,” said Marian Johnson, senior vice president of political strategy for the Florida Chamber and one of the foremost experts on Florida campaigns and politics. “I can envision election night when the votes are counted that certain people win that nobody thought had a chance, and that being attributed to this trend.”….

    In other words, these are not “likely voters” surveyed by most pollsters or targeted by sophisticated political campaigns….

    “We’re in unprecedented, unchartered territory,” said Florida Chamber president and CEO Mark Wilson. “Nobody’s been polling these people, nobody’s been marketing to these people.”….

    “I think top of the ticket plays a lot in this. The voters don’t like either candidate (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump), but the emotions of frustration and anger are pushing people to do what they’ve never done before,” said Johnson. “I would think these voters definitely are not looking for status quo.”

    • Gotta be fraudulent, huh?

      • I guess this extraordinary ability to vote months ahead of the actual ‘main’ polling day probably dates back to the days when distances were vast and communications highly problematical.

        It seems to me bizarre in the extreme that a vote can be cast so far in advance, as surely so many factors may yet come into play before November, including appalling gaffes by either side or the uncovering of highly damaging information which might have materially affected a vote already cast.

        Presumably, if something actually illegal was uncovered-as opposed to merely poor or unethical behaviour- a candidate would be forced to pull from the race, although with all the lawyers involved it may be that nothing might come to court until after the election, if then.


      • “extraordinary ability to vote months ahead”
        It’s about the Florida primary, not the November election.

      • “Gotta be fraudulent, huh?”

        Why? It’s symptomatic of the presidential primary voting for Sanders and Trump. The article alluded to the same thing “these voters definitely are not looking for status quo”. Status quo includes Rubio and Hillary. Status quo was UK remaining in the European Union. It’s global. The new world order appears stillborn.

      • Several state begin absentee voting for the general in September.

      • Funny you are not.

      • Danny Thomas


        Funny? Why would you suggest that? Trump (and Glenn) have persuaded that elections are rigged and fraud should be of the utmost concern. Damn the disenfranchisement.

    • Thanks for the data, Glenn. Where did you get the data on “no party preference” number. That wasn’t in the article you linked that I could find. Given it handily exceeds the number of registered Democrats and Republicans it seems quite significant.

      The significant thing is that this reinforces the notion that voting this year is different. People heretofore not engaged enough in the political process to vote in major party primaries are coming out of the woodwork.

      This follows my suspicions about why Trump’s campaign rallies are attracting so many people and why he set a new record in number of votes received by a Republican POTUS primary candidate. A record set despite the vote being split among 17 contestants. If, as the article said, these are people the polls have overlooked then the biggest surprise won’t be in October it’ll be in November and the cause anti-establishment fever.

      • This paragraph and a little addition and subtraction:

        Among the more than 855,000 mail ballots cast so far, more than 215,000 came from voters who had not voted in the last four primaries, and 171,000 came from voters who have voted in each of the last four primaries. Those “new” primary voters included more than 86,000 Democrats, and more than 90,000 Republicans.

        Looking at the paragraph again, you’re right to quesiton the number, because the article says “more than 86,000 Democrats” and “more than 90,000 Republicans.”

  9. I thought the Florida primary was weeks ago?


    • They are writing about the Florida primary next Tuesday.

    • Tony
      It is a primary for Florida Senator to the US Senate. Not to be confused with a Florida Senator to the Florida Senate. Nor to be confused with Florida Representative to the US House of Representatives which should not be confused with Florida Representative to the Florida House of Representatives. Lol.
      And then there are elections for Township, County , Village, City and School District officials in each state with election laws in each state perhaps vastly different. Have you ever seen such a mishmash?

    • That list appears to only include dates for events in 2016 that haven’t yet happened. Only nine states show a primary date and they’re all in the future from today through mid-September.

  10. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149511360096/finding-the-political-bottom


    Here in the USA, we’ve narrowed our search for a new leader to two lying, 70-year old racists. (You should see how bad the other 320 million of us are.)

    I’m exaggerating, obviously. There are big differences in the candidates. For example, Clinton has allegedly killed lots of people in the past, whereas Trump will allegedly kill lots of people in the future. That’s very different, timing-wise.

    But you probably came to this blog today to find out what I think of Clinton’s “Alt-Right” speech compared to Trump’s “bigot” speech. I will not disappoint you.

    Clinton’s speech was a persuasion success. I give it A+ for doing its job of painting Trump as a racist. This successful persuasion approach is probably the work of a Master Persuader on Clinton’s team. The one I call Godzilla.

    As Trump supporters already know, all of Clinton’s accusations about Trump being a racist are taken out of context. If you look at any of those situations in proper context, they don’t indicate racism. I detailed that point in this post. I won’t reiterate because at this point in the election cycle both candidates are lying about everything they say. If I have to explain why one of them is lying about something in particular, you haven’t been paying attention.

    They are both lying. All the time. About everything.

    If that isn’t obvious to you at this point, you are hypnotized. Literally.

    –There is much more at the link. Great stuff. The best stuff. Believe me.

    • Clinton certainly singled out 40% of Americans — mostly white Americans who have less than a college degree — for TWO MINUTES HATE.

      Like Adams says, we’ll have to wait and see what Trump does with this.

    • “I won’t reiterate because at this point in the election cycle both candidates are lying about everything they say. ”

      “They are both lying. All the time. About everything.”

      Yep. Politicians. Both of them.

      Could have included pandering too.

      • Trump is a fast learner. Hillary has been practicing the art of lying her entire professional life. Probably personal life too. I bet she’s been lying to her friends, teachers, family, etc since she learned how to talk. Her first word was probably a lie.

      • David,
        “Trump is a fast learner. Hillary has been practicing the art of lying her entire professional life.”

        Interesting. So Trump is lying to us after all with all of his promises all of the time.

        Therefore, there will be no great deals.

    • Clinton Inc’s “scientists” and MSM attack dogs floated the balloon about the “typical,” “racist” and “authoritarian” Trump voter some time ago.

      A good example is a lecture Jonathan Haidt gave to the American Psychological Assocation a couple of weeks ago (h/t Joshua). The “scientific” proofs that Trump and his supporters are “authoritarians” begins at minute 00:32:25:

      VIDEO: Why the centre cannot hold in America, Europe, and psychology

      Sample of slides from Haidt’s presentation:

      If Adams is right, the truthfulness of Haidt’s allegations about the essential nature of 40% of Americans will prove to be of scant importance in the political realm.

      • Joshu a,

        Haidt is another one of those people you have to carefully watch what he does, and not what he says.

        And if one watches what he does, he’s a wolf in lambs clothing. He’s just another partisan hack, as this lecture clearly demonstrates.

        Or do you really believe Haidt is so stupid that he doesn’t realize the establishment honchos from both parties are on the same payroll, and take their orders from the same puppet masters?

        Partisan politics is like professional wrestlng. It’s great entertainment, but don’t mistake it for a true contest.

    • A racist believes another person is inferior due to their race.
      Trump is not a racist because he believes everybody is inferior to him.

      • Incorrect. A racist believes one race is superior to another. It’s a group comparison. Individuals can be exceptions to the rule.

        I’m a racist. I think blacks are superior in athletics. I think Asians are superior in intellect. I think whites are superior in war.

        Not your ordinary racist, eh? I acknowledge that evolution has optimized different breeds of man for different survival challenges. I acknowledge that evolution has optimized genders for different survival challenges and that makes me a sexist too.

        The most important “ist” is my opinion is being a realist. Progress is difficult to impossible if simple facts are ignored become some might be offended by them. Frail flowers to the back of the bus, please.

  11. The Trump revolution rolls on:

    University of Chicago Warns Incoming Students That They Will Not Be Shielded From Opposing Views Or Given “Safe Spaces”

    LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO TO CLASS OF 2020: Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

    Speakers (particularly conservatives) are routinely shut down by protesters as universities respond with relative passivity.

    Universities have an obligation to preserve the right of free speech and students who prevent others from speaking should be suspended from the university. Instead, schools like Dartmouth have officials who actually apologize to the protesters who shutdown libraries and prevented students from leaving.

    There is now a leading university that is defying the trend against free speech and that is the University of Chicago. Hopefully the position of the university will be replicated by other schools.

    Notably, the underlying report at UChicago quotes Hanna Holborn Gray, who was president during my time at the school, as saying that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.”

    Bravo, UChicago, Bravo.

  12. The BBC piece supposedly on the candidates and climate change turns into a pitch for solar, saying this:
    “Though solar power is still intermittent, as with wind, the fall in cost does mean that during the hot days of high summer, when air-conditioning is running at full blast, the electricity supply can be carbon-free.”

    What about the hot and windless summer nights? I guess the idea of baseload power is gone.

    • David

      firstly, in the UK we don’t get that many hot summer days (let alone nights) and its largely a south east or city thing anyway. . Out here in the South West its been a pleasant 72-76F for the last few weeks during the day and 56-60F or so at night, so not all the country swelters and needs aircon (cars are a different matter) .

      Secondly, it is a quite deliberate design aspect to seal up modern buildings-such as large office blocks -so there are few opportunities to open windows to let a high level breeze flow through as that, of course, would affect the air handling unit.


    • “when air-conditioning is running at full blast, the electricity supply can be carbon-free.”

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but a dark-coloured solar panel absorbing high percentages of incident solar radiation, converting it into electricity and then using that electricity to run a heat pump, ending up as waste heat added to the quantity of heat it has pumped will actually retain more solar energy in the system than the average surface of the Earth absorbing solar radiation and then re-emitting it to space, even allowing for the retarding effect of atmospheric CO2.

      The implication of which…

      • The implication of which…

        … depends on the difference in increased radiative forcing due to the albedo change and the offsetting reduction in CO2 forcing from the fossil fuel emissions those panels replaced. It turns out that solar panels have an albedo of about 0.3, which is almost exactly the same as the average albedo of the planet itself.

        The waste heat argument is a non-starter, the planet absorbs as much solar energy in an hour as humans consume in an entire year.

        The Superfreakonomics guys got this one badly wrong.

    • What about the hot and windless summer nights?

      Whuttabout it Wojick?

      I guess the idea of baseload power is gone.

      Times …

      … they’re a changin’.

      Your best options might be to move, follow or get out of the way.

      • Brandon, this is a simple test if you don’t mind… who do you ‘think’ will be the next president?

      • I don’t know. Polls are too close to call, and there’s too much time to go yet.

      • Brandon, there is no right answer, it is your best guess. I say Donald J. Trump, for the win. See how easy it can be?

      • In the horse race for energy technologies, I’d go for the ones with best growth curve.

      • Thank you, Brandon. You have helped me to understand the mind set of people who refuse to speak off the cuff. It means something to me and I may only hope others.

      • Well, let’s test what you learned.

        What I think people generally do when asked what they think will happen is that their answer will be biased by what they think should happen, or would want to happen (which isn’t necessarily the same thing). Few people will answer “I don’t know”.

        A good polling practice is to ask the different questions, e.g.:

        1) Who would you vote for?
        2) Who do you think will win?

        Note the differences in the responses.

      • Arch Stanton,

        Good job of pulling the curtain back on brandonrgates.

        You got him to say “I don’t know” when it comes to predicting the political future, but try to get him to utter those three words when it comes to predicting the CAGW future, or the future of renewable energy.

        Instead, he tells us: “In the horse race for energy technologies, I’d go for the ones with best growth curve.”

        brandonrgates, nevertheless, actually managed to hit a realistic note when he said:

        What I think people generally do when asked what they think will happen is that their answer will be biased by what they think should happen, or would want to happen (which isn’t necessarily the same thing). Few people will answer “I don’t know”.

        It looks like brandonrgates, however, believes himself to be immune to such bias, at least when it comes to his ability to predict the future of CAGW or renewable energy.

      • It looks like brandonrgates, however, believes himself to be immune to such bias, at least when it comes to his ability to predict the future of CAGW or renewable energy.

        Oh the irony.

        You might make better inferences if you actually read what people write, Glenn. There’s a big difference between knowing which horse will win, and placing a bet.

      • brandonrgates,

        Gibberish. Pure gibberish.

      • Play dumb often enough, and people may begin to believe you.

      • brandonrgates | August 28, 2016 at 9:32 am |

        “Play dumb often enough, and people may begin to believe you.”

        It’s working! I’m beginning to believe you’re dumber than a mud fence.

  13. Re: Perpetuation and moderation: Trump’s Lincolnian rhetoric

    Thanks for this. I needed a good laugh.

    Trump’s apparent lapses in moderation in response to personal attacks, moreover, demonstrate a quality of spiritedness and a will to fight where the absence of such has played to the detriment of Republicans and conservatives confronted by willful Progressives in recent decades.

    • Masugi hit the nail squarely on the head with this passage:

      Too often, the loudest cries for civility and moderation are coming from people who are, themselves, most uncivil and immoderate.

      Sometimes it’s best to look at what people do, not what they say.

      • And sometimes what they say is exactly what they plan to do.

      • opluso,

        Right. Speech crimes are at least as egregious as “overt acts against peace and good order.” (Thomas Jefferson)

        Where have we heard this before?

        Oh, now I remember, from the PC sensitivy Gestapo:

        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….

        The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech, by Kimberly Strassel

        I Find that Offensive!, by Claire Fox

    • Who said anything about “speech crimes”? Oh, right. You did.

      I quoted a section wherein the author concocted his own absurd inversion of the recent willingness of “republicans and conservatives” to say, or do, almost anything to thwart “willful Progressives”. This was taken from an article comparing Trump to Lincoln. Yes, Lincoln. Perhaps it wasn’t intended as satire but I found it quite funny.

      Mr. Masugi may be ready to add Trump to Mount Rushmore but I believe if your test (“look at what people do, not what they say”) were appplied to Trump’s career, most observers would still conclude that he is ill-suited to be national dogcatcher, let alone Commander-in-Chief.

      • opluso,

        You don’t believe Masugi’s quote refers to Trump’s intransigence, his refusal to be shouted down and cowed into submission by the highly intolerant, fanatical, and at times violent speech police?

        Let’s review what Masugi said, putting the quote back into context:

        Besides respect for the law and the fundamental principles behind it, citizens and politicians need to display temperance or moderation in persuading fellow citizens. Though the apparent irony of looking to Trump for an example of moderation is not lost on me, moderation need not be reduced to refraining from name-calling as too many conservative critics of Trump would have it. Trump’s apparent lapses in moderation in response to personal attacks, moreover, demonstrate a quality of spiritedness and a will to fight where the absence of such has played to the detriment of Republicans and conservatives confronted by willful Progressives in recent decades.

        Where Trump displays moderation most strikingly, however, is not coincidentally, I think, precisely where it is most needed: his foreign policy speeches. In parallel ways, Lincoln’s Temperance Address portrayed democratic politics and the political significance of the Temperance Movement.

        What both speeches have in common is a condemnation of ideological fanaticism….

        Just as the forces of temperance in Lincoln’s day led people to a kind of mad intemperance, today we something akin to this strange juxtaposition when those who cry the loudest for civility in our politics (moderation as they see it), advocate policies that would lead to outrages against civility. Too often, the loudest cries for civility and moderation are coming from people who are, themselves, most uncivil and immoderate.

        This is what Masugi was referring to, IMHO:

        VIDEO:Outrageous violence against Trump supporters
        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBpRexwiPg

        Or this:

        VIDEO: Milo Yiannopoulos assaulted and threatened by BLM ‘protesters’ at DePaul University
        a, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawEMxTroBk

        Or this:

        VIDEO: UMass Amherst Students Throw Temper Tantrum at free Speech Event

        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANgl54duC0A

  14. The Clintons have been using our Government and tax money for their benefit for a long, long time. Broke, my @ss. From the article:

    There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, “Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington”; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and “concrete progress” on nukes and terror.

    Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.

    Clinton was the guest of honor at a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by a group of prominent Pakistani doctors in New York, who acknowledged holding the dinner as part of that lobbying effort. The immediate beneficiary? Hillary Clinton, candidate for U.S. Senate. Organizers were told they’d need to raise at least $50,000 for her to show up. They did. The secondary beneficiary? Pakistan. Two weeks after Clinton told her hosts that she hoped her husband would do what they wanted him to do, the White House announced that Bill Clinton would, indeed, include Pakistan on his trip to South Asia


  15. From the article:

    A liberal journalist who has moderated forums hosted by the Clinton Global Initiative offered a brutal takedown of the organization, describing it as “creepy,” “disgusting” and “gross.”

    Adam Davidson, who hosts a show for NPR and has written for New York Magazine, also said during an appearance on Slate’s “Political Gabfest” podcast this week, that the Bill and Hillary Clinton-controlled group’s events are “all about buying access.”


  16. Stefan Molyneux Interviews morning talk show host Bill Mitchell

    . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAopWX9Mzgs

    Mitchell points out that recent Gallup polling for self-identified party affiliation found 29% Democrat, 29% Republican, and 42% independent. Yet by official registration with a party there are 16% more registered Democrats than Republicans. This he says can only be attributed to a large number of registered Democrats who no longer self-identify with the Democratic party but haven’t bothered to un-register themselves.

    He goes on to say that pollsters weight their results by the larger number of registered Democrats and believes that is making polling this year inaccurate.

    There must be some reason why Trump is a category killer this year in rally attendance and why he set a new record in number of votes received in the primary. Keep in mind he set that record number despite the vote being split between 17 Republican primary contestants. Also keep in mind that he received more primary votes than Hillary despite there only being 2 Democratic primary contestants.

    What other logical argument explains these observations?

  17. Hillary supports ALT-LEFT violence against Trump supporters.

    • Yuge turnouts at Trump rallies despite the violence against them that Hillary supports.

      I wonder how many more people would go if there was no fear factor?

      My own family was concerned for my safety and to be honest I was a bit concerned as well but trusted the Austin Police Department to provide protection. Normally I’d provide my own protection but there wasn’t any way for me to do that between the car and the arena gate as I’d be searched on the way in the door.

      Hillary supports violence against her political opponents.

      Write that down.

    • I watched the first 15 minutes of your video. I abhor violence whoever it is perpetrated by, so I am only commenting on this particular example against Trump supporters. It has no place in a democratic society but what struck me was that there was a huge number of young trump supporters, a fair proportion apparently mixed race.. Was this a youth rally or is it representative?

      I had been given the impression his supporters were mostly old, white and male

      Where were the police?

      Did Hillary condemn it all?

      IF Trump should win the Presidential election by a narrow majority there seems considerable potential for riots and violence unless Hillary concedes graciously and urges her reporters to peacefully accept the result


    • climatereason said:

      Did Hillary condemn it all?

      She condemns the violence perpetrated against Trump supporters, but at times she places some of the blame on Trump:

      Hillary Clinton Condemns Anti-Trump Violence but Says Trump Deserves Some Blame

      Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton on Friday condemned violence by protesters at a Donald Trump event but said the presumptive GOP nominee shoulders some of the blame for creating a volatile atmosphere and encouraging confrontations.

      “I condemn all violence in our political arena,” Mrs. Clinton told CNN. “I condemned it when Donald Trump was inciting it and congratulating people who were engaging in it. I condemn it by those who are taking violent protests to physical assault against Donald Trump. This has to end. ”

      Other times she condemns the violence, but places all the blame on Trump:

      Clinton blames Trump for violence at his events

      Hillary Clinton said Sunday that one person is to blame for violence at Donald Trump’s rallies: Donald Trump.

      Clinton, speaking to a fired-up crowd at a gym in Indianapolis, hit Trump for dividing people without understanding the consequences, arguing that those actions have led to the violent protests that have occurred around some of his events.

      “When you divide people against one another, you don’t know what is going to happen,” Clinton said of Trump. “We are seeing violence at political rallies in our country. That is the kind of thing you see on TV, you assume is far away, don’t you? Well, this, this hateful talk about immigrants, about Muslims about women, I mean, enough, enough. It is not who we are.”

  18. Hillary supports flag burning along with violent protest.

    Hillary hates America and all that it stands for.

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

    • One thing Billary does love about this country is its US Dollar. Her god.

    • “Hillary hates America and all that it stands for.”
      A short time ago I would have considered that statement over the top.
      No longer.
      In her disturbing “alt-right’ diatribe, she specifically stated nationalism was an aspect of the “alt-right”.
      (I suppose she won’t have any of the Olympic Gold medal winners over to the White House)
      What the frack is the “alt-right”?
      The Left now considers patriotism racist.

      When I was working in politics, nobody said this kind of divisive stuff when they were ahead.

      I think I will go listen to Ray Charles’ version of America the Beautiful.
      God Bless America

      • America has always stood for unity and tolerance. Alt-control-delete stands for the opposite.

      • Jimd

        Good to hear, so presumably you unequivocally condemn the violence against those attending the Trump rally?


      • I condemn any violence.

      • Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Trump defended campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and declined to condemn supporters who have attacked protesters at his increasingly chaotic rallies.


        Sorry Brad.

      • You’re forgiven, Joshua.

        For what, I have no idea.

      • Tony,

        All this “I condemn violence” is rather nauseating. I don’t consider it the first tool in the tool box, but trust me, some people deserve killing. There is evil in this world.

      • Danny Thomas

        Yeah. And some should only be ‘carried out on a stretcher’. But I’m sure that kinda talk shouldn’t be considered ‘inciting’: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655

        Sometimes, the narrative is just silly. And the denial of same with a provocative candidate is more so.

      • Italics.

      • You know, J0shua, if I snuck in to a Hillary rally with contraband signage and started calling her horrible names at the top of my lungs, I wouldn’t be surprised if I got the shiit kicked out of me for my trouble. I have agitated a mob and had no right to do what I did.

        The difference in the video I linked is Hillary supporters were ambushing peaceful law abiding people who were simply coming or going from a Trump rally.

        I know you could never be honest enough to say there’s a difference but I suspect you might actually be bright enough to understand that there is a difference.

      • Impeach Barry,

        Such subtleties are lost on Danny Thomas, and they’re lost because they don’t fit his version of truth.

        You see, most Trump supporters are white. And you know how those white people are.

        In this Danny Thomas is hardly alone. His version of truth has the great advantage of having a scholarly gloss to it, of being the dominant system of belief taught in American colleges and universities these days.

        Professor Leonard Jeffries, chariman of the Black Studies department at the City College of New York, has elaborated his theories about the “ice people” and the “sun people.” The whites, he argues, “were forged in the Ice Age and thus bred for cruelty and aggression; blacks come from tropical climes, which made them intuitive, loving, and nice (like Jeffries himself perhaps).” (Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue)

        Then there’s Professor Houston Baker of Vanderbilt University, who was director of the Center for the Study of Black Literature and Culture and former president of the Modern Language Association. Baker is one of those who has reduced the term “white male” to the single word “whitemale,” as in: “What seems certain is that an unchallenged sense of global, Western, whitemale superiority, or beauty, or authority has ‘had its chance,’ and we are now engaged with the dynamics of the articulate ascendance of others.”

        The others, according to Baker, are the “newly emergent people” who are all people but the whitemales. They are, he specifices, “African-Americans, gay and lesbian spokespersons, Chicano and Chicana critics and artists, Asian-American theorists and activists, Latin American commentators, recent scholars of postcolonial discourse and postmodermism, and all others who are seriously interrogating formerly unquestioned Western hegemonic arrangements of knowledge and power.”

        These “newly emergent people,” these “others,” asserts Baker, are attempting to introduce “love, truth, and beauty into the world.” These have never been “the preoccupation of white leaders and bosses of the West,” adds Baker, whose goals have been “power, money, and lordship over subject peoples.”

        At Columbia University in 1992, the comfortingly named Committee on Race, Religion, and Ethnicity, a group whose goal is to promote understanding and tolerance among the races, sponsored a workshop entitled “White Culture and White Identity.”

        The group agreed with Baker by attributing a number of ignoble habits of mind to white people, who are prone

        • to have negative stereotypes about others

        • to take a paternalistic/patronizing attitude toward the targets of racism

        • to secure what we can do for ourselves without concern for others who may have less than we do

        • to blame the victimes of racism/people of color for the realities of their own lives

        In other words, white people are selfish, uncaring, egotistical, paternalistic/patronizing, and inconsiderate.

        Well, no doubt some are.

        The idea here is that the world was created according to white male specifications, and, as we become more diverse, that world will necessarily change, no doubt for the better. “We need to find new heroes and myths for our society,” said Jose Rivera, author of the acclaimed play Marisol. “The God we know now is a right-wing white male corporate God in whose world racism, sexism and political injustice are rampant.”

        “If it’s a monument to anything,” inveighs Roscoe C. Brown, former president of the Bronx Community College and director of the Bronx Hall of Fame for Great Americans, “it’s a monument to the sexism and racism of the elite white males who dominated in the first half of this century,” drawing no complaints with his automatic association of racism and sexism with white maleness.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ah, yes. Subtleties. Subtleties such as my not bringing up race. Such as advocating ‘taking someone out on a stretcher’ because they voice dissenting opinion in a mob (made up of individuals) inside a structure instead of outside in the streets. Such as use of a ‘bully pulpit’ by one who rails against violence in one breath (Chicago) and advocating for ‘punching in the face’ in another.

        Subtleties such as Glenn recitation that Danny’s: “His version of truth has the great advantage of having a scholarly gloss to it,”………..leading to: “Professor Leonard Jeffries”………..”Then there’s Professor Houston Baker”…..”At Columbia University in 1992″………..” Roscoe C. Brown, former president of the Bronx Community College”. When Glenn cited the above and Danny did not. While in apparent support of Springer’s: “I know you could never be honest enough to say there’s a difference but I suspect you might actually be bright enough to understand that there is a difference.”

        Violence begets violence.

        Yes indeedy. Subtleties.

      • Oops!

        Should read:

        Such subtleties are lost on Danny Thomas and Joshua, and they’re lost because they don’t fit their version of truth….

        In this Danny Thomas and Joshua are hardly alone. Their version of truth….

      • Are “subtleties” the same as ‘dog whistles’?

      • Danny Thomas,

        We’ve had this conversation before:


        Anytime someone puts all Trump supporters into a tidy little box and paints them all with the same broad tar brush, you’re there to defend the calumnies.

        It’s so easy to predict, kind of like predicting that night follows day.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thanks Glenn. Guess how that’s done with ‘us’ ‘Hillarymonger’s’ huh?
        One really shouldn’t go about ‘grouping’ should one? Oh, wait. We’ve had that conversation before. I forgot my place. It’s okay for ‘white male’s to be ‘grouped’ by you yet ‘dog whistles’ and their subtle use is a baddy on me.

        But David stated ‘groupingly’ stated ‘Hillary supporters’ (you prefer ‘monger as I recall) and I missed your chastisement of him. I think they were actually individuals but maybe they too responded to some dog whistle and ‘packed’. But might they have actually been Johnson, Stein, or Bernie’s folks? That thought ever even cross your mind?

        Before I forget, how was ‘race’ brought in to this particular string, Glenn?

        “It’s so easy to predict, kind of like predicting that night follows day.” Yep. I do tend towards predictability. Wonder why? Guess my involvement here has become rote. You see, I find Clinton to be a mess and Trump too. But, well, you (and David, and Jim2, and so on) find issue with only one side. But I coulda predicted that.

        Where’s the skepticism? Gosh, even JimD is ‘skeptical’ of violence and that’s where this discussion originated.

      • Danny Thomas,

        We’ve also had this debate before about speech crimes and how you and your fellow Hillarymongers believe they’re as severe as overt violence.


        As I responded then:

        I’m pretty much a civil libertarian and don’t get too carried away with the Hillarymongers’ speech crimes.

        It kinda harkens back to the First Amendment and a principle our country was founded on, a principle which the Hillarymongers have managed to stand on its head:

        [T]hat to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy…; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.

        — THOMAS JEFFERSON, The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786


      • Danny Thomas

        So predictable.

        Step one: Glenn says: “you and your fellow Hillarymongers”.

        Step two: Glenn says: “The debate is about groups of people, and using pseudoscience (the misue of psychology and psychiatry) to place entire heterogeneous groups of people into tidy little boxes that can then be painted with a tar brush, using all the time-honored and customary tactics.” https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/week-in-review-politics-edition-6/#comment-803212

        There ya go again. Group me and “fellow Hillarymongers” and then placing ‘us’ in a tidy little box.

        Below the comment #803212 I further stated: “John & David are individuals. If one’s intent is to portray that individuals should be ‘shamed’ for their use of ‘pseudoscience’ then a ‘monger’ for a particular candidate (you for Trump for instance) should apply the same standards to all individuals, candidates included. Unless double standards are preferred.”

        Up to your old double standards I see. Hypocrite much?

      • Danny Thomas said:

        One really shouldn’t go about ‘grouping’ should one?

        I never said one shouldn’t “go about grouping.” That’s a rule you made up. You’re quite good at making things up, I’ve noticed. And then you go around repeating your invention ad nauseaum.

        As I explained quite explicitly in our prior conversation, grouping, and placing people (and things) into groups, is something that humans do naturally and instinctively.

        What I said is, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”

        That subtlety, however, seems to be lost on you.

      • Danny Thomas

        Let’s take a look at what you did indeed say, verbatim:

        “1) What is the purpose one engages in groupism? Is it to aid in understanding, or is it to stigmitize and demonize individual members of a certain group?” (Glenn)

        So, Glenn, what is ‘your purpose’ to ‘group’ ‘me and my fellow Hillarymongers’ and what ‘we’ believe? Is it to stigmatize and demonize? Grouping for that purpose seems less than above board. Places us all in some tidy little box just awaiting your tar.

        “2) How realistic are the traits one attributes to an individual in a group by virtue of that individual being a member of the group? (Glenn)

        Realistic.Def. “representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.” Since I’m not a ‘hillarymonger’ (something I guess that is familiar to you) your use of that representation is neither accurate, nor ‘true’ to life. So what is the opposite ‘true’?

        “3) If one attributes traits to individual members of a group that are unrealistic, that are prescriptive and not descriptive, and for the purpose of stigmatizing and demonizing individual members of that group, is that science?” (Glenn)
        Since your attribution are unrealistic, prescriptive and not descriptive and your purpose is to stigmatize/demonize me as an individual member of some ‘group’ you call ‘Hillarymongers’ therefore (according to you) you’re not being scientific. Which leaves ‘pseudoscientific’ and you yourself tie that up nicely “(the misue of psychology and psychiatry) to place entire heterogeneous groups of people into tidy little boxes that can then be painted with a tar brush, using all the time-honored and customary tactics.” and it ain’t gonna work.

        So I’ll pull back my bet on ‘groups’ to the table minimum, but I will up my bet to the table maximum on your being a hypocrite. It may be natural for you to group hillarymongers, but it’s not for me. I see 3 individual serious ‘Trump’ supporters here in you, Jim2, and Springer. But I don’t intentionally meld you in to one ‘monolith’. Just like with Trump, some choose: bigot, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, and maybe a few others. Here, on this forum, you’ve seen me state I’m not that guy.

        You commented about Appell and Vonderlin: “We haven’t seen anything like you guys — trying to classify your political enemies as emotionally or psychologically disturbed or unfit — since the Soviet Union. And I linked to Trump doing the same thing w/r/t Clinton and her health. You gave him a pass. That’s hypocritical.

        And, I’ll note. You didn’t address that you brought up race or why.

        Your disingenuousness is tiresome and frankly boring. There’s a good ad hoc(key) game on. Think I’ll watch that.

      • catweazle666

        Glenn Stehle: “You’re quite good at making things up, I’ve noticed.”

        He’s a Lefty, that’s what they do.

        There’s a LOT of them about…

      • Glenn Stehle | August 28, 2016 at 8:27 am |

        “Professor Leonard Jeffries, chariman of the Black Studies department at the City College of New York, has elaborated his theories about the “ice people” and the “sun people.” The whites, he argues, “were forged in the Ice Age and thus bred for cruelty and aggression; blacks come from tropical climes, which made them intuitive, loving, and nice (like Jeffries himself perhaps).” (Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue)”

        I tend to agree with Jeffries but I’d call the ice people ‘predators’ and the sun people ‘prey’.

  19. I’m trying to figure out how RealClearPolitics selects polls to include in the spread calculation for head-to-head, Trump-Billary. They seem to cherry pick the polls by some unstated criteria IF the highlighted polls in the poll list below the head of the page are those included. I’ve done the calculation using the top 10 polls and get a different number.


    • They only use the top 7 polls which currently add up to +42 for Hillary Rotten Clinton and show the result as +6.0 for the decaying pile of flesh.

      • If you look below the average at the list of polls, you will see some are shaded. Those are the ones that go into the average. They skip some polls and include others. No pattern that I can see.

      • Some pollsters are weighted higher than others. I think the method can be found somewhere on the website.

    • Noted climate “skeptic” and hardcore libertarian pollster with a very strong track record, J. Scott Armstrong.


      Guess he cherry-picks too, eh?

      • Jim2 made a honest mistake. You make mistakes too but the difference is yours are never honest.

      • What’s the democrat/republican sample weighting in “pollyvote”?

        Mostly bi-monthly polling of politcal affiliation from 2004 to present:


        As you can see above historically party strength has weighed in favor of Democrats by up to 10 percent.

        As you can also see in the link above in recent times Republican and Democrat party strength has tightened up considerably and in more than few recent polls Republicans come out ahead.

        I’m given to understand that most polls are using 2012 election turnout weighting and have not taken into account Gallup’s recent numbers. That could be wrong and most polls might be using recent data from Gallup for the weighting. Hence my question. Be useful for a change and see if you can find some definitive answers.

    • Cousins, I have a sneaking suspicion that your polls have the same problem as the British pre-Referendum polls, the more – er – respected of which gave the Remain side an 8% advantage. We all know what the result was.

      A very analogous result was the 1992 UK General Election, when the polls predicted a landslide victory for Neil Kinnock, as the received wisdom in the MSM was that Margaret Thatcher was utterly hated by a large percentage of the electorate. There are in fact uncanny similarities between the alleged perception of the Trump-Thatcher and the Clinton-Kinnock pairings.

      In the event, the exact opposite happened.

  20. Leaked: Hillary/Soros Behind Anti-Trump Violence!

    . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d2Eq97_kmk

  21. Bernie Sanders founded a new group, Our Revolution. He believes that “Real change never, ever takes place from the top on down. It always takes place from the bottom on up.” Bernie, F in History. A bad start for Our Revolution.

  22. In the “too funny” department…

    Watch Hillary refuse to answer a question from the press about whether she wiped her bathroom email server clean.

    . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqJcg-CixYk

    It’s a federal crime. She’s a lawyer. She knows she can’t answer in the affirmative.

  23. Don’t the smug, smirking looks just turn your stomach?

    Does she know how it comes off to viewers?

    Like it’s a big joke and she needn’t take seriously anyone questioning her?

    This woman and the plutocracy she represents must be stopped at any cost.

    . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjX-o9axmw

  24. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/26/milo-responds-hillary/

    A Swing And A Miss: How Triggered Hillary Screwed Up Her Chance To Take On The Alt-Right

    Last night, geriatric Hillary took aim at Breitbart, the alt-right and me in an effort to smear Daddy Donald as a bigot. Unfortunately the speech was low energy, inaccurate and above all sad. It was like a drive-by shooting with a water pistol fired from a mobility scooter.

    –more at link

  25. Four Way Race Polling

    It’s actually a four-way race for president and that’s to Trump’s advantage.

    In RCP polling average today Clinton leads Trump by 6.3% in a two-way race but in a 4-way race that lead drops to 4.0%.

    Go Johnson! Go Stein!

  26. Regarding the “crucial research…immigration” the article claims the 1898 United States vs. Wong Kim settled the issue of being born on US soil. It does not, for this reason. The parents of Wong Kim were legal permanent residents, and so that made them subject to the laws of the United States.

    Note also that Diplomats are subject to the laws of the United states, but their children born in the US do not become US citizens (because they are subject to the laws of their home country). Whether illegal aliens coming into the country, and having children here makes the children citizens is not settled law.

    Even Wikipedia allows this statement on on the US v. Wong Kim supreme court case to be included in the write-up:

    “Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally”

    • I think most of us only have a problem with illegal immigrants who are committing crimes other than being here without papers. A baby born here is pretty innocent and we’re a generous, charitable, loving people. Right? Surely we can find it in our hearts to accept the innocent as one of our own.

  27. Gone but not forgotten. soros.dcleaks.com is gone but it’s still on Archive.org


    George Soros is a Hungarian-American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, political activist and author who is of Hungarian-Jewish ancestry and holds dual citizenship. He drives more than 50 global and regional programs and foundations. Soros is named an architect and a sponsor of almost every revolution and coup around the world for the last 25 years. The USA is thought to be a vampire due to him and his puppets, not a lighthouse of freedom and democracy. His minions spill blood of millions and millions of people just to make him even more rich. Soros is an oligarch sponsoring the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, hundreds of politicians all over the world. This website is designed to let everyone inside George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and related organisations. We present you the workplans, strategies, priorities and other activities of Soros. These documents shed light on one of the most influential network operating worldwide.

  28. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761715/NIGEL-FARAGE-Trump-warm-man-gave-bounce-ll-new-Ronald-Reagan.html

    Farage Joins Trump Rally;
    Trump Warms Up Crowd for Farage



    “The atmosphere in the room was more like a rock concert”

    “he’ll be new Ronald Reagan”

    “no UK politician had ever spoken at a Republican election rally.”

    “I was curious: what would the man be like in person?”

    “I was surprised, even slightly overwhelmed, by the warmth of his welcome and his huge support for Brexit.”

    “Then, minutes before the event began, I was told there was a change of plan. Donald would introduce me. I couldn’t really believe what I was hearing.”

    “One of his aides said: ‘He’s gonna be your warm-up.'”

    “Most of the crowd I met after the rally had never voted in their lives. ”

    “They are the same people who made Brexit happen.”

    –more at link

  29. This is a dark day in the US when a Sheriff is persecuted for enforcing the law, while the Shifty Clintons skate. From the article:

    The investigation and possible prosecution of metropolitan Phoenix Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be handled by the U.S. Justice Department after federal prosecutors in Arizona asked to be removed because of unspecified conflicts of interest, according to a court filing made public.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Arizona said in its brief filing Friday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix that the case has been assigned to the Justice Department’s criminal division, public integrity section.


    • Obama has quite a history of using the IRS and his Just-us Department as blunt instruments to wield retribution against his political opponents.

      Judicial Watch: FBI Investigation Documents of IRS Scandal

      (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 294 pages of new Federal Bureau of Investigation…documents revealing that top Washington IRS officials…knew that the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations…

      The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

      The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” ….

      The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011…..

      Judicial Watch obtained the new documents through a federal court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01239)).

    • Hmm. Interesting. So if all Clinton did was “”What the judge says multiple times is, ‘I find you intentionally violated my order. I find you intentionally made misstatements under oath here in court,'” said Charlton. “It is that word — intentionally — that brings a matter from the civil realm and puts it in the criminal realm.”

      You’d be standing up here screaming about the ‘oppression’?

      Yet here: “Arpaio has acknowledged violating Snow’s orders, including letting deputies conduct his signature immigration patrols 18 months after the judge barred them.” http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d242cf45276249cdb4b880b202ec5ca6/defiant-arizona-sheriff-has-been-found-contempt-court

      And the finding of the court was only 162 pages long.

      I musta misunderstood. Thought we were all about Law & Order. But now I’m being re-edumacated to: all we gotta do is say that because one person gets away with something everyone should. Did I finally get it right this time?

      The things I learn here.

      • I’m betting it is news to most here that you are interested in learning Danny.

      • Danny Thomas

        Why Tim. Thank you for your concern. I learned just today that according to Springer: “Of all the politicians over all the decades that have been trying to get this done… ” (immigration) Trump has ‘amazingly’ done so in a few short months.

        This? This what? Even Trump doesn’t know yet David’s ‘amazed’ that Trump had ‘done so’ with ‘it’.

        So what, class, have we learned today?

        Where’s the skepticism? The answer to that, I’d really like to ‘learn’? You?

        I’ve said all along I wanna know the policies. Some suggest policies don’t matter. Well if Trump gets on a stage with a seasoned politician who’s done her homework I don’t think she’ll let him off the hook as easily as his previous opponents did. And if so, that nasty old ‘the media’ will remind folks.

        The fun part is should Clinton win, I can begin today to ‘predict’ the responses from the usual suspects here. Maybe we all could learn. But I doubt it.

      • catweazle666

        Danny Thomas: “The fun part is should Clinton win, I can begin today to ‘predict’ the responses from the usual suspects here.”

        By the same token Danny, should Trump win, I can begin today to ‘predict’ the responses from the usual suspects here too.

        Or is it interpreted differently for “Liberals”?

      • Danny Thomas

        No Cat, that’s a quite fair comment.

        Found this today: “In other words, Republicans view Trump more generously (including on tax returns) and Democrats view Clinton more generously … and independents dislike them both. That’s made obvious in Monmouth’s delineation of how voters feel about the two candidates: A plurality dislike them both.”

        Well I fit that independent mold no matter what others (including you) suggest.


        All courtesy of: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/29/americans-say-they-want-to-see-candidate-tax-returns-because-they-dont-like-donald-trump/

      • There is no concern.

        Just fatigue at having another Josh clogging up the threads.

        You do know the “where’s the skepticism” is one of his favorite lines? He should probably charge you a royalty fee.

      • Danny Thomas

        Interesting. So your personal preference is an echo chamber and zero skepticism. How boring is that, but whatever. No requirement for you to read nor comment and yet you choose to do so.

        Maybe his ‘where’s the skepticism’ (don’t see a TM) is appropriate.

        Now if you’d like to address substance as opposed to grouping me in to a tidy little box and attempting to tar we can do so (Glenn has issue with that behavior). Either way, ce’ la vie!

        Ad hom’s aren’t a good look on you.

    • Arpaio is too big for his britches. He’s law enforcement, not the law. I run into tin-pot petty dictators like that on occasion. It’s always distasteful. I’m running against one of them this November. A former 4-term small town mayor who thought state law was a technicality and violated it on multiple occasions. When I took office I put the kibosh on that shiit. Arpaio strikes me as the same sort.

      • I think he has the right idea on immigration. And I’m not as sure as you seem to be that he is making up his own law like Obama. He seems to just want to enforce laws on the books.

  30. The establishment’s latest silver bullet it hopes will slay the vampire Trump: immigration.

    It’s everywhere –the immigration issue — all over the MSM. Just a few of the many dozens of examples to be found in the MSM:

    Response to Trump has GOP rethinking immigration

    8/27: Trump frustrates both sides on immigration while lagging in polls; Argosy Book Store, Manhattan’s hidden gem

    Trump reverses on his immigration reversal

    Trump, Wavering on Immigration, Finds Anger in All Corners

    Trump on Undocumented Immigrants

  31. cr1m1n@l is too common a word to use as a moderation trigger, JMO.

    Article clip @jim2 | August 28, 2016 at 9:08 am in moderation

  32. New Word in Public Vocabulary: BleachBit


    That is the name of a publicly-available utility used to delete material from a computer’s hard disk. And it’s not just for casual, quickie deletes of junk mail. It’s for when a user really wants to destroy material on a computer so that no one will be able to recover it.

    According to Gowdy, BleachBit is what Clinton and her legal team used, or at least part of what her team used, to destroy the 30,000 or so emails on her secret system that she deemed “personal” from her years as secretary of state. On Thursday, after revelations that the FBI had perhaps worked its way around BleachBit to discover an additional 14,900 emails that Clinton did not hand over, Gowdy went on Fox News to discuss both that development and the FBI documents that underlay the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Clinton for mishandling classified information.

    The public should be allowed to see those currently classified FBI documents, Gowdy said, adding that he has reviewed them all. If people were allowed to read the papers, Gowdy explained, they might well come away with questions about the wisdom of the FBI’s decision.

    –more at link

    • We all know that there are two Americas.

      There’s the one America, Hillary Clinton’s America. It has it’s own criminal investigators, its own prosecutors, and its own judges.

      Then there’s the other America, the one most of us live in. If we would have done what Clinton did, we’d already be looking at the world from behind bars.

  33. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-clinton-up-3-trump-gaining-ground/article/2600365

    Poll: Clinton up 3, Trump gaining ground

    Donald Trump is gaining on Hillary Clinton, according to a new Morning Consult poll, which shows her ahead by only 3 percentage points, 43-40.

    Last week, Clinton had a 6-point advantage on the GOP nominee, 44-38 percent.

    When Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein are included, Clinton’s edge on Trump narrows to just 2 points, 39-37. Johnson earned 8 points and Stein garnered 3 points.

    Clinton’s reduced margin comes in the wake of changes to Trump’s campaign, including new leadership and a somewhat more disciplined message.


    O M G – if there’s even a grain of truth in the polls using 2012 Democrat:Republican weighting or a whisper of “shy Trump voter” who won’t admit on the phone that they will vote for “racist” Trump… then this poll is a death knell.

    We knew the Dems were desperate already when Hilly tried to change the subject and called Trump and all his supporters racists. This is the last refuge of someone who lost the argument.

    Yeah yeah, Hillary. Trump and all his supporters are racists while you and yours are N.azis. Can we discuss real issues now?

  34. Clinton: She Will Sell You Out


    Trump has been on message with a laser-like focus for going on three weeks now. He’s offered the libtard media nothing in the way of distortable quotes. He continues to fine tunes his appeal to the American people. It’s getting better with every campaign stop.

    I really like this label for Hillary. It’s the best yet: “She’ll Sell You Out”

    This, as Scott Adams will undoubtedly say, is persuasion kung fu. Every time you hear something about Hillary selling access at the state department to Clinton Foundation donors your confirmation bias will connect that with selling you out. Beautiful. This one has legs that will last to election day.



    “The GOP is offering voters a chance to break up the corrupt establishment and create a new American future,” the Republican nominee stated. “This chance will never come again.”

    “Our campaign is about protecting those who have no power,” he added. “These are the people that work hard, but don’t have a voice.”

    The outsider added that his campaign is about “restoring honesty and accountability in government.”

    Trump, who spoke from a teleprompter, remained on message, attacking his rival Hillary Clinton’s “pay for play State Department.”

    “She thinks she’s above the law,” he stated about Clinton. “The truth is, she lies.”

    “She’s unfit to serve in the oval office,” he added.”The Clintons have had their time on the stage, but now it’s time to close that chapter in the history book and open a brand new beautiful chapter.”

  35. Scott Adams – The Mental Vote


    Scott offers an alternative to the “shy Trump voter” hypothesis. It rings true to me because I did essentially the same thing.

    Scott hypothesizes that when Trump says something offensive or brings out a policy position that doesn’t sit well, voters participating in presidential polls cast a faux vote against him to send a message. In this way they punish him and then see if the punishment changes his behavior. And it does. Trump has been like a new man the past few weeks. He’s basically empowered voters who now know he’s flexible, listens to them, and changes in the way they desire. This is truly black belt, weapons grade persuasion.

    So what did I do that was essentially the same thing? I sent my message with money which I figure speaks louder than an opinion in a poll. Within minutes of Trump finishing his first speech from a teleprompter under the guidance of his new campaign chief Kelly Conway, I donated money to his campaign. I’m sure many other people did too. He didn’t have to wait a week for my feedback it was instant and went straight to his wallet which I’m sure he watches like a hawk.

    And it worked. He has used a teleprompter ever since, stuck to message, and made no gaffes. I feel empowered. I’m sure I’m not alone.



    I have a hypothesis that many voters have already voted against Trump – in their minds – months before the first absentee votes are cast. The way that works is that a pollster calls someone who is considering voting for Trump – perhaps the week after the Khan controversy – and that voter decides to punish Trump for being offensive that week. So the wannabe-Trump-supporter “votes” against Trump. But only to the pollster.

    Mentally, the voter has now punished Trump for his bad behavior. If lots of voters do the same thing, it forces Trump to either lose the race or change his offensive ways. So the first time people “voted” against Trump, it happened only in polls, and in their own minds. But it sure felt like a vote, emotionally. And it probably felt good.

    The mental-voting in the polls worked. Trump saw his number fall and started to soften his position to be more inclusive and flexible. The public changed him via the polls.

    Obviously Trump is changing in order to win the election. But it should be comforting to know he can change whenever there is a good reason to do so. People were worried that he was too crazy to change anything, even if the situation or the data suggested he should. He has showed us that flexibility isn’t a problem.

    We don’t need to know Trump’s inner thoughts. And we can’t. But we can observe patterns, and it has become clear that Trump is directly responding to public opinion.

    The idea that voters have been punishing Trump with their mental-votes is different from the Shy Trump Supporter hypothesis that says people don’t want to admit they support him. The punishers – should this hypothetical group actually exist – would be trying to make Trump change his ways so they can vote for him with a clear conscience.

    Trump did change. If it’s enough change, the mental-voters will feel the invisible influence of reciprocity and vote for him as a reward.

  36. ( ) The Mafia
    ( ) The Joker
    ( ) The Batman

    I thought that was funny but glossed over that the Batman is a psychopath.

  37. George Soros: A veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Soros’s Campaign of Global Chaos

    Major media outlets in the 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….

    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.

    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.

    In other words, their goal is to subvert Western democracies and make it impossible for governments to maintain order or for societies to retain their unique identities and values.

    Black Lives Matter, which has received $650,000 from Soros-controlled groups over the past year, is a classic example of these efforts. Until recently, the police were universally admired in the US as the domestic equivalent of the military. BLM emerged as a social force bent on politicizing support for police.

    Its central contention is that in the US, police are not a force for good, enabling society to function by maintaining law and order. Rather, police are a tool of white repression of blacks.

    Law enforcement in predominantly African American communities is under assault as inherently racist….

    Then there are Soros’s actions on behalf of illegal immigration. From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants.

    Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders….

    The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities….

    The thrust of Soros’s efforts from Ferguson to Berlin to Jerusalem is to induce mayhem and chaos as local authorities, paralyzed by his supported groups, are unable to secure their societies or even argue coherently that they deserve security.

    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.

    The DCLeaks exposed the immensity of the Soros-funded Left’s campaign against the foundations of liberal democracies….

    The peoples of the West need to recognize the common foundations of all Soros’s actions. They need to realize as well that the only response to these premeditated campaigns of subversion is for the people of the West to stand up for their national rights and their individual right to security. They must stand with the national institutions that guarantee that security, in accordance with the rule of the law, and uphold and defend their national values and traditions.

  38. Voters Paint A Grim Racial Picture of America

    The White House insists that blacks are better off after President Obama’s eight years in office, but voters strongly disagree. No wonder Republican nominee Donald Trump is reaching out to black voters, saying they have “nothing to lose” by supporting him.

    Only 13% of Likely U.S. Voters believe life for young black Americans has gotten better since Obama’s election in November 2008. Forty-one percent (41%) believe it has gotten worse.

    Even among black voters, only 15% say life for young black Americans is better now.

    Sixty percent (60%) of all voters think race relations are worse since Obama’s election in 2008. Just nine percent (9%) believe race relations are better now.

    Perhaps even more disturbing is that 50% of Americans believe race relations are getting worse, the highest level of pessimism ever in Rasmussen Reports surveying, and that was in January, before several high-profile police shootings and revenge killings of police officers….

    Voters definitely have a low opinion of politicians who play the so-called “race card,” but the frequency with which it is used suggests that it’s a successful political tactic. Witness Hillary Clinton’s attempt this week to tie Trump to the Ku Klux Klan. Only 14% of voters think most politicians raise racial issues to address real problems. Three-out-of-four voters (73%) think they’re only raising racial issues to get elected.

  39. Has Obama Widened the Racial Divide?

    Americans hoped the election of the first black president in 2008 would help heal the racial division that has plagued this country for much of its history, but nearly half of voters think just the opposite has occurred.

    Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe President Obama has brought Americans of different races closer together, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) think Obama has driven those of different races further apart instead.

  40. Quit spying on all US citizens and concentrate on the trouble-makers. And, as I’ve said before, focus on the Imams. Some of them are the bad actors that foment terrorism in the first place. From the article:

    Amid this debate, Morocco provides an exemplary precedent in effectively fighting terror. In light of the recent news that Morocco helped French intelligence services prevent another terrorist attack in Paris, and locate the whereabouts of Abdelhamid Abaoud, the alleged mastermind of the Paris attacks, observers across the world are wondering what makes Morocco a haven of peace in a region rocked by uprisings and terrorism.

    Despite lacking the financial and logistical resources of its European counterparts, Morocco has managed in recent years to remain mostly immune from terrorist attacks.

    The first element is to reinforce its security apparatus and provide it with the necessary means that enable it to foil terrorist attacks before they occur. In light of the terrorist threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQMI) in North Africa and in Sub-Sahara Africa, Morocco tightened its control over its borders with Algeria. This measure was accompanied by the reinforcement of Morocco’s military presence in its southern borders in the Sahara.

    Being cognizant of the need to fight extreme poverty, social exclusion, and to provide youth in marginalized neighborhoods with better prospects to have a brighter future and be lifted out of poverty, Morocco’s king launched the National Initiative for Human Development in 2005.

    What happened in Casablanca in May 2003 was a wake-up call for Moroccan authorities, who realized that hundreds of mosques across the country operated independent of government supervision. During the 1980s and 1990s, practices and lectures that contrasted with Morocco’s brand of Islam permeated scores of mosques, especially in remote areas and poor neighborhoods.

    The Casablanca attacks were in part the result of the extremist ideology preached in those mosques. As a result, the government decided to control and monitor mosques all over the kingdom in a way that left no room for radical groups to exploit the places of worship to spread their propaganda.

    Ever since, every new mosque, built by the state or a philanthropist, falls under the control of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which has the exclusive prerogative to appoint imams and the staff who run them.


  41. 58% Think There’s A War on Police in America Today

    With officers murdered in Texas and Illinois in just the last few days, most voters now believe the police are under attack in America and blame politicians critical of the cops for fanning the flames.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters think there is a war on police in America today. Just 27% disagree…

  42. Trump Versus Clinton: This Election is all About the Debates

    Conventional wisdom says Donald Trump is going to lose, and lose big.

    You see it everywhere in corporate media….

    By far the biggest potential game changer, however, are the presidential debates.

    I think Donald will trounce Hillary in the debates.

    In fact, I can’t imagine any scenario in which she doesn’t get destroyed….

    The problem for Clinton is that she has gotten a relatively free ride from journalists and pundits, most of whom will vote for her. Her hypocrisies and inconsistencies comparatively unexamined, she emerges from her primary campaign untested and untempered. The debates offer Trump a juicy opportunity to expose those weaknesses on what promises to be a national stage with record audiences….

    I understand why Secretary Clinton was reluctant to agree to any debates. Past performance suggests that she isn’t a strong debater to begin with. Going against a master reality TV and pro wrestling ringmaster like Donald Trump has got to feel like walking into the Coliseum with nothing but faith in God to protect you from the lion’s maw. Trump knows all the tricks: how to deploy comical facial expressions as well as Jim Carrey, how to dominate others using body language, a laser-like ability to identify an opponent’s weaknesses and reduce them to rubble via ridicule (“Little Marco”). In an American presidential debate, 15-point white papers don’t count for jack. The best entertainer always wins….

    Will Trump’s likely victories in the debates be enough to close the current gap between him and Clinton in the polls? Maybe. All I know is, anyone who says it’s all over is whistling past the graveyard.

    It’s all about the debates.

  43. Is America Too PC?

    Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump during the first pre-primary debate reiterated a point he’s made throughout his campaign that “the big problem this country has is being politically correct.” Most Americans strongly agree with that sentiment.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of American Adults think political correctness is a problem in America today, while only 18% disagree.

  44. Voters Aren’t Happy with NAFTA, Other Free Trade Deals

    Donald Trump has vowed to renegotiate NAFTA and other international free trade deals if elected president, saying they are costing U.S. jobs and killing the economy. Supporters say the trade deals lower prices for American consumers. Voters are not big fans of free trade deals like NAFTA but also strongly believe that the politicians negotiating those deals don’t care what they think anyway.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters think the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico needs to be renegotiated. Just 27% disagree.

  45. Only 30% of voters believe U.S. foreign policy in recent years has put America first.

    Donald Trump has rattled some in the national security hierarchy of both major political parties with his call for returning to an America First foreign policy. Most voters agree the United States has not been putting its own interests ahead of others and should reverse course.

  46. 6 maps that could change your perspective on the world
    Many things here this libertarian can agree with.

    “If you look at the United States and Mexico, most of the world views Mexico as a very hot emerging market. That’s true of American companies: The American financial industry is buying into pipelines and power grids, and American automobile manufacturers are relocating. And they’re doing so not just because of cheap labor, but because Mexico has preferential trade agreements with other Latin American countries, which means if you manufacture there you can generate more sales in a fast-growing region.”
    Mexico is not the problem, it is an opportunity.

    “Other countries don’t blame globalization, they manage it, they take advantage of it. I think we failed to do that, and that’s what explains Trump and Sanders.”

    “The American energy revolution is the most significant geopolitical event since the end of the Cold War, and it’s a major shift in the world’s tug of war. Ten years ago, we were all talking about how the United States and China were going to fight resource wars for Middle Eastern oil and minerals in Africa. Now, thanks to this incredible seismic revolution, we’re selling oil to China instead.”
    Playing nice with China. Drilling for natural gas and oil.

    “…you realize that if the U.S., Canada and Mexico unite their energy, water, agriculture and labor resources, you create a continental empire that is more powerful than America is.”
    And this has to do with tearing down walls. Who said that?

    When I first started reading this article, I thought the system was better described by a distributed network with large cities being major nodes. And despite borders between nations it is that constrained by inefficient artificial border walls and gates. Open borders seeks to remove the artificial and/or government imposed controls. You don’t have an efficient distributed network with politicians running around and breaking connections.

    “The way you build this continental superpower is connecting North America together. The more pathways and routes you have for supply to meet demand, the more resilient your system.”

    Khanna describes competitive connectivity as the next arms race. Call them socialists, or what you will. The world is realizing it’s trade. A consistent libertarian message, the people who can’t get elected.

  47. The Flame-out of the Communist News Network. From the article:

    A whopping 50 percent answered “no” when asked if they “trust CNN to give you objective news and analysis.” Only 32 percent, less than a third of Americans, replied “yes,” while 19 percent said they were “unsure” if CNN gives objective news and analysis.

    The poll, which also showed Republican nominee Donald Trump closing the gap between him and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, was conducted from Aug. 22 to Aug. 23 and sampled 1,493 likely voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of 2.5 percent.

    “Inside different communities, we see deep distrust of CNN,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing.

    Digging deeper into the cross tabs, it’s clear that Democrats are slightly more trustworthy of CNN than Republicans, but even Democrats don’t fully trust the network’s content. Just 49.8 percent of Democrats—just shy of a majority—said “yes” when asked if they trust CNN to give objective news and analysis while 27.4 percent said “no” and 22.8 percent said “unsure.”


  48. Trump caught red-handed leading and pacing.

    In a Hannity town hall tonight in Austin I watched Trump coach the audience into agreeing with him that some undocumented immigrants, those who commit crimes, need to be “deported so fast it’ll make your head spin”. Others, he asserts, who have been here a long time, have homes and families, and commit no crimes, “we need to work with these good people so they can stay”.

    He shamed the audience into acting like great Americans; humane, charitable, and welcoming to foreigners who embrace American culture and values.

    This is called leading and pacing. First you identify with your audience. You get them to believe you have the same feelings you do. Deport all illegals. Run ’em out. Then after you’ve established a rapport you then lead their thinking in a different direction.

    Who would have thought Donald “The Racist” Trump would be the one to bring the intolerant right wingers around to believing that maybe we shouldn’t indiscriminately deport 11 million people.

    I think Trump thought it all along. It’s The Art of the Deal. He’s about to reach the handshake point on immigration. Of all the politicians over all the decades that have been trying to get this done… he does it in several months without any help. Amazing.

  49. Forgot a link to the video:

  50. For political motives, it’s pretty obvious why the Democrats have to keep the flood gates open from Mexico.

    GALLUP POLL: Clinton Hispanic Advantage Smaller Among U.S.-Born Hispanics

    Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump

    U.S.-born Hispanics:

    Clinton: 43%
    Trump: 29%

    Hispanics born in another country:

    Clinton: 87%
    Trump: 13%

  51. From the article:

    As secretary of state, women’s-rights champ Hillary Clinton not only spoke at a Saudi girls school run by her top aide Huma Abedin’s ­anti-feminist mother, but Clinton invited the elder Abedin to participate in a State Department event for “leading thinkers” on women’s issues.

    This happened despite ­evidence at the time that Saleha M. Abedin had explored the religious merits of sexual submissiveness, child marriage, lashings and stonings for adulterous women, and even the ­circumcision of girls.

    The elder Abedin, whose daughter helps run Clinton’s presidential campaign, did take a pro-gender-equality stance on at least one issue: Muslim women’s right to participate in violent jihad alongside men.


  52. From the article:

    German Military Intelligence (MAD) is looking into nearly 300 cases of potential extremists, including Islamist infiltrators in its ranks, and is mulling tougher screening for recruits because of the situation, Die Welt reports, citing military sources.
    “Currently the MAD is checking a three-digit number of suspected extremists in the armed forces: 268 right-wing extremists, 64 Islamists and six left-wing extremists,” Die Welt reported on Sunday, citing an unnamed military official.

    Read more
    © Thomas Peter Germany may reintroduce conscription if defense of NATO borders needed – reports
    According to the outlet, the MAD has tip-offs about plans to enroll so-called “short-term servicemen” into the German army (Bundeswehr) for them to get proper military training.

    The intelligence agency is also reported as saying that so-called “green-on-blue,” or insider, attacks, would be possible in that case.

    “Risks by such perpetrators for the military compounds inside and outside the country cannot be excluded in that regard.”


  53. Clinton Foundation bank donors work through Huma Abedin to secure seating at table with Chinese President Hu Jintao at State Department lunch.

    Clinton Foundation Official Requests State Lunch Invitation, Special Seating for Foundation Allies, Emails Show

  54. Barak Obama’s former campaign manager calls Trump a “psychopath.”

    Is this a sign of triumph, or of desperation?

    VIDEO: David Plouffe: Donald Trump Is A “Psychopath” — “He Meets The Clinical Definition”

    • David Plouffe meets the clinical definition of chode-gargling phuck toilet.

    • Plouffe can be excused as he isn’t a clinical psychiatrist – in other words he’s another dumba$$ spouting an unqualified opinion.

      The people that should be ashamed (and possibly have their professional licenses revoked) are those people who are psychiatrists and psychologists who are going in from of the media and diagnosing Trump.

    • We psychopaths resent the Trumpster being thrust into our select club by the campaign-besotted Fluffer. Ding Dongald, is nothing more than a garden-variety narcissistic sociopath. Just because he wears a small, dead animal on his head doesn’t mean he tortured it to death.

  55. From the article:

    Ever since Democrats such as Bill Clinton embraced free trade, West Virginia has voted for the Republican presidential nominee in greater numbers. West Virginians sided with Democrat Michael Dukakis instead of George H.W. Bush in 1988, only one of 10 states to vote blue. But by 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the state by 6 percent of the vote and in 2012, Republican Mitt Romney won by more than 20 percent.

    Now even one of the most reliably Democratic groups — union members — may be turning red, drawn by Trump’s free-trade bashing and resentful of Hillary Clinton’s past support for certain international trade agreements.

    “I don’t know what Trump would do if he’s elected,” said Mark Glyptis, president of the United Steelworkers Local 2911 and a Trump supporter, who voted for Obama in the past two elections. “But I know what Hillary would do.”


  56. As the NATO’s key member’s relationship with the USA deteriorates, the Turkish president is getting friendly with his Russian opposite number, president Putin. At the same time the EU-Turkey recent accord on refugees is in tatters, and there might be another Euro-Turkey crisis looming on the horizon.
    Most of the readers are aware of the recent massacre that took place in the French sea resort of Nice. Some may even remember another massacre that took place not far away, not that long ago, when a Lufthansa co-pilot deliberately crashed his plane in the nearby Alps.
    So what the two deliberate killings of hundreds of innocent people got in common?
    Apparently, nothing until two days ago, when last Saturday afternoon at 5pm, a dreadful action of the Turkish state’s airline pilot (possibly) decided to teach people of Nice a lesson, in retaliation for the French police action on a Nice beach, forcing a Moslem women to take her ‘burkini’ off.
    The Turkish state Airline’s Boeing 737 flew away from the normal above the sea landing approach path, and directed his flight strait across the city centre at extremely low and very dangerous altitude.
    Airline passenger:“Nobody understood what was happening and passengers got really scared. With everything that is happening nowadays, you think the worst. I thought our plane had been hijacked.”
    Nice resident: “My apartment started to shake and I was horrified to look out my window and see the belly of an airplane fly over our building. I ran to the balcony with my heart pumping expecting that it would intentionally crash into the Lenval children’s hospital.”
    Turkish Airlines flight causes panic in Nice
    Of course pilot missed the runway and had to take another go see link. The Alpes-Maritimes prefecture has opened an investigation.
    Perhaps it is no coincidence that on the days when French resorts were banning ‘burkini’, Turkish president announced that Turkish police women will be wearing ‘burkas’.
    Franco-Turkish relations from times of Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, through number of European and the world wars, until recent opening of memorial and renaming one of central Nice’s parks in memory of the Armenian massacre, have not been at their best. Not to mention strong French opposition to Turkey joining EU, one of the prominent issues in the UK Brexit campaign, since in past the UK was in favour of the Turkey joining. Not many may know that the current UK foreign secretary, a USA citizen as well as her majesty’s subject, is of both Turkish and French (fourth generation) ancestry, but no friend of the current Turkish regime, since he penned an award winning ‘the most derogatory poem’ dedicated to the rather proud Turkish president.
    Disconnected rumble you may think, may be or may be not, political events often take an unpredicted course.

  57. Remember back several months ago before Trump got the Republican nomination and I railed against him for being a bigot against Mexicans.

    Then when he got the nomination and I started supporting him and when asked how I could reverse myself on the bigotry. I explained that those policies would never actually be implemented because too many of the general public would be opposed.

    Well, those policies didn’t even survive through to the first debate. Trump was setting up the foundation to get the far right to accept the popular immigration policy offered by establishment Republicans such as Low Energy Jeb Bush.

    And now Trump has succeeded in doing what Low Energy Jeb, or any other politician could ever do, he sold the far right on not treating undocumented Mexicans like the plague.


  58. my comment went into auto – moderation (possibly word hi and jack)
    or may be some other good to me unknown reason.

  59. FBI says foreign hackers penetrated state election systems

    Those concerns prompted Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to convene a conference call with state election officials on Aug. 15, in which he offered his department’s help to make state voting systems more secure, including providing federal cyber security experts to scan for vulnerabilities, according to a “readout” of the call released by the department.

    Johnson emphasized in the call that Homeland Security was not aware of “specific or credible cybersecurity threats” to the election, officials said. But three days after that call, the FBI Cyber Division issued a potentially more disturbing warning, entitled “Targeting Activity Against State Board of Election Systems.” The alert, labeled as restricted for “NEED TO KNOW recipients,” disclosed that the bureau was investigating cyberintrusions against two state election websites this summer, including one that resulted in the “exfiltration,” or theft, of voter registration data. “It was an eye opener,” one senior law enforcement official said of the bureau’s discovery of the intrusions. “We believe it’s kind of serious, and we’re investigating.”

  60. Shock poll: LA Times/USC Trump +3


    Looks like Trump is closing the deal with women voters. He leads among men 12% and trails with women 6%. I attribute this to “the softening” and that he’s doing something many women dream of – a man who changes into a kinder gentler version of himself. There’s a trite saying “A woman marries in the hope that the man will change. A man marries in the hope that the woman won’t change. Neither get what they want.”

  61. Real Clear Politics has Billary up by 5, but they omitted one poll that is a tie. If the last weeks polls are averaged, Billary is only up by 4.

    I think RCP is cherry picking polls. There is no pattern to what’s included and what isn’t. The poll that showed a tie was included before.

    RCP needs to pick a criterion and stick to it.

    • The poll that was a tie yesterday was the LAT/USC poll which was replaced by a newer LAT/USC poll today which is Trump +3.

      Paranoia will destroy ya. RCP isn’t cherry picking polls.

      • Does the fact that the same org polled twice invalidate the previous poll? I don’t believe it does. Note the other polls included also are for different dates.

      • LAT/USC is a daily poll. It’s included only once in the set of polls that make up the average. No polls are included twice in the same daily average. The exact same set of polls all with the same dates is not possible because the individual polls don’t all use the same schedule.

        You’re obsessing on this and becoming paranoid. Chill. What happens happens.

  62. The Obama administration caught off guard?

    Are we on the cusp of another foreign policy catastrophe for Obama, one that will make his others pale in comparison?

    Turkish Offensive on Islamic State in Syria Caught U.S. Off Guard

    • U.S. tries to stop feuding allies from unraveling Syria strategy

      Turkey, which has long viewed Kurdish militants as its top security threat, upended U.S. assumptions about the conflict by launching a major push last week into northern Syria that has included areas controlled by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes experienced Kurdish YPG fighters….

      Experts warned that it was far from clear whether Ankara would back down….

      Turkey is host to important U.S. and NATO military facilities. They include Incirlik Air Base, from which U.S. fighters and drones hit Islamic State in neighboring Syria, U.S. listening posts and an early warning radar for NATO’s European missile defense system….

      The United States is already walking on eggshells after accusations from Turkey that Washington was too slow to condemn last month’s failed coup there.

      In a sign of the sensitivities, the top U.S. military officer, General Joseph Dunford, called his Turkish counterpart on Sunday and Carter told the briefing he would see Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik next week.

      President Barack Obama will meet with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Sept. 4, the White House said.

  63. The NY Carlos Slim Times reporting on the Russian menace: “Utter a-historic nonsense.”

    One thing about those Mexican oligarchs, they know how to do propaganda right.

    NYT Laments Of Allegedly False Russian News Stories – With A False U.S. News Story

    • And the NY Carlos Slim Times has taken a page out of the CAGW true believers’ playbook.

      Or did the CAGW true believers take a page out of the NY Carlos Slim Times?

      The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar, is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without ever showing any evidence.

  64. Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks

    Focusing on domestic issues, Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech sidestepped the deep concerns anti-war Democrats have about her hawkish foreign policy, which is already taking shape in the shadows,

    As Hillary Clinton begins her final charge for the White House, her advisers are already recommending air strikes and other new military measures against the Assad regime in Syria.

    The clear signals of Clinton’s readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as U.S. policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives concerned about Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.)….

    It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for figures known to be close to a presidential candidate to make public recommendations for new and broader war abroad. The fact that such explicit plans for military strikes against the Assad regime were aired so openly soon after Clinton had clinched the Democratic nomination suggests that Clinton had encouraged Flournoy and Panetta to do so…..

    Flournoy co-founded the Center for New American Security (CNAS) in 2007 to promote support for U.S. war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then became Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration in 2009.

    Flournoy left her Pentagon position in 2012 and returned to CNAS as Chief Executive Officer. She has been described by ultimate insider journalist David Ignatius of the Washington Post, as being on a “short, short list” for the job Secretary of Defense in a Clinton administration.

    Last month, CNAS published a report of a “Study Group” on military policy in Syria on the eve of the organization’s annual conference. Ostensibly focused on how to defeat the Islamic State, the report recommends new U.S. military actions against the Assad regime…..

    And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help “moderate” groups against President Bashal al-Assad. …

    Even more important to Clinton and close associates, however, is the hope of encouraging Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have been supporting the armed opposition to Assad, to persist in and even intensify their efforts in the face of the prospect of U.S.-Russian cooperation in Syria….

    The new Prime Minister of Turkey, Binali Yildirim, however, made a statement on July 13 suggesting that Turkish President Recep Yayyip Erdogan may be considering a deal with Russia….

    That certainly would have alarmed Clinton’s advisers, and four days later, Panetta made his comments on network television about what “the next president” would have to do in Syria.

  65. America’s wars take uneven toll, study finds

    In today’s wars, Americans who die or are wounded in battle are disproportionately coming from poorer parts of the country, according to a new study released this week.

    By analyzing over 500,000 American combat casualties from World War II through Iraq and Afghanistan, University of Minnesota Law Professor Francis Shen and Boston University Political Scientist Douglas Kriner found growing socioeconomic inequality in military sacrifice….

    Kriner and Shen point to “Two Americas” of military sacrifice which constitute invisible inequality because the issue is routinely overlooked by scholars, policymakers, and the public. The study uses a variety of data and statistical tools to show that there are social, legal, and political consequences of this inequality….

    Why is this issue so routinely ignored? Kriner says that both political parties are to blame: “Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to confront this deep social divide.”

    Shen adds that the solution must be rooted in the voices of citizens: “If elected officials are not going to speak up, then it will be up to those everyday Americans to spark this debate.”

    The study also includes an experiment showing that such a public debate might be able to spur Congress into action.

    Shen and Kriner are hopeful that this study, published during such a unique election cycle, could finally bring the issue to light. Concluded Shen, “We need a national conversation on this issue, and an election year is the time to do it. The invisible inequality of military sacrifice should be invisible no more.”

  66. Yep, illegal immigration doesn’t hurt anyone. From the article:

    The IRS has discovered more than 1 million Americans whose Social Security numbers were stolen by illegal immigrants, but officials never bothered to tell the taxpayers themselves, the agency’s inspector general said in a withering new report released Tuesday.
    Investigators first alerted the IRS to the problem five years ago, but it’s still not fixed, the inspector general said, and a pilot program meant to test a solution was canceled, and fell woefully short anyway.
    As a result most taxpayers don’t learn that their identities have been stolen and their Social Security files may be screwed up.
    “Taxpayers identified as victims of employment-related identity theft are not notified,” the inspector general said.


  67. From the article:

    And now the fate of the documents hacked reveals genuine clout: Peter Hasson of the Daily Caller reports:

    DCLeaks, a website that releases information on powerful political figures, has had part of its website taken offline after releasing a cache of documents on billionaire donor George Soros. The @DCLeaks Twitter account has also been suspended from Twitter for reasons unknown.

    The website had previously released 2,500 internal Open Society Foundation (OSF) documents in order to “shed light on one of the most influential networks operating worldwide.” OSF is one of Soros’ networks of organizations.

    The leaked documents had resulted in several damaging reports about the organization. OSF had previously confirmed that the documents were legitimate.

    Before the website went offline, an OSF spokesperson had called the leaks “a symptom of an aggressive assault on civil society and human rights activists that is taking place globally” in a statement released to The Daily Caller.

    I appears that this was not a hack, but rather the website voluntarily taking down the documents. Which means that some sort of pressure was exerted, in all likelihood. Lawsuits? The threat of some other sort of retaliation?

    Who knows?

    What we do know is that Soros got his way where others have failed to do so.


      • Right. It’s the Russians, or one of their close allies like Wikileaks, that are causing all the bad stuff that’s now being revealed about Clinton Inc.

        In fact, for those Democrats into magical thinking, it’s the Russians who are perpetrating all cyber crimes pertaining to elections, no evidence or proof needed.

        VIDEO: Hackers gain access to election systems in two states

      • “In fact, for those Democrats into magical thinking, it’s the Russians who are perpetrating all cyber crimes pertaining to elections, no evidence or proof needed.”

        Give ’em credit Glenn. At least it a change from the approach some proffer that suggests voter fraud is extensive. You know ‘no evidence or proof is needed’ yet it’s sure a concern.

      • Danny Thomas,

        I know that you don’t do physical, empirical or forensic evidence, but for those who do:

        Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition-1742-2004

        If elections are the lifeblood of democracy, then the United States is a sorely ailing body politic. From ballot stuffing and intimidating voters to suppressing turnout, buying votes, and manipulating returns, Deliver the Vote is an intensive examination of the corrupt underbelly of American politics.

        Drawing on records of hundreds of elections from the pre-colonial era through the 2004 election, historian Tracy Campbell reveals how a persistent culture of corruption has long thrived in local, state, and national elections.


        Down for the Count: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America

        Down for the Count explores the tawdry history of elections in the United States—a chronicle of votes bought, stolen, suppressed, lost, miscounted, thrown into rivers, and litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court….

        This thoroughly revised edition, first published to acclaim and some controversy in 2005 as Steal This Vote, reveals why America is unique among established Western democracies in its inability to run clean, transparent elections.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ooooo! Books.

        Well, Glenn, I know that you do do books, but don’t do physical, empirical or forensic evidence, but for those who do: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801448484/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_sims_2

        “In The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare.”

        Does posting this mean I win?

        I went to Heritage, presuming that it would be an acceptable source as it can hardly be considered ‘hillarymongering’ or ‘lefty’.
        Scan thru it. You’ll find:
        300 cases from approximately 2000-2015.
        A good percentage involve absentee ballots which are not addressed by voter ID laws.
        A good percentage involve candidates or their surrogates which are not addressed by voter ID laws.

        Questions. How many votes have been cast between 2000-2015, and what percentage of those votes do these 300 cases represent?
        Why would an individual risk individual fraud considering the legal ramifications for doing so? (Think about this. How many votes can an individual effect vs. an official?)
        Why are laws oriented towards ID’s? How do those ID laws address the extent of official misconduct, absentee ballot misuse, and vote buying (someone with money has to fund this) which appears to be the bulk of the miniscule level of fraud which does exist all while increasing disenfranchisement? How do ID laws address the hacking concerns to which this was initiated?

        And just to remind you, I’m okay with requiring an ID. Just not the laws which restrict ease of voting.

        “Voter Fraud is Rare. There are no officially compiled national or statewide statistics reliably reporting instances of voter fraud. The lack of an accurate centralized tracking system is evidence that voter fraud is not as large a threat to elections as some claim. Using the same standard for judging voter fraud crime rates as we do for other crimes, which is to calculate the incidence of crime from law enforcement statistics on arrests, indictments and convictions, we must conclude that the scant evidence of arrests, indictments or convictions for any of the practices defined as voter fraud means that little fraud is being committed relative to the millions of votes cast each year in state, local and federal elections.”

        (She’s got cred, look her up).

        (Can only provide 3 links so posting as is. I have more. Google search was worded thusly: “academic research documenting the extent of voter fraud”. Posting this so you can replicate my research.)

      • Danny Thomas,

        Your entire argument can be summed up as follows: My historians (and experts) are better than your historians (and experts).

        And how do we know this? Well, we know this because your experts can “hardly be considered ‘hillarymongering’ or ‘lefty’,” or because your experts have “got cred, look her up.”

        Do the arguments put forth by your experts do anything to diminish the evidence which my historians and experts — Campbell and Gumbel — have assembled? Or do their arguments merely try to spin the evidence — make it not seem so incriminating — in the same way that way any good lawyer would do?

        And of course you completely dodged the question about whether there exists even a scintilla of actual, reliable, forensic evidence that proves that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC server.

      • Danny Thomas

        Well there Glenn,

        Interestingly your words apply equally towards you because “Your entire argument can be summed up as follows: My historians (and experts) are better than your historians (and experts).” Laughingly, you tossed out two books as appeals to authority then frame the use of that type of argument as above when I used academic research and ‘right’ oriented sources as an offset? That’s funny.

        And yet, taking this little excerpt of yours from a different thread:
        “It’s you and your fellow CAGW theorists who believe themselves to be “omniscient,” what with all their speculation and ironclad predictions about the coming climate armageddon.”

        Reworded, it is you and your fellow ‘fraud/election rigging’ theorists who believe themselves ‘omniscient’, what with all your speculation and ironclad predictions of the level of election fraud.

        Notice you didn’t answer any of the questions. What percentage of fraud, according to the 300 cases documented by Heritage, has occurred based on the total number of votes cast 2000-2015? ****And how do voter ID laws address official misconduct, vote buying, absentee ballot issues, and electronic interference? I’ve searched for recent (since 2000) increases in penalty/punishment for these issues and find little. Wonder why that is?

        An individual who’s ability to vote which is affected by the ID laws is one vote. I mean, after all the laws are put in place to insure no individual fraud occurs, right so this must be. ****The above list of concerns might actually affect an election.

        I provided the search terms used. The bulk of the responses are from left oriented entities so I picked Heritage as representative of ‘the right’ (the only one which came up). So I wondered to myself why the left conducted and published. Then I wondered if the right conducted (or didn’t) and chose not to publish (oooo, it’s kinda fun being a conspiracy theorist……maybe I’m understanding why you enjoy it so).

        I recognize your campaign of fear (or being a useful iddiot of those fomenting that campaign) in order to further the cause of disenfranchisement. (See conspiracies can be fun).

        And I never said the Russian’s did it or not ’cause I’m not in a position to know. Why would I speculate, Glenn? What would be a purpose behind my speculating about this topic?

        What a friggin joke.

      • And of course you completely dodged the question about whether there exists even a scintilla of actual, reliable, forensic evidence that proves that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC server.

        There’s plenty of evidence that at least two Russian groups “hacked the DNC server.

        Whether either group is responsible for releasing stolen emails is another matter. What evidence there is actually suggests an effort to set them up for it.

      • Danny Thomas,

        When you, or the so-called “experts” you cite, figure out a way to make the evidence of a long history of voter fraud in the United States — as has been thoroughly documented by Gumble and Campbell — disappear (as if none of it ever happened) then get back to me.

        Until then, the only “friggin joke” around here is the mind-boggling spin your so-called “experts” put on the evidence.

      • Danny Thomas

        So you can’t, or won’t answer the questions I posed. If I were discussing from your position I’d avoid them also. Smart move.

      • Danny Thomas,

        And I loved this little bit of argument by gibberish:

        “It’s you and your fellow CAGW theorists who believe themselves to be “omniscient,” what with all their speculation and ironclad predictions about the coming climate armageddon.”

        Reworded, it is you and your fellow ‘fraud/election rigging’ theorists who believe themselves ‘omniscient’, what with all your speculation and ironclad predictions of the level of election fraud.

        Or is it possible that you really don’t know the difference between the past, the present and the future?

      • Danny Thomas

        “And I loved this little bit of argument by gibberish”.
        Aw. You’re making me blush.

        Interesting that you’re arguing with your own words. And losing!

      • Danny Thomas,

        So you don’t know that evidence, by its very nature, pertains to occurences of the past or present, and predictions to future occurences?

      • Danny Thomas

        Why Glenn,

        Are you asking me a question? Well the appropriate response would be for me to answer but THE EVIDENCE IS that questions are ignored. And that evidence, by it’s very nature, pertains to your ‘occurences’ of doing so in the past, the present, and leads to predictions you’ll do so in the future.

        I get it. Arguing from your position, I’d do the same.

      • A question for Double Dealing Danny.

        Many problems go unaddressed because they are undetected. Pedophiles in the Catholic church. Wife abuse. Child abuse. High cholesterol. Heath issues from tobacco use.

        How do you know how much voter fraud occurs that goes undetected?

      • Danny Thomas

        “Pedophiles in the Catholic church. Wife abuse. Child abuse. High cholesterol. Heath issues from tobacco use.”

        Not undetected. Unreported. Except cholesterol and Health issues from Tobacco as they may not exist in an identifiable form until they do. But we’re not discussing those. We’re discussing voter fraud.

        So, David, before I’ll step in to answering your question answer mine (you see, Glenn won’t play well with others so I’ll insist on that up front so you can’t take his tactics. But I don’ think you will. You’re more above board than he is). What is voter fraud? Until defined it can’t be addressed.

      • Danny Thomas,

        I can seldom figure out what you’re talking about. It’s all gibberish to me: too tedious and prolix for me to glean any meaning from.

        But I can tell you what I’m talking about. How is it you believe you can make such long history of election fraud, as documented by Campbell and Gumbell, just disappear?

      • Danny Thomas

        “But I can tell you what I’m talking about. How is it you believe you can make such long history of election fraud, as documented by Campbell and Gumbell, just disappear?”

        You see, Glenn, I never said that. I don’t say it doesn’t exist. I say it’s miniscule (small, tiny, not much of a factor in the big picture).

        You CAN figure out what I’m talking about. It’s clear. Academic evidence is that it’s not a large issue. Even Heritage (do you accept them a source, and if not why not?) showed 300 cases from approximately 2000-2015. 300! How many votes have been cast in that same time? What is the percentage? If that percentage is off, then by what factor. Any answer would be hypothetical but go for it. Presume the worst. What’s the percentage?

        Pew says 57.6million for 2016 primaries alone. That’s one year. Do the math. 300 out of 57.6 million. Then notch down the number to account for non presidential elections (the 57.6 is just the prez primaries so add state and locals but wanna keep the numbers smallish so you won’t call me dishonest). So using 57.6 million times 15 years is 864 million (Levitt says over a billion 2000-2014 alone so you can see I’m not pushing the numbers). What percentage does 300 cases represent? Then, to help your argument, factor it up. Go for it.

      • Danny Thomas

        Here Glenn,
        Found another source that helps your case more. 2068 cases 2000-2012. Stack that math up against about 1 billion votes cast. See, I’m being helpful.http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

        It’s fairly interactive and can be broken down by fraud ‘type’ such as: campaign official, election official, 3rd party (which makes up almost 40% of all the issues and is not in any way addressed by ID’s).

      • Danny Thomas,

        Well again, all you do is spout a bunch of gibberish.

        The bottom line, however, is this: We should do everything possible to make our elections as fraud-proof and theft-proof as possible.

        But there are some who have gone out of their way to keep that from happening.

      • Danny Thomas

        “We should do everything possible to make our elections as fraud-proof and theft-proof as possible.”

        No! Not at the expense of disenfranchisement.

        I gave you the numbers and the sources and you arm wave it as gibberish. You’re just blowing smoke and wasting my time.

      • catweazle666

        “No! Not at the expense of disenfranchisement.”


        How on earth is anyone going to be disenfranchised by being required to show personal identification?

      • Danny Thomas

        Good question. Ask Texas how they did it while allowing forms of ID which allow non-citizens to vote.http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/11/03/jim-wright-voter-identification-texas-speaker/3422047/
        While your at it, ask how the Texas ID law will address what little fraud that does exist in the form of vote buying, absentee ballot issues, and official misconduct which studies show are a high percentage of the issues.

        How about it CW? You okay with disenfranchisement? It’s happened. How many are too many? You willing to give up your right to vote? It’s what Texas’ law managed to do. Some say as many as 600,000 in Texas alone could be affected. Well let’s just call that number excessive and back it down to say 60,000. Is that okay? What numbers is ? http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/05/got-id

      • Danny Thomas


        Specific to the Texas voter ID law and addressing your question:
        (Correcting myself, it’s only 203 pages. Think I said 163 earlier).

        Pg 46 documents the over 600,000 potentially disenfranchised.
        Pg 54 details several individuals who were in fact disenfranchised.
        Pg 69 details the finding that non citizens can acquire both a Texas Driver’s Licence and a Concealed Carry Permit.

        SB 14 is in fact a law which requires ID and creates disenfranchisement.

        Next question.

      • Danny Thomas


        Here’s another example of ID’s laws which the courts have found to be discriminatory: “A unanimous panel of the 4th Circuit on July 29 agreed with allegations from the Justice Department and civil rights groups that North Carolina’s bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements, reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures in ways meant to harm blacks, who overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party.”


        Supreme court didn’t intervene (tie so falls to lower court ruling which found the above as cited).

        Research if you choose, but I doubt you will as it likely will challenge your preconceptions.

      • catweazle666

        Danny Thomas: “Research if you choose, but I doubt you will as it likely will challenge your preconceptions.”

        What preconceptions?

        That voter fraud occurs?

        Or that there should be methods in place to prevent ineligible voters from voting? Or to prevent other abuses of the electoral system?

        THOSE preconceptions?

        Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but I’m English, and we have just annulled one election in a London borough – Tower Hamlets – and several more are under investigation.

        And guess what, most – but by no means all – of these frauds are perpetrated by a certain section of the population.

        I suppose drawing attention to that makes me an Islamophobe too. in your twisted little reality.

        You really haven’t much respect for the law, do you? At least not if it’s your pet “victims” are flaunting it. But I bet you don’t allow the same latitude to white males.

      • Danny Thomas,

        And when it comes to standards of judicial conduct, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of misconduct.

        But when it comes to something as unimportant as the vote, it looks like a far less stringent standard applies.

      • Danny Thomas

        I didn’t say:”But when it comes to something as unimportant as the vote, it looks like a far less stringent standard applies.” now did I Glenn.

        Just your disingenuous approach along with not answering questions and ‘gibberishly’ arm waving data away. But that was to be predicted based on the evidence.

      • ==> The bottom line, however, is this: We should do everything possible to make our elections as fraud-proof and theft-proof as possible. ==>

        Everything? As much as possible? Regardless of the cost, Glenn? Regardless of the impaxt on how well the coting ouvkic represents the enitre cituzenry?

        Precautionary principle, eh?

      • Danny Thomas

        Don’t bother asking Glenn a question. He won’t answer because he’d then have to face the answers.

      • Er…voting public, that is.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Glenn Stehle: “We should do everything possible to make our elections as fraud-proof and theft-proof as possible.”

        Danny Thomas: No! Not at the expense of disenfranchisement.

        Anywhere else in the world, the argument that requiring an ID in order to vote equals “disenfranchisement” would be laughed out of the room.

        Here in Mexico, for instance, in order to vote a person must acquire what they call an IFE:

        No IFE, no right to vote.

        Other countries — Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Germany — have similar requirements:

        Voter ID laws

      • Danny Thomas

        How many times do I have to say I’m not adverse to ID’s. But laws which lead to disenfranchisement are unconstitutional and morally reprehensible.
        ID’s can lead (when done legally) to greater voter confidence in the process and therefore higher turnout. That’s a good thing (unless you’re a republican who seem adverse to high turnouts).

        In Texas, and I’ve told you this before, the recent 5th circuit finding (I’ve sent you the link….all 160+ pages) states that two forms of ID ‘allowed’ by the disallowed Texas law in fact are available to non-citizens’. I am against non-citizens voting.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Why is it that you want to make voter fraud so easy?

      • Danny Thomas

        “Why is it that you want to make voter fraud so easy?” More disingenuousness and not deserving of further response than that.

        Adding a question of my own, why are you Glenn, so anti constitutional and pro disenfranchisement?

      • The $64,000 question for Double Dealing Danny in indeed:

        “Why is it that you want to make voter fraud so easy?”

      • Danny Thomas

        You live in Texas. Why do you support disenfranchisement and allowing non-citizens to vote. Texas law does both. It’s a two-fer.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        How many times do I have to say I’m not adverse to ID’s. But laws which lead to disenfranchisement are unconstitutional and morally reprehensible….

        In Texas, and I’ve told you this before, the recent 5th circuit finding (I’ve sent you the link….all 160+ pages) states that two forms of ID ‘allowed’ by the disallowed Texas law in fact are available to non-citizens’. I am against non-citizens voting.

        More argument by gibberish.

        What in the Sam Hill do you believe the court case in Texas was all about? About “non-citizens voting”? Or about this?

        Texas’ voter identification law violates the U.S. law prohibiting racial discrimination in elections, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

        Why do you want to make voter fraud so easy?

      • Danny Thomas

        Why do you wish to disenfranchise folks. Are you racist?

      • catweazle666 said:

        How on earth is anyone going to be disenfranchised by being required to show personal identification?

        As I’m sure you’ve observed by now, Obama and Clinton, and their hordes of dittoheads who fan out over these blogs, as well as the judges they’ve packed the courts with, see racism everywhere.

        No good deed goes unpunished.

        No deed, regardless of how well-intentioned, escapes the charge of being motivated by racism.

      • Danny Thomas

        “No deed, regardless of how well-intentioned, escapes the charge of being motivated by racism.”

        Including actual racism! Texas has a long history. All white elections, literacy tests, redlining and some of those are quite recent (Bush vs. Vera).

        Just stating ‘the bad guys, those Clinton supporters’ say it’s racist is ineffective when in fact it’s racist. And what about the rest of us who don’t fit the category of Clinton supporters yet calling you out on your support of racisim?

        Glad to see you supporting racism, Glenn. Ads to the ever expanding list of your ‘features’.

      • catweazle666

        “Glad to see you supporting racism, Glenn.”

        Because he wishes to do something to prevent abuse of the democratic process, he’s a racist?

        So I suppose that makes me a racist too, right?

        You need to get a grip, sunshine.

      • Danny Thomas

        I predicted you wouldn’t actually do the research and you prove me correct.

        The rulings which require voter ID in Texas and North Carolina were found to have had racially oriented bias. That’s why I ask if he was racist since he insists that :”The bottom line, however, is this: We should do everything possible to make our elections as fraud-proof and theft-proof as possible. ” one could rightly presume racist orientation since EVERYTHING includes: ” It affirmed the district court’s finding that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect “(based on race)” in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and remanded for consideration of the proper remedy.” Pg 10, previously sent link. Look it up yourself.

        The finding includes: “One type of evidence on which the district court relied in seeking to discern the Legislature’s intent was Texas’s history of enacting racially discriminatory voting measures. ”

        Further: “Additionally, the district court relied on contemporary examples of
        statewide discrimination evidenced by two redistricting cases that, taken
        alone, form a thin basis for drawing conclusions regarding contemporary State sponsored discrimination. The first, Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 976 (1996),
        found that a Texas redistricting plan to create three majority-minority districts
        violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because
        race was the predominant factor, the plans ignored traditional redistricting
        criteria, and their shapes could only be explained as the product of
        unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.” Racial Gerrymandering.

        I could go on but you have the link.

        If you wish to include yourself in that type of characterization, go for it. I didn’t but it’s your call. Sunshine.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Why do you wish to disenfranchise folks. Are you racist?

        Thanks for making my point for me so quicly. Just like clockwork.

      • Danny Thomas

        Which did I support? That you’re racist or that you support disenfranchisement? Or is it both?

      • catweazle666

        “Which did I support? That you’re racist or that you support disenfranchisement? Or is it both?”

        So anyone who supports a strict method for ensuring that only legitimate members of the electorate get to vote is either a racist or supports disenfranchisement or both in your mad, mad world?

        You beautifully demonstrate the assertion that Liberalism is a mental disorder, keep it up, you’re doing a great job.

      • CW,

        Nice attempt at an ad hoc(key) game utilizing a weak attempt at a strawman.
        “So anyone who supports a strict method for ensuring that only legitimate members of the electorate get to vote is either a racist or supports disenfranchisement or both in your mad, mad world?”

        Nope. My words are anyone who supports a strict ILLEGAL and DISCRIMINATORY method while NOT insuring that only legitimate members of the electorate get to vote are potentially racist and obviously support disenfranchisement”. If you’ll note, I didn’t say Glenn was racist I asked him. He’s the one who chose not to answer and usually that’s a pretty simple question.

        If you read, and obviously you don’t, you’ll see that Texas was slapped down for it’s discriminatory law with a racial bias which in fact allows use of ID’s (two forms) which can be obtained by NON CITIZENS. So it does not in fact address the supposed concern of voter fraud by illegals and does so by discriminatory action while disenfranchising the poor and some elderly. North Carolina had similar regulations with similar issues.

        Actions speak louder than words.

        Give it up CW, you’re getting your arse handed to ya and look worse with each post.

      • “Give it up CW, you’re getting your arse handed to ya and look worse with each post.

        In your dreams!

        Perhaps to you and the tiny number of trolls on here that support your crackpot “Liberal” ideology, but not to anyone with any grasp of economic or political reality.

        Anyone who believes that it is racist to believe that it is necessary to establish the eligibility of voters is clearly some sort of Loony Left nutter.

        You’re in a hole.

        Stop digging.

      • “Anyone who believes that it is racist to believe that it is necessary to establish the eligibility of voters is clearly some sort of Loony Left nutter.” Ya see, that’s not what I said so not sure to whom you refer. But you know that and just can’t bring yourself to say Danny, you’re right and I’m a bit off base. Stiff upper lip and all.

        What’s ‘nutter’ is anyone who believes the State of Texas or North Carolina do not have racially motivated intent when the could have ameliorated (as Indiana did) with appropriate inclusions. What’s nutter is that in Texas, illegal immigrants can get both concealed carry and Texas driver’s licences which are two of the forms of ID used to vote.

        What’s nutter is that you support these types of activities which don’t address the preponderance of the ‘fraud’ issues which include: absentee, vote buying, official misconduct and even with these 3 the number of cases is miniscule.

        What’s nutter is those who suggest we must do EVERYTHING to address a problem they cannot prove exists and that it’s all that damaging. Remind you of anything, sunshine?

        Game, set, match. Move on. You can’t make yourself look any better in this one. The ad homs (all you got) is a nice if typical touch, however.

      • The millions more people without IDs that could vote far outweigh any potential increase due to frauds. The numbers show that. What you get is a more representative vote of the people, not a less representative one, but this is what the Republicans are really afraid of, not fraud. Some reading.
        Also the SCOTUS just today upheld the decision against NC.

      • JimD,
        I don’t agree with the ACLU on this: “VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS ARE A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM”. The problem is ‘the visuals’.

        If folks perceive a lack of integrity in the process they may not turn out. But the laws such as Texas’ and North Carolina designed to disenfranchise certain segments, are out of line.

        If a state run university, as one example, is willing to put it’s name certifying a level of accomplishment by a student all while taking that student’s money then the associated ID (with high dollar cost) should be valid. Many students don’t drive and don’t conceal carry but cannot vote with school ID’s? WUWT?

        Kinda like this: “Robert A. Pastor, former executive director of the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, a bipartisan group that in 2005 called for better data on voter fraud while advocating voter IDs, said both parties have fair points about the electoral system. “Republicans have a legitimate concern about the integrity of the ballot,” Pastor said. “Democrats have a legitimate concern about access. Good electoral policy is one that incorporates both, but we’re not seeing that happen today.”


        All in all, provisional ballots are a wonderful thing.

    • Voter fraud is anything that isn’t one duly registered voter casting one vote in his own name in the precinct in which he’s registered.

      Thanks for asking.

      • Danny Thomas

        Great. Using your definition, even though it does not address the ability of non citizens being ‘duly registered’, how does any voter ID law then stop: vote buying, absentee ballot issues (no ID required), official misconduct?

        Come on folks. One person committing fraud by voting twice ain’t much of an issue compared with candidates intimidation, vote buying, official misconduct.
        You’ll find the breakdown on the right hand side: http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

        Unless, unicorns of the possibility of unicorns.

        Any answer to your previous question which I did not address while waiting for this answer is hypothetical whether that answer come from you or me.

  68. What Black People Hear When Donald Trump Asks for Their Vote

    The patronizing, ahistorical nonsense of his black “outreach” isn’t unique to Trump.

    By Jamelle Bouie


    So Jamelle lays out for Trump how his outreach to inner city black communities sounds racist to blacks. Maybe so. It doesn’t sound racist to whites and that’s probably just as important because Trump needs to put paid to Cr00ked Hillary’s hyperbolic, desperation driven claim that Trump is a racist.

    But there’s something else to consider that Bouie misses. Trump in some polls has 0% of the black vote. Trump asks inner city black voters “Take a chance on me. What do you have to lose?”. I’d like to ask Bouie “What does Trump have to lose?”

  69. Race Cr1m3. From the article:

    In a nightmare scenario, a well-known physician was brutally attacked inside his BMW after leaving a seaside restaurant. Now, after surviving the bloody beating, he offers an exclusive account of the night he was nearly killed.


  70. Unbelievable, from the article:

    As a freshman senator with his eye on the presidency, Barack Obama said he’d never shop at a Wal-Mart and held the company up as an emblem of corporate greed.
    Today, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is one of Obama’s most reliable corporate allies, a go-to partner that’s backed the White House on more than a dozen business initiatives, particularly Obamacare and climate change.
    The pairing benefits both. Obama can point to Wal-Mart’s support to beat back Republican charges that he’s hostile to business. Wal-Mart can point to the president’s embrace to lure squeamish shoppers who, like Obama of old, have stayed away out of a belief the company hurts workers and undercuts competition. This is a key part of the company’s effort to spur continued growth.


  71. So much for Donald Trump not being presidential. He’s showing both the sitting president and the Democrat’s nominee how it’s done.

    Watch his stock shoot up now. I predicted he’d be at least even with Hillary by Labor Day. His meeting with the president of Mexico was carried around the globe and it couldn’t have possibly been better.

    Trump also took questions from the press afterward which is something Hillary hasn’t done in 275 days. I wonder what questions Ms. Presidential doesn’t want to take? /sarc

    • I can see him sitting down with the Chamber of Commerce and officials and business leaders from Mexico, and working out labor and immigration deals. The deal might divert some business going to China to Mexico instead, in exchange for some tradeoffs by Mexico.

      • Funny as hell all the libtards have to say is that Trump didn’t yell at Mexico’s president he was going to force Mexico to pay for the wall.

        Trump said “we didn’t discuss payment for the wall” in response to a press question at the event. Nieto later put out a press release “I told Mr. Trump Mexico would not pay for the wall”. So the loony left is screeching “Trump lied!”

        Well, technically a discussion takes two people. Neito made a declaration. If Trump didn’t respond then there was no discussion. In fact Trump said “This was a preliminary meeting. We’ll discuss how the wall gets paid for in the future.”

        The other point is there’s no “force” required for Mexico to pay for the wall. Trade across the border is so lopsided, and so many illegal immigrants earning money in the U.S. illegally and sending it back to Mexico, that it’s easy to legally confiscate some of the lopsided cash-flow from the US to Mexico. Neito, one way or another, has no choice about Mexico paying for the wall.

    • Here’s the plane Trump flew to Mexico City in:

      a; https://s11.postimg.org/5azbm5l3n/Captura_de_pantalla_1400.png

      And here’s the helicopter that transported him from the airport, just before it set down at Los Pinos.

      a; https://s21.postimg.org/6mj7g75mv/Captura_de_pantalla_1401.png

  72. Trump did his “immigration policy” speech today. About 90% of it was on criminals, and most of the rest was on terrorists. These close associations in his own mind also play well with his audience, and feed right back to how he started talking about this issue. He ended with parading mothers of victims of immigrants on the stage, again reinforcing what he thinks the illegal immigrants mostly do here. How about the 99% who are neither violent criminals nor terrorists? He had not much to say about them, because they don’t fit the stereotype he wants to convey.

    • By definition all illegal immigrants are criminals, right? Their mere presence in violation of US immigration law establishes the fact.

      Possibly even you won’t argue about them ALL being criminals.

      So maybe they don’t break any other laws but for any of them that have income and don’t report it to the IRS – well that’s a crime too.

      Here’s the deal. Anyone cavalier about breaking our immigration laws, our employment laws, and our tax laws is less likely to respect other laws.

      Illegal immigrants committing tax crimes hurts everyone who plays by the rules and file tax returns. Illegal residents create additional burdens on society which the rest of us fund. It is especially unfair to legal immigrants who’ve played by rules and pay taxes as they then get burdened with guilt by association.

      Mexico doesn’t tolerate Americans illegally residing in Mexico so we certainly own the high ground by mostly tolerating Mexicans illegally living in the US. It may be the stupid-letting-others-take-advantage-of-you high ground but it’s the high ground none-the-less.

      Less tolerance on being chumps with an unsecured border and haven for criminal tax shirkers is not an unreasonable position and still retains the high ground.

    • By definition all illlegal immigrants are crimiinals, right? Their mere presence in violation of US immigration law establishes the fact.

      Possibly even you won’t argue about them ALL being crimiinals.

      So maybe they don’t break any other laws but for any of them that have income and don’t report it to the IRS – well that’s a crime too.

      Here’s the deal. Anyone cavalier about breaking our immigration laws, our employment laws, and our tax laws is less likely to respect other laws.

      Illlegal immigrants committing tax crimes hurts everyone who plays by the rules and file tax returns. Illegal residents create additional burdens on society which the rest of us fund. It is especially unfair to legal immigrants who’ve played by rules and pay taxes as they then get burdened with guilt by association.

      Mexico doesn’t tolerate Americans illegally residing in Mexico so we certainly own the high ground by mostly tolerating Mexicans illegally living in the US. It may be the stupid-letting-others-take-advantage-of-you high ground but it’s the high ground none-the-less.

      Less tolerance on being chumps with an unsecured border and haven for crimiinal tax shirkers is not an unreasonable position and still retains the high ground.

      • David,
        You might find this perspective of interest: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/01/donald-trump-s-immigration-proposals-may-have-a-secret-fan-hillary-clinton.html

        One question. If, as you suggest, the millions of ‘criminals’ are removed and do reapply are they ineligible due to their prior criminal acts? Where is that line drawn?

        It the above article it states that legislation (biometric-esque) was passed and signed in to law in 2002 under Bush. 14 odd years on and still not implemented. Funding? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=62766

      • I’m no immigration lawyer but there is no law or rule I could find that says the US consulate must refuse a Visa on the grounds of overstaying a prior Visa or been caught without any paperwork at all. It appears to be at the discretion of the consulate. They are directed not to admit persons they do not believe will respect the Visa conditions. And you have to show you have funds enough to remain in the US for the period of time you intend to stay, proof of where you are going, and so forth.

        It would appear green cards are the way back in. You have employment or an employment offer, family, or something else that qualifies you. And since Trump is for enforcing the current immigration law that law authorizing bio-metric ID that allows free travel within 52 miles of the US border can be utilized.


      • On the contrary, Trump was making a distinction between criminals which he would deport on day one, and the rest which he did not say much about, except that he’ll get to them after deporting the 2 million criminals and that they are also on notice for the ominous knock at the door later.

  73. How welcome are illegal American immigrants in Mexico?

    Does Mexico deport them?

    Just curious. Maybe Trump should ask that Americans be free to go live south of the border without papers and have jobs without paying taxes.

    It seems to me that Mexico doesn’t really have a leg to stand on with regard to illegal immigrants and Trump is being exceptionally gracious about it.

    As far as the wall Trump did point out to Neito that Mexico has a wall on its southern border which might explain why Neito didn’t object to the US building one on its southern border. Neito apparently is not completely without shame. He just objected to Mexico paying for it. Where I come from it’s said “Good fences make for good neighbors” and also where I come from neighbors split the cost of construction and repair of those fences. Mexico is not a good neighbor but I think we all know that already, right?

    • Asked and answered:


      September 1, 2016
      Adapt Mexico’s Immigration Policy
      By Daniel John Sobieski

      One hopes that during his visit with Mexican President Enrique Pena Lieto, Donald Trump reminded him of Mexico’s hypocrisy on border security and immigration control. Trump should remind those who alternately accuse him of a racist immigration stance and then flip-flopping when he softens it that border security could be achieved simply by adapting Mexico’s policies.

      In 2014, Breitbart News reported that Mexico deported more illegal aliens than did the United States as part of its strict control of its borders:

      –much more at link

    • You said;

      “As far as the wall Trump did point out to Neito that Mexico has a wall on its southern border which might explain why Neito didn’t object to the US building one on its southern border”

      what and where is this wall?


      • You didn’t google?


        It’s not big beautiful wall like the Great Wall of China. Neither does it look like Trump’s wall which is tentatively named “The Great and Super Beautiful Wall of America”. Trust me. But it’s a razor-wire barrier to keep Guatemalans out of Mexico nonetheless.

      • Of course I googled and one of the links I got was the one you just posted. It really shows very little. Other images in other links claiming to be of the wall were said by some to be in Israel.

        It would be good to see some good pictures of the extent and height and nature of the wall from someone, as at present I do not know how effective it is and whether it is a genuine barrier such as the Berlin wall and the Israeli wall.

        I am genuinely interested as I had not heard of it before


  74. Rassmussen:

    ” Republicans are clearly more reluctant than Democrats this year to say how they are going to vote.”


  75. Shocker: average personal income tax in Mexico is a bit over 30%.


    Mexicans working illegally in the US pay taxes in neither country. No wonder they like it here so much. I’d love to live in Mexico and not pay taxes. Just my tax savings alone would cover the cost of living there.

    • –snip–

      The Social Security Administration estimates that in 2010 illegal immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion, either by working under a fraudulent Social Security number or by using a legitimate Social Security number after overstaying a visa or otherwise losing permission to work.”


  76. Cable News Titan “Headline News” sister to Cable News Network blurs something worse than porn, worse than blown up children, worse than cars mowing down pedestrians…


    There’s a guy who saved a baby from dying in a locked-up car in a hot parking lot. He’s a local hero. HLN wanted to interview him and call him a hero. And they did.

    But they blurred out his t-shirt because it was too offensive for cable TV News.

    They blurred out “TRUMP 2016”. Just a plain TRUMP 2016 over a background of an American flag. Un-edited video and blurred video at the link.

    Too funny!

  77. https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/09/01/trump-immigration-policy-wonk/?singlepage=true

    Birth of a Policy Wonk:: Trump Gets Into the Weeds on Immigration

    Trump’s Ten Point Plan on immigration as outlined in Arizona speech yesterday.

    Hopefully Double Dealing Danny will read it.

    • I read it. Actually was in the weeds a bit myself reading this: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/11/safeguarding-americas-sovereignty-a-system-of-systems-approach-to-border-security#_ftn34

      Within are two links I’ve not yet found, but thought you’d be interested in the overall research. This is NOT posted to counter Trumps immigration policy. It actually expands on it. Credit to Trump for actually providing policy which is what I’ve been asking for all along. Then we can compare substance and not just the BS put out by the campaigns.

      The two links come from this para: “Fences. The border patrol has incorporated the construction of physical barriers but has concluded that, while barriers in combination with ground enforcement proved effective, they were “fiscally and environmentally costly.”[34] Some border secu­rity advocates argue that border barriers can be an effective and efficient tool for discouraging illegal border crossing.[35] We need better data to deter­mine who is right.” Trump sells the wall. I’m not yet a buyer, but am a looky-loo. Physical barriers are part of the solution and we have over 700 miles. But a wall won’t address marine access. The policy has to be more broad.

      But it’s a start. Thanks for the link.

    • Danny –

      ==> Then we can compare substance and not just the BS put out by the campaigns. Then we can compare substance and not just the BS put out by the campaigns. ==>

      Substance? Looking past the lack of evidence to support the arguments about the harm caused (in balance) by illegal immigration….

      Would you mind pointing out where the substance is?

      Number One: We will build a wall along the southern border

      Where’s the substance. To start with, of course, we have a lack of specificity in how it will be paid for – just handwaving that it will be Mexico. Which, of course, could just be a “negotiating point.” Or it could just be part of Trump’s brilliance in capturing the media’s attention. Or it could just be what he’s saying today as opposed to what he will say tomorrow, as with so many other issues, Maybe he will conduct a poll on Hannity and change his mind?

      And then, of course, we have no actual evidence on feasibility; how much will it cost – is Mexico just going to sign a blank check? Will they have veto power over the details? What materials will be used? What technologies will be included?

      Number Two: End ‘catch-and-release’

      Anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

      How do we know that they’ll be caught? Does this only apply to those who cross the border after he was elected, or the 11 million who came over before he was elected? How will a determination of date be made?

      Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens

      According to federal data, there are at least 2 million criminal aliens now inside the country. We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement.

      Where did he get that number? What is the “substance” for his claim? Does he mean people in jail? What are the logistics (including financial) for moving them out? Will local and state resources be mandated in some way? What will the mechanism of that mandate be?

      Beyond the 2 million, there are a vast number of additional criminal illegal immigrants who have fled or evaded justice. But their days on the run will soon be over. They go out, and they go out fast. …

      We are going to triple the number of ICE deportation officers. Within ICE, I am going to create a new special Deportation Task Force, focused on identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice. …. We’re also going to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, and put more of them on the border, instead of behind desks. We will expand the number of Border Patrol Stations.

      Paid for by Mexico, I assume?

      Number Four: Block funding for Sanctuary Cities

      We will end the Sanctuary Cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.

      Hmmm. So we’re just going to cut off Seattle, San Francisco, New York, LA, Chicago, Austin, Dallas, Houston, DC, Miami, San Diego? Hmmm. What are the actual financial implications of that? What is the ratio of what those cities provide to the federal funding they get?

      And on and on…

      My favorite:

      Number 10: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers

      – To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient. We need a system that serves our needs – remember, it’s America First.

      That’s great. So much for America as the land of opportunity, eh? So much for the “give us your poor.” So old school, all of that. What we need are people like Trump running the show, because they can look at someone and determine their likelihood of being successful.

      • Responses in moderation.

      • Ah. Forgot. The cri-mi nal… word musta got me.

      • “Would you mind pointing out where the substance is?”

        Sure. The substance doesn’t have to come from the candidates but their rhetoric can be analyzed vs. alternative resources. We can then establish ‘the substance’ with our own effort.

        Recognition of the pandering to bases (both sides) in order to gain election is a part of the process. But Double Dealing Donald has had his campaign putting out feelers recently about ‘softening’ his immigration proposals. Since Arizona I’d say the idea of softening has been removed. So must assume the ‘feelers’ gave answers of some sort to the Trump campaign. So from there, it’s up to us to perform the analysis.

        To his points (IMO) which you’ve highlighted.

        1) The wall buy itself is a non-starter. It won’t work. It’s a sales pitch and funding for ‘the fence’ has fallen short (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier). Congress controls purse strings. Even if ‘we’ gain billions (and it’ll take a lot of ’em) via confiscation the prez don’t getta decide how the funds are spent. Even with a mandate that’d be a tough bill to pass. Mandate doubtful lacking more explosively damning evidence against Clinton and her issues. States and cities still have a say (see Laredo, Tx: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10856978)
        2) Catch and release. Tough cookie. But if we ‘catch’ we shouldn’t release. Illegal immigration is, well, illegal.
        3) Zero Tolerance for criminal aliens. Meh. Enforce the existing laws and the courts will decide the ‘tolerance’. I don’t care about his numbers. The real numbers are what they are and they’ll be addressed. Expanding ICE & Border patrol takes funding. Gang of 8 (bipartisan) didn’t get thru. Trump doesn’t care about making friends in congress so doubt he’ll get all he wants outta good old political spite.
        4) Block funding for sanctuary cities. This falls along the lines of ‘amnesty’ and congress will decide. Horse trading still exists. Prez doesn’t get all his budget items nor does congress. And some are opposed to federal regulation and prefer state and local control. SC’s came about locally. Withholding fed funds such as “Homeland” followed by some sort of terrorist attack will place an anchor around the neck of the responsible party for having left a hole in security so don’t expect that being follow thru.
        10) We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers. That’s a broad discussion. Is it ‘best’ to have crops picked. He’s stated in Iowa he’s ‘for the farmer’ so which farmers? Wicked problem and hasn’t been decided (or has it) since at least the 70’s.

        It’s a sales pitch but at least it’s out there and gives us something with which to work. Tells us his focus both by what he’s detailed, what he’s left out, and who he’s alienated, and been supported by in the process.

        Politics is an imperfect science. Hope this helps.

    • Try common sense for a change.

      How many thousands of years have people been building fences?

      Why do they still build them?

      A southern border fence isn’t an optional component in stemming the flow of people entering from the south. It won’t stop all of it. No fence is impermeable.

      Arguments against a fence make as little sense as arguing against a lock on the door to your house. Neither is a complete defense but both are a basic component of any good defense.

      • Springer,

        Try not being such a jerky for a change. There is a reason links were included. Use them.

        There has been a ‘barrier’ proposed and legislation passed long before candidate Trump existed. Parts are complete, parts are stalled, and parts are objected to. Funding is an on going issue and Congress controls funding.

        I repeat, the wall BY ITSELF won’t work. No where did I say I OBJECTED to a barrier. The idiotic proposal of a wall of concrete between 20-65 feet tall with a 10′ underground footing is B.S. You know it and so do I.

        All this assume’s you’re aware of the distinction between a wall and a fence. There are subtleties. And you guys are all about distinctions and subtleties.

  78. Funny. More Canadians over stay visas that folks from Mexico according to NPR: http://www.npr.org/2016/09/01/492270569/6-things-you-might-not-have-known-about-trump-s-border-enforcement-plan

    Wonder if Trump is aware.

    • NPR – you mean DPR of course. Democrat’s Public Radio

      • Doesn’t make the inaccurate. Show where they’re incorrect or move outta the way so others can read the data.

      • There are 100 times more illegal Mexicans than illegal Canadians.

        Whatever point you are trying to make with NPR data is stupid and irrelevant in the big immigration picture. I wasn’t disputing the accuracy.

      • “Whatever point you are trying to make with NPR data is stupid and irrelevant in the big immigration picture.”

        So overstayed visas aren’t an issue in your book? You might wanna rethink that. Or maybe I should just say you might wanna think.

        “In the wake of September 11, some observers have emphasized the mismanagement of temporary visas, such as those issued to students and tourists, because all of the 19 hijackers were originally allowed into the country on temporary visas.”

        “Even some government officials have mistakenly singled out one type of immigration as the source of the problem.”


        Frankly, what you think (giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you do) is wrong!

        Write that down!

      • And just a reminder, graphs aren’t allowed anymore, per Curry’s request.

      • David,

        I musta missed that graphs are no longer allowed. I don’t find that in the blog rules.

        Of note, I do find (excerpts):
        Respond to the argument, not to the person.
        Comments using offensive words will be flagged by the spam filter. (N-word might be one of those)
        No ad hominem attacks (Does DDD count?), slurs or personal insults. Do not attribute motives to another participant. (Like ‘hillarymonger)
        Snarkiness is not appreciated here; nastiness and excessive rudeness are not allowed.

        Are any of us guilty of any of these? (Doesn’t even mention sockpuppets)

        I don’t care to be the one to start these things, but I sure don’t mind finishing ’em when they come my way. It’s how my Daddy taught me.

        But we can all do better. Am I correct?

      • Danny Thomas | September 2, 2016 at 11:09 pm |

        “So overstayed visas aren’t an issue in your book?”

        Not really. The persons receiving them have to get approval from an American consulate. They have say where they are going, how long, what for, have a passport, have enough money to pay for the length of time staying, etc.

        The number of them isn’t alarming as far as economic consequences. That said it only takes one or a few terrorists to do very bad things. Trump’s plan is more vetting at the consulate to better weed out terrorists.

        Thanks for asking.

        “You might wanna rethink that. Or maybe I should just say you might wanna think.”

        Same to you but more of it.

      • “Same to you but more of it.”

        Ouch. What do you carry in that handbag? That almost left a mark.

        Let’s see: “The number of them isn’t alarming as far as economic consequences.” 9/11 plus Afghanistan plus Iraq =_________________

        Sorry, that math is over my head.

        You’re really good at staying on point and missing them entirely while doing so.

      • Yes, you must have missed it. You miss a lot. It is in the following OP at the bottom. You made 33 comments in the thread evidently without reading the OP or too stupid to remember what you read.


        Moderation note: Because of the large number of comments on the Politics/Presidential threads, I will be deleting any comments that have a stand alone link to a graphic or a video. If you have a video a graphic that you think people would be interested in, please provide a 1-2 sentence description of the link, then precede the link on a separate line with a character, e.g.

        ‘x http://www.abc.com’

      • Double Dealing Danny re; Canadians overstaying Visas

        What part of “extreme vetting” don’t you understand?

        I know how helpless you are finding stuff yourself so let me help out:


      • And you chastise me for missing a moderation comment then you ignore the moderation comment which applies to you. That, sir, is a double standard.

        I understand ‘extreme vetting’ is already in place. So, in greater detail than provided below, tell me EXACTLY what will be changed (Trump’s details for which he’s so well known). A compare and contrast approach might be best.

        Back to thinking and the suggestion you try it. What makes you ‘think’ that ‘the radical’s’ won’t modify their approach? Are they not already ‘radicalizing’ folks via the internet here? Are they not already modifying tactics?

        Sheesh, David. You cannot see the trees for the forest.

        From your kind offering of a google search for ‘extreme vetting’ the 2nd one down: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/294280-donald-trump-heres-the-extreme-vetting-thats-already

        “The idea that America can be made safer through lengthier and more stringent vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees and asylees flies in the face of all available evidence. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are less likely than native-born Americans to commit violent crimes. Trump’s claim that illegal immigrants are responsible for a crime wave in the United States has been thoroughly debunked.”

        Within that is found: https://www.dhs.gov/publication/cis-ombudsman-2016-annual-report

        And: “I asked hundreds of questions: “Tell me exactly what happened from the time the protests began to the time you left your home. When did you actually leave Syria? How did you leave Syria? What means of transport did you use? Were you ever involved in any peaceful protests? Were you ever involved in any violence in any way? Have you ever had communication with anyone who has used violence even in defensive means? Have you ever registered for any political party? Have you ever been involved in any military service? Have you ever given any support to any political group? Have you ever returned to Syria? What did you do for employment? What was your schooling like? What is your mother’s name? What is your father’s name? What is each of your brothers’ and sisters’ names?” And so on. And this is just a sliver of what is asked during initial UNHCR interviews; each of these questions is followed up by dozens of ensuing questions.” http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/30/the-process-for-interviewing-vetting-and-resettling-syrian-refugees-in-america-is-incredibly-long-and-thorough/?utm_content=buffer59df7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

        Search this for more: USRAP
        “Fulfilling a processing priority enables a refugee applicant the opportunity to interview with a USCIS officer, but does not guarantee acceptance.”

        And the Politico link shows this:”If all those pundits had bothered to do just a couple of minutes of googling before reacting, they would have discovered that immigrant vetting, and even extreme immigrant vetting, has a very long tradition in American history.” Link not provided due to moderation, but you can google it.

        Can you say sales pitch?

      • Danny –

        Trump is going to make sure that Muslims trying to get into the country will be asked questions about their attitude towards the United States.

        I don’t know about you, but I will breathe so much easier. I mean it’s not like a terrorist could get past such extreme, extreme vetting.

      • Wow! I wonder why no one ever thought to ask them that before.

        Eureka! Let’s ask everyone that question. That’ll teach ’em!

        Glad that got ‘fixed’. Kinda like fixing a dog or a kat?

        Where’s the skepticism? (Hope that’s not trademarked)

      • “my understanding is that extreme vetting is already in place”

        Well then that changes everything. Trump needs to change his message to “unprecedented extreme vetting” so that Double Dealing Danny gains the correct understanding.

      • David,
        “Trump needs to change his message to “unprecedented extreme vetting” so that Double Dealing Danny gains the correct understanding.”

        Is that what he’s said or not? In specific detail, how is Double Dealing Donald (softer, kinder, gentler, nope….I meant harsher, remove ’em now, ooops……….I mean we need to consider feelings and families………..no what I meant was ………eh, you fill in the blank what you think it means and we’ll go with that) going to modify the vetting?

        I can wait for your response. I’m sure it’ll be accurate. Can’t miss. It’s kinda like another topic we discuss. Something, something, global warming, something, catastrophe, something, babies, something and so on).

        Double Deal it Dave. Go ahead, you can do it. ““He hasn’t changed his position on immigration,” Pierson said. “He’s changed the words that he is saying.”

  79. From the article:

    America is now home to a vast army of jobless men who are no longer even looking for work—roughly seven million of them age 25 to 54, the traditional prime of working life.

    This is arguably a crisis, but it is hardly ever discussed in the public square. Received wisdom holds that the U.S. is at or near “full employment.” Most readers have probably heard this, perhaps from the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, who said in a speech last week that “it is a remarkable, and perhaps underappreciated, achievement that the economy has returned to near-full employment in a relatively short time after the Great Recession.”

    Near-full employment? In 2015 the work rate (the ratio of employment to population) for American males age 25 to 54 was 84.4%. That’s slightly lower than it had been in 1940, 86.4%, at the tail end of the Great Depression. Benchmarked against 1965, when American men were at genuine full employment, the “male jobs deficit” in 2015 would be nearly 10 million, even after taking into account an older population and more adults in college.

    Or look at the fraction of American men age 20 and older without paid work. In the past 50 years it rose to 32% from 19%, and not mainly because of population aging. For prime working-age men, the jobless rate jumped to 15% from 6%. Most of the postwar surge involved voluntary departure from the labor force.


  80. Article clip about unemployement @jim2 | September 2, 2016 at 9:12 am in moderation.

  81. From the article:

    Two powerful House Republicans are calling for a perjury investigation into presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

    “The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony” to Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter requesting the probe.

    At issue is Clinton’s claim to lawmakers while under oath last October that “there was nothing marked classified in my emails” — a statement FBI director James Comey disputed in testimony before Chaffetz’s committee last week. According to Comey, three emails that were sent from Clinton’s private server were marked classified at the time.


    • Interesting that the president can be a crook and that’s just fine with a near majority of the population. Richard “I Am Not A Cr00k” Nixon certainly would have benefited, eh?

      Trump is crude and that’s about the worst that can be said about him. Compared to many past presidents who were much much cruder (LBJ comes to mind) it seems a minor fault. What am I missing?

    • Interesting that the president can be a cr00k and that’s just fine with a near majority of the population. Richard “I Am Not A Cr00k” Nixon certainly would have benefited, eh?

      Trump is crude and that’s about the worst that can be said about him. Compared to many past presidents who were much much cruder (LBJ comes to mind) it seems a minor fault. What am I missing?

  82. The steady document drip, drip, drip is eating into Clinton’s image. And then we have Wikileaks promising to release more damning documents just before the debate. I LOVE it! From the article:

    Hacking fears over Clinton server: FBI reveal Hillary was sent ‘phishing’ email with porn links and ‘dark web browser’ was used to access another account
    An unidentified person accessed an email account on Clinton’s private server from an IP address associated with encryption tool Tor in 2013
    The incident happened January 5, 2013, a month before the Democratic presidential nominee left the State Department
    According to the FBI’s review of the Clinton server logs, the user using three IP addresses that are known to serve as Tor ‘exit nodes’
    But the owner of the email account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was ‘not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software’
    Tor, which was developed with the support of the US government, is an encrypted privacy tool that is used to hide a person’s history
    It has been criticized for allowing hackers and criminals to evade law enforcement in the dark web
    In another incident, top aide Huma Abedin revealed to an unidentified person that Clinton had fears she had been hacked


  83. Article clip about billary email scandal @jim2 | September 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm in moderation.

  84. Cleaned this up with * and added empahsis:

    Here is a quick summary of the timeline of events:

    February 2013 – Hillary resigns from State Department
    Spring 2013 – Hillary aide Monica Hanley backs up Pagliano Server to Apple MacBook and a thumb drive
    February 2014 – Monica Hanley attempts to upload Hillary email archives to new Platte River Networks (PRN) server but encounters technical issues
    Early 2014 – Monica Hanley mails Apple MacBook to Undisclosed PRN Staff Member to upload Hillary email archives to new PRN server. Undisclosed PRN Staff Member then uploads Hillary’s emails to a gmail account and then transfers them over to the new PRN server. The Undisclosed PRN Staff Member deletes most of the emails from gmail but indvertently leaves 940.
    Early 2014 – Monica Hanley advises Undisclosed PRN Staff Member to wipe the Apple MacBook clean after uploading Hillary’s emails to the new PRN server but he forgets to do it
    Early 2014 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member mails Apple MacBook back to Clinton and it is promptly lost
    December 2014 – Hillary delivers 55,000 emails to State Department
    December 2014 / January 2015 – Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills request emails be deleted from their computer using BleachBit
    December 2014 / January 2015 – “Unknown Clinton staff member” instructs PRN to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server
    March 2, 2015 – NYT releases an article showing that Hillary used a personal email server in violation of State Department rules
    March 4, 2015 – Hillary receives subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers
    March 25, 2015 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member has a conference call with “President Clinton’s Staff”
    March 25 – 31, 2015 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member has “oh s***” moment and realizes he forgot to wipe Hillary’s email archive from the PRN server back in December…which he promptly does using BleachBit despite later admitting he “was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s e-mail data on the PRN server.”
    June 2016 – FBI discovers that Undisclosed PRN Staff Member forgot to erase 940 emails from the gmail account he created to help with the PRN server upload


  85. In her own (possibly seriously injured) mind Hillary Clinton is above the law and beyond public reproach. This leads to extreme carelessness, breaking of laws, and blatant lies to cover it up. Not really stupid but rather extreme apathy.

  86. Scott Adams in March predicted Trump would solve his third act problem, “racist”, with public love for the groups that hate him. The third act began about 3 weeks ago. Sure enough the love was flowing in Detroit today:


    • Low-energy Trump on show there. Very sleepy.

      • The master of persuasion engineered another win.

        Two ways to win, no way to lose. If he gets some black votes, great, that’s icing on the cake. What he gets for sure is the optics of love and concern for all Americans especially impoverished inner city black communities that have been held back by failed democratic policies.

        Everyone knows a racist can’t go into a black community and admit racial inequality, wrongs that need to be corrected, and sincerely ask to be given a chance to help. Republicans don’t do that. Democrats don’t even do that.

        What this does is puts the white voter who felt Trump might be a racist into believing he isn’t and now they can vote for him without a crisis of conscience.

        Scott Adams predicted, a year ago, that this would happen right around this time.

        At the rate the polls are moving in Trump’s direction Adams’ prediction of a Trump landslide are looking good. If the promised WikiLeaks revelation comes to pass in October that’s the final nail in Cr00ked Hillary’s coffin.

        Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

      • He didn’t want to talk to the NAACP, and everything is carefully staged and mostly not open to the press, and no solutions are offered. That community sees Republicans take interest in them every four years and they know what this is about.

      • He didn’t want to talk to the NAACP […]

        Everybody knows the “NAACP” is about power, part of the establishment.

  87. Anti-Trump MSM caught with pants down.

    Reuters was caught purposely cutting exclusive feed of Trump at black church in Detroit when Bishop is praising him. This was particularly egregious as Reuters was granted exclusive feed of the event and all other news outlets blacked out when Reuters cut the feed.

    Here’s the annotated feed with voices in background ordering the cameraman to black it out:


    Here’s what we saw all TV stations as a result:

    . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79OAyAc3G-M

    The cameraman refused, saying “I’ll take a demotion before cutting this” and got into a scuffle causing the camera to shake before someone cut the power.

    Here’s another news agency impressed by the cameraman’s integrity offering him a job paying more the Reuters:

    . https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/772690930335903745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    • These efforts to hide the truth about Trump and Billary are disgusting. All of a sudden, all the media are blatantly dishonest. The only difference is the “blatantly” part.

      • It certainly does look bad, but realistically, the speech was over and they could have had to catch a plane.

        And note that the feed cut after Trump got the shawl. They could have figured the important stuff got out. (Which it probably did.)

      • I think it’s the symbolism of the act that matters. The blessing put an exclamation point on Trump’s visit and interaction with the black church.

      • The blessing put an exclamation point […]

        Are you talking about a blessing that happened after the cut?

        If so, I can almost guarantee that the entire speech, with blessing will show up at Trump’s campaign site along with accusations about MSM bias.

        If they missed anything important, they’ve given Reuters a horrible black eye. As well as the whole MSM.

      • A Mexican friend of mine sent me this:

        Trump Visits Black Church In Detroit; Liberals Lose Their Minds #TrumpInDetroit (REACTION)

      • This also is quite insightful:

        Some Black Guy Responds To Trump Wanting The Black Vote

        a; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Sl4rqYHec

      • That’s not the guy Trump is pitching to.

        Or is he? :-)

    • Reuters claims “It wasn’t us!”

      “Reuters obtained the footage from third-party providers and the voices heard on the video are not Reuters staff or contractors,” Serphos said.

  88. From the article:

    Politics: Based on her FBI interview, Hillary is either a total liar or the dumbest person alive
    Published by: Dan Calabrese on Monday September 5th, 2016
    Dan Calabrese

    The smart money might be on both.

    Sometimes I feel like I’m flogging a skeleton, telling you day after day what a gigantic liar Hillary is. Even when the things we learn make it clear the reality is worse than anyone previously realized, it’s almost as if people have become desensitized to it. Sure, she’s a total liar, but we’ve known that for years. So what?

    But it’s more than just that. It’s also the extent to which others who should have been holding her accountable bent over backwards to avoid doing so. Specifically I’m thinking about the director of the FBI and the news media, both of whom have access to extensive evidence of Hillary’s dishonesty, and both of which have declined to take the actions they should have taken with the information they had.


  89. From the article:

    U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are probing what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions, intelligence and congressional officials said.

    The aim is to understand the scope and intent of the Russian campaign, which incorporates cyber-tools to hack systems used in the political process, enhancing Russia’s ability to spread disinformation.

    The effort to better understand Russia’s covert influence operations is being spearheaded by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. “This is something of concern for the DNI,” said Charles Allen, a former longtime CIA officer who has been briefed on some of these issues. “It is being addressed.”

    A Russian influence operation in the United States “is something we’re looking very closely at,” said one senior intelligence official who, as others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Officials are also examining potential disruptions to the election process, and the FBI has alerted state and local officials to potential cyberthreats.


  90. From the article:

    Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democr


  91. The race is heating up. Trump is closing the gap in the polls with Billary. Billary is, from what I’ve read, really cramming for the debate while Trump isn’t so much (only recently as I’ve read.) Billary finally let the press on her plane. Trump really needs to do the same. I guess the only question is would any of the MSM get on the plane with him?

    Anyway, from the article:

    On Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Legal View” anchor Christine Romans characterized Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting with the press aboard her plane as like “an awkward first date to me.”

    Romans stated, after playing a clip of Clinton’s meeting with the press aboard her airplane, “That felt like kind of an awkward first date to me.”


    • Trump is on a tight leash. Even today he was looking to Kelly Ann Conway to make sure he was giving the right answer to the press. Very presidential. Not. Sad.

      • How about a link, JimD?

      • It was on CNN just within the last hour. He was asked if he would be as open to the press as Hillary on his campaign trail, he said yes, but then looked at Kelly Ann, who wasn’t so sure, so I guess no. The leash was evident.

      • Well, I didn’t see it, but you complain whether he’s behaving or not; so what does it matter anyway? I mean, it’s not like he let one of our ambassadors die or something.

      • It is still not clear whose side he takes in eastern Europe. Some clarification would be welcome.

      • It is still not clear whose side he takes in eastern Europe.

        Of course it is! America (US) First!

      • Yes, but when it comes to NATO versus Putin, that’s where he is not so certain. He’s dangerous.

      • To pre-maturely come to a decision on as complex a matter as Eastern Europe would be fool-hardy and careless. He shows good sense to put it off until he is President and has not only all the facts, but also the best people in place.

      • Putin senses such uncertainty which is why Trump is dangerous just from his proclamations to date.

      • Putin senses such uncertainty […]

        Putin can see that Trump is playing his cards close to his chest. Likely respects him for that.

      • […] Trump is dangerous just from his proclamations to date.

        No more so than any other presidential candidate. And less so than Cr00ked Hillary.

        Nope, you’re just parroting the party line against Trump. What Trump is “dangerous” to is the “Liberal” establishment you’re here to represent.

      • I am saying that Trump not knowing all the facts does not stop him from blurting the wrong, and sometimes highly provocative, stuff out. It’s just who he is.

      • Trump is already about 100 times more certain than Obummer – the one who can’t name our enemies.

      • Obama prefers the more specific term ‘jihadis’ that doesn’t blame a whole religion, and it is unclear why Republicans don’t want to use that term (although I have an idea why).

      • Obama’s foreign policy has been an epic fail. China figuratively spit on him at the G-20 Summit. He’s weak. So is Hillary, Trump won’t be and that’s important.

      • The red carpet debacle would have made thin-skinned Trump turn and go back to America, and that would have been just what China would have wanted so that they could control all the discussions.
        Talking about not being weak, did you see Obama’s death stare standing over Putin today? Great pic.

      • This one.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Since when is Russia a problem? The 1980s want their foreign policy back?

      • You mean apart from hacking, allying with Syria, buzzing ships in eastern Europe, Iran alliance, Ukraine,…

      • jimd

        I love the guy at the back with the blue badge. I think he’s saying

        ‘watch out Barry I think Putin is going for that gun in his shoulder holster’


      • stevenreincarnated

      • Greatest security threat? No.
        Problem/threat? Yes.
        See the distinction?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I can see where you are desperate to justify Obama’s ridicule of Romney. It seems to me I hear Democrats crying about how evil Russia is on a daily basis these days. Don’t worry. It’s just Obama, Clinton and company finding the foreign policy of the 1980s all over again.

      • Yours appears to be the Trump position. Today he says he wants to work with Putin against ISIL (call it a reset), but said little of Putin working with Assad to create the Syrian refugee crisis, and Putin being cosy with Iran. In fact, Trump remains critical of Iran, so he has a few things to figure out about Putin to first see who his other new bedfellows will be there.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Now that you mention it there wouldn’t have been an ISIS if Romney had won. He wanted to leave troops in Iraq. I can’t think of a national interest we might have in Syria. I don’t believe in getting involved where we have no reason to be involved.

      • The Iraqi Sunnis would have been just as disaffected by the pro-Iranian government whether 10k Americans were there to fight them on Iraq and Iran’s behalf or not. You can’t say there would have been no sectarian war developing out of that Iraq-Syria situation, and why should Americans be fighting in one anyway? I am glad they were not caught in the middle.

      • stevenreincarnated

        AQI was defeated. They ran away. We had Sunni tribes on our side. The same tribes Obama sat back and watched as they were wiped out due to the power vacuum he created. Good job, mr president. Nobody else could have made that big a mess if they were trying.

      • Americans have no business defending a country that is split like that. What was their remaining interest there after there were no WMD and the new Iran-leaning government weren’t going to pay them back in oil?

      • stevenreincarnated

        It was in our interest to maintain stability. You think it was in our interest to encourage a state of instability where entire populations get wiped out? What is our interest in doing that?

      • Was it the US responsibility to take care of Iraq when they had Iran right there? Remember this war wasn’t even a NATO one. Iraq are not part of any such pact. The British had gone home long ago, and everyone supported that America needed to be following them. They had no business being there after their elections put in a government who decided that they didn’t particularly need the US to stay and therefore would not offer favorable terms or even pay them back for their trouble.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I have never connected the words NATO mission and Iraq. If you say it is difficult for you to keep that straight I have no problem believing you. Tell me how it was in our interest to cause disorder and the slaughter of innocents before we go any further.

      • I was saying that there is no treaty to defend Iraq, like NATO. They probably did not create one for a reason. Why should there even be one? Their reasons for being in Iraq were over. No WMDs, check, government installed, check. Americans voted Obama in to leave that kind of stuff alone in the future. They learned the lesson the hard way.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You didn’t answer my question. Why was instability and the massacre of civilian populations in our national interest? Yes, I knew what you meant. I was just a little irritated at your comment about everyone supported the idea that US troops should be sent home. You must mean everyone without the geopolitical genius of you and Obama like Obama’s national security advisers and his military advisers and ex presidents and people running against him for president and just about everyone in the country with an IQ over 50. He screwed up. Admit it. It cost thousands of lives, destroyed our reputation in the Middle East along with all his other screw ups, and now we have over 4000 troops back in Iraq and he keeps upping it all the time. If it was such a frikkin brilliant idea to pull them out then why are they back in? And now we have troops in Syria and Libya too. He has been and continues to be a walking talking presidential foreign policy disaster.

      • OK, so you are saying you could have predicted the invasion and that the Iraqi army would have upped and run so easily, even before anyone could say ‘reinforcements’. To stay, American troops would have had to submit to local laws under the agreement wanted by the new government, so you would also say you wanted to accept that condition. No one blames America for leaving. They were not wanted. Now they are back in under their own terms, not as front-line troops bearing the brunt of the fighting to take back territory, but as support.

      • stevenreincarnated

        What part of he was warned not to pull the troops all out by just about everyone that should be in the know and decided to do it anyway and that decision brought devastation don’t you understand?

      • Who warned him and when and why?

      • It’s one thing for Americans to say they should keep troops in, but given the status of forces agreement and what surrounded that, it would have been hard to find leading Iraqis wanting them to stay.
        Shoes were thrown at Bush on his last trip. He was not well liked. You want to blame Obama. I would say the Iraqis had more to do with it. Obama may be a good diplomat, but some situations just have to be left alone.

      • That only makes Bush’s signing of the SOFA in 2008 even more odd.

      • stevenreincarnated

        We had an incredible amount of leverage over Iraq. We could have gotten any deal we wanted. Obama wanted out. He got out.

      • No one in their right mind commits American troops to defend a country that doesn’t want them there. Iran had the leverage that counted which was with the leaders.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, I know it is Bush’s fault for Obama’s failures 3 years into his presidency.

      • Iraq’s fault ultimately because they did not want to have any more to do with Bush, and there was no popular support behind keeping Americans there either.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I already said that you and Obama knew more than all the experts. So now tell me why we have troops in Iraq? I bet the Yazidis and Christians wish they had been there sooner, you know, like before they were wiped out with their men killed and their women sold as sex slaves. But hey, at least Obama could say he got us out of Iraq, right?

      • That’s Monday morning quarterbacking. The reason the Americans withdrew is because they were not wanted and Bush made sure of that. At that point it was not their problem any more. Now they have been invited back in to help in the latest emergency. They have the air power and intelligence to make a big dent in the enemy.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Except they were telling him the Monday before the game. That doesn’t count as Monday morning quarterbacking.

        Here’s another article critical of Romney for saying we shouldn’t be taking the troops out. It seems everyone thought it was a mistake except you and Obama and a few other clueless ideologues.


      • How were they going to sell it to the Iraqis, let alone the American public, that the Americans needed to be there? It was a non-starter. See 2003.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Sell it to the Iraqis? You mean besides all the aid we were providing? I know you don’t know anything about the military but military equipment requires a steady stream of parts and ammunition if you want the soldiers to be able to use the weapons. The equipment we gave them would be worthless in months without it. Obama didn’t even try. He wanted out. He got out. Even the people in his administration were trying to keep him from doing it. He got to brag he got us out of Iraq for a little while. Innocents paid for his right to boast.

      • The Iraqis wanted America out, their leaders did, and the American public did. These facts count. Blame those people if you are blaming Obama. He did not get elected and re-elected on wanting a long Middle East occupation in a thankless country.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I think I’ll stick with blaming the one responsible. You can blame any random person you want.

      • Fine. I can blame Iraq’s government with help from Syria’s.

      • No one in their right mind commits American troops to defend a country that doesn’t want them there.

        What “country”?

        There are only two countries in that region: Israel and Iran. All the rest are conquest kingdoms (with fake “democracies”) slapped over primitive 7th century tribal cultures.

        Iran had the leverage that counted which was with the leaders.

        Letting Iran have control of Iraq, or even the part of Iraq primarily inhabited by Shias, would have left them in control of almost all the oil.

        US “leadership” couldn’t have that. Our “friends” the Saudis couldn’t have that. It would have, ultimately, led to the total destruction of Israel, which would have left the “liberal”/”progressive” establishment with a huge legacy of hatred and resentment from most Jews, and a large fraction of fundamentalist Christians.

  92. Obummer’s economy is still sucking wind. Eight years and nothing to show for it but more socialism – ditto with Billary.

    From the article:

    The United States labor force participation rate rose by 58,000 in August, according to statistics released by the Labor Department on Friday.
    That leaves a total of 94,391,000 Americans not in the work force, unchanged from July’s 62.8 percent.

    The national unemployment rate also remained unchanged at 4.9 percent, as the United States economy added only 151,000 jobs.


  93. One of these daze, there is going to be a reckoning for Shifty Billary. From the article:

    Donald Trump’s campaign is calling for the FBI to release additional records on its interview with Hillary Clinton and the investigation into her use of a private, personal email server during her time as secretary of state.
    The Trump campaign press release on Monday states that the FBI’s redacted interview notes, which were released late on Friday before the Labor Day weekend, raise questions on whether or not Clinton’s emails, which were under subpoena, had been intentionally destroyed.

    “Not only do the FBI’s interview notes underscore Hillary Clinton’s terrible judgment, incompetence, and dishonesty, they raise serious questions about whether emails regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi were intentionally destroyed while under congressional subpoena,” stated Trump’s deputy campaign manager David Bossie.


  94. Thank you, Obummer. From the article:

    This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.

    A 2015 study found the coal industry lost 50,000 jobs from 2008 to 2012 during Obama’s first term. During Obama’s second term, the industry employment in coal mining has fallen by another 33,300 jobs, 10,900 of which occurred in the last year alone, according to federal data. Currently, coal mining employs 69,460 Americans, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Much of the blame for the job losses is targeted at federal regulations aimed at preventing global warming, which caused coal power plants to go bankrupt, resulting in a sharp decline in the price of coal.

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also pledged that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”


  95. This is unbelievable. Clinton coughs for a loooooooooooooong time.

    VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Starts Speech With Massive Coughing Fit: “Every Time I Think About Trump I Get Allergic”

  96. Obama turns his patriotic correctness on and off.

    Here, for instance, he’s defending Kaepernick, so it’s off:

    VIDEO: Obama Defends Kaepernick: “Maybe Some Of His Critics Will Start Seeing That He Has a Point”

    But when blasting Trump, Obama has his patriotic correctness turned on full blast:

    Obama Tired Of Trump “Trash Talking” US Troops

    Is there no limit to Obama’s hypocrisy and double standards?

    • Danny Thomas,

      Once again, par for the course for you: Long on style points. Short on substance.

      It’s more of your word games: Attack the messenger and not the message.

      • So says the expert on such things!

        Like you’ve never done that Glenn. Did I also mention expertise in ‘hypocrisy and double standards’?

    • The point is he is being paid millions of dollars to play football not leverage it for a political message that’s hugely unpopular with a great majority of football fans who happen to be patriotic middle class white males.

      Throw him off the team. He isn’t fit to warm the 49’ers bench.

    • Gold star families suffered a horrific loss. They did not make a sacrifice. A sacrifice is a voluntary loss. None of these people purposely put their child into the line of fire. Their child made the sacrifice.

      I am so sick and phucking tired of gold star families being elevated to the position of sacrifice. It diminishes those that made the real sacrifice – the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine that gave his life defending his country. We should certainly console those left behind at their loss but it’s not a sacrifice.

      • It is for socialists. For them, individuals are valuable primarily for what they contribute to the group(s) they’re members of.

      • AK – I believe these cases are referred to as “useful idi0ts.”

      • Families who had members in the military during WW2 often placed a flag designating that in their windows. I have one of them in my WW2 collection. The tradition started in WW1. The service member was represented by a blue star on a white background. Many families had multiple blue stars. When one of them was killed in action, the useful idiot families covered the blue star with a gold star.

  97. From the article:

    BLACKOUT: Media Ignores Pro-Brexit Demo But HUNDREDS Of Articles Published On Pro-EU Protest


  98. From the article:

    Leftists have reminded the world just how much they hated Phyllis Schlafly. As news of the conservative author and activist’s death spread, Twitter was deluged with tweets celebrating her death.
    While most of the tweets were from ordinary members of the public, many others came from columnists and commentators. Here’s Jeb Lund, a columnist for The Guardian.

    Big Sepsis Jeb Lund ✔ @Mobute
    On the one hand it’s a shame Phyllis Schlafly died, but on the other it’s always heartwarming when Satan calls one of his own home.
    6:26 PM – 5 Sep 2016


  99. Danny Thomas,

    Once again, par for the course for you: Long on style points. Short on substance.

    It’s more of your word games: Attack the messenger and not the message.

  100. Yep, Trump will never garner the respect of world leaders like Obama has. From the article:

    Obama cancels meeting with Philippines president after Duterte calls US leader ‘son of a b****’


    • Trump would have engaged the only way he knows how: a Twitter war. Duterte’s the kind of tinpot dictator Trump can only aspire to be. He has his ‘enforcers’ just the way Trump wants. Due process out of the window.

    • Unfortunately, Duterte is just the tip of the iceberg.

      Obama had a disastrous week, and other events were far more problematic than the Duerte dust up. Even CNN admits it.

      Obama suffers the slings and arrows of a restive world

      Turkey could end up being the greatest foreign relations failure of Obama’s tenure.

    • jim2

      after Obama sneerily telling our new prime minister that we will have to go to the back of the queue for any trade deals it makes me wonder why we bother to be your best friend and ally and why we soft pedal on the vast amounts of tax owed by US corporations


      • Because Obama, from the point of view of history, is a flash in the pan. And WRT to the tax thing, it may be because your leaders would rather keep whatever parts of the companies are there, there, instead of making an issue of the taxes and perhaps running them off.

      • jim2

        We are amongst the best markets in the world for many US corporations. The new technology ones in particular are shielding around 25 billion pounds in tax. Why would they want to desert a milk cow like Britain?

        If Obama can’t be bothered to help his British friends enact a democratic mandate then why should we let all this tax remain unpaid?


      • The “new” big tech companies are bad actors in many ways. I you guys can get the tax money out of them, I’m not sure what you are waiting for. Why does the tax money remain uncollected, I’d like to know.

      • If Obama can’t be bothered to help his British friends enact a democratic mandate then why should we let all this tax remain unpaid?

        Just because the US is your friend doesn’t mean Obama is. He’s a globalist. His preferred version of “globalism” uses the same model as the EU.

        Why should he be friendly to a country that’s killing the EU?

      • AK

        I am flattered that you think Britain has enough clout to ‘kill’ the EU.

        The truth is that its a walking zombie and has been for 15 years. It has tried to go way beyond what many of us originally voted for-a trading block of similarly developed nations.

        It is now set up for Germany’s convenience and the result has been high unemployment, interest/currency rates unsuitable for many of the participants, an overbearing bureaucracy and pretensions to become one nation, against the express desires of many of its citizens.

        It will be interesting to see if Ireland have got the independence to create their own tax regimes that they believe and what happens with the rerun of the Austrian election..

        If Obama can’t be bothered to cut a trade deal with the UK-now the EU has rejected his overbearing US oriented pact-I don’t see why we should hang back on the tax owed by these hi tech corporations. I understand the US has also tried to get some of this money, but the corporations won’t repatriate it due to the very high US corporation tax rate?


      • The truth is that its a walking zombie and has been for 15 years. It has tried to go way beyond what many of us originally voted for-a trading block of similarly developed nations.

        Well, with Brexit the zombie had one of its legs fall off. (Both?)

        For somebody like Obama, who was too deep in denial to realize it was already dead, that looks like killing it. Like the kid who shouted “the emperor has no clothes” was responsible for their lack.

        BTW, here’s an interesting perspective on Brexit.

      • If Obama can’t be bothered to cut a trade deal with the UK-[…]

        Obama’s a lame duck. (Something you may not have with your system.) Why not wait to see what the next president does?

      • AK

        That was a good article on Brexit you posted. It is difficult to disagree with much of it. Perhaps you could send a copy to Barry so he can grasp the reality of the zombie EU?

        I think that he must think of it as another form of the United States but so many different countries at varying states of economic development, no common language, an artificial currency, a lack of desire to ‘internally’ transfer funds from rich members to poorer ones makes the EU a very different beast.

        Where s a vet when one is needed to put the poor creature down?


      • Where s a vet when one is needed to put the poor creature down?

        Well, here’s a “vet” eager to put democracy down:

        Why elections are bad for democracy

        Isn’t it bizarre that voting, our highest civic duty, boils down to an individual action performed in the silence of the voting booth? Is this really the place where we turn individual gut feelings into shared priorities? Is it really where the common good and the long term are best served?

      • Sortition doesn’t sound like a solution. The big question is not who is selected among the citizens, it’s who is selected to “inform” them.

      • jim2,

        It does appear that the Fourth Estate is broken. It is, undoubtedly, in upheaval.

        But given the magnitude of the communications revolution which has occurred over the past 20 years, this should come as no surprise.

        Every great revolution in communications — writing, printing press, radio and television — has ushered in a political revolution. The advent of the internet couples with instantaneous mobil communications will probably be no exception. We just don’t know quite yet where it’s all going.

        From my point of view, it looks like the latest communicaitons revolution made the herding of cats all that much more difficult.

      • Mr. Glenn Stehle, Your observation and correlation with history are very clear, thank you for the insight.

  101. Sounds like walking pneumonia.

    • The flaw in that stupid article is this: it presumes a majority of Republicans are unhappy with Trump and fear a Trump presidency.

      That presumption is 100% unadulterated bullshiit. Trump won the Republican primary by the largest number of votes ever cast in a Republican primary. He cleaned out a field of 17 competitors. He continues to draw huge cheering crowds of Republicans everywhere he goes.

      Just because a small fraction of “establishment” Republicans don’t like Trump doesn’t mean the vast majority of rank and file Republicans don’t love him. The establishment Republicans are upset because they didn’t get their way. Trump is is his own man. He doesn’t take orders from nor necessarily conform to the conservative Republican party platform. A near plurality of Americans support Trump. He has a huge lead among independents and middle class voters. Middle class voters, I might remind you, are the backbone of America. The ones who go to work every day and pay all the phucking taxes that keep the wheels on this train we call America.

      Write ALL that down, Double Dealing Danny. And pass it along to your imbecilic milksop friends too.

    • Danny the Denier.

      • You are late to the party as Trump has said himself he takes advantage of the system provided him by Dimowits and Redimowits. Do you have anything original to add?

        The point is that he realizes the current system is bad for many US citizens and as President, he is willing to work to change it. Cr00ked Hillary will just bring more of the same old lies and “hide the pea.” She’s really good at both those.

      • It doesn’t need to be ‘new’, it just needs to be accurate.

        “he is willing to work to change it.” Show me what he’s done to date. He’s been formally a candidate since June 16, 2015. If he’s so ‘willing’ lots must have been accomplished.

        So, Jim, “Do you have anything original to add?”

      • Him, or his kids, changing their business model won’t have a material effect on the economy; so it would be symbolic only. It doesn’t matter.

      • Interesting. A ‘symbolic’ gesture on the part of Trump or his ‘proxy’ (progeny?) to actually:

        Invest soley in the U.S.
        Hire U.S. citizens
        Provide U.S. made products in Hotels
        Create manufacturing jobs in the U.S. not outside
        Use soley U.S. contractors

        As opposed to ‘whining’ (a word choice of yours) when others don’t?

        Some symbolism. If ‘it doesn’t matter’ why’s he running on it as a campaign issue?

        Guess your outta the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ camp, huh?

        You guys let him off the hook and defend him for everything. And you call others hypocrites? Call it like it is, not how you wish it to be.

      • Don’t be fooled by the talk. As President, Trump would be put in an even better position to take advantage of the system to his own benefit, which from his biography (as seen on CNN last night) is all he has ever cared about so far in his life.

      • JimD attempts to scatter some FUD. Compared to what Billary have already done, I’ll choose Trump any day.

    • Also this.The Dallas Morining News supports Republicanism, but this is Trumpism.

      • Another whiner. The Redimowit party has changed over the years. It has become more socialistic. Trump will have no political choice but to retain some of that, but he has the right ideas – foremost of which is to put the well being of US citizens first.

      • “but he has the right ideas – foremost of which is to put the well being of US citizens first.”

        Actions vs. words anybody?

        Trump clothes manufactured outside the U.S.
        Eyeglass made outside the U.S.
        Trump Home Brand products made outside the U.S.
        Trump Hotel Pens made outside the U.S.
        Other hotel products made outside the U.S.
        Trump Vodka-Netherlands
        (apparently hats, bedding, water, and cologne produced in the U.S.)

        Rio de Janeiro

        (Of course there are U.S. holdings also).

        Wonder how many ‘U.S. first’ jobs would exist if these businesses were located in the U.S.? And this comment stays away from his hiring of other than U.S. citizens.

  102. I think Billary sees a long line of Redimowit bodies strewn along the road politic and shakes in her boots. Allegedly, she is studying Trump’s policy positions (take note Danny). But his detailed policy positions are a work in progress, as they should be at this point, so I’m not so sure how true this article is. I think she’s really studying every detail her henchmen can find on anything and everything about Trump’s life. She will try to surprise him with something he has done in the past that she can twist into something horrible.

    From the article:

    (CNN)Hillary Clinton is devouring briefing book after briefing book about Donald Trump’s policy positions, personality and politics. She’s watching highlight reels, taking notes and studying his style — particularly when he’s in attack mode.

    Trump, meanwhile, is doing his thinking out loud — mulling over policies and strategies in rolling conversations with top campaign aides and a band of informal advisers that includes Roger Ailes and Rudy Giuliani.
    Less than four weeks from the first of three presidential debates — on September 26 at Hofstra University in New York — the candidates are preparing for an unpredictable, high-stakes night.


    • Let’s take a look at this:

      “Allegedly, she is studying Trump’s policy positions (take note Danny). But his detailed policy positions are a work in progress,”

      Somebody obviously isn’t aware that Trump has put forth at least portions of policies. One is immigration oriented. It’s a position, is detailed, and a work in progress. One size fits all. Some lil’ trip to Mexico the Arizona recently.

      And all this is in preparation for a series of debates where big Dave admired so the ‘positioning’ Trump used to ‘negotiate’ the terms, dates, and moderators utilizing the (f)art of the deal so he could except everything as presented. Colour me impressed.

      • Maybe Billary’s head injury makes it difficult to read a few 10’s of pages of Trump’s policy.

      • “colour” me impressed

        Slip up there, Double Deal, using the non-American spelling?

        You using “big Dave” and “(f)art of the deal” is characteristic of Willard.

        I think we have a sock puppet.

      • Trump’s position is too fluid for good targeting. Scott Adams believes that fluidity is by design and is another sign that Trump is a master at the art and science of persuasion – avoid presenting a standing target.

        Maybe Clinton should answer everything with her stock answers so far:

        “but racist” and “but nuclear codes”

        She has persisted with those long enough for Trump to target them for eradication which he’s been doing successfully the past few weeks.

        Hillary and the democrats pretty much bet the farm on Trump not being able to control his controversial and seemingly random blurting of insults. She’s screwed if he’s capable of self-control and by now it’s evident he’s exactly as controlled as he chooses to be. It was almost preposterous to believe he couldn’t control his mouth. He built a huge business empire dependent on getting along with people who he needs to get along with. People with no self control couldn’t do that. So it’s all been calculated with just a few missteps in real-time shoot-from-the hip A-B testing.

        It’s his election to lose and there’s nothing Hillary can do about it except hope like hell the Trump train derails itself. It ain’t gonna happen. Panic is setting in and that panic will cause mistakes to be made by the democrats. It’s likely Hillary will be the one who makes the mistakes going forward. I think she’s already making one huge mistake by flooding the airwaves with negative campaign ads. Nobody wants to see that except die-hard democrats who are voting for her regardless of what they see on TV.

      • Her team will probably have to drown her in cough syrup. She’ll be lucky if she can talk without slurring her words.

    • Sheesh. except = accept.

  103. VIDEO — Poll: Nine weeks out, a near even race

    And on CNN’s web page, it’s their headline this morning:
    a; http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/index.html

    Trump has a HUGE 20-point lead with indpendents. Romney won independents by only 5%.

    58% of Trump voters say they are enthusiastic, whereas only 46% of Clinton voters say they are.

    I’m still wondering if any of these polls are capturing the new voters who have never voted before. There are indications that there are a quite a number of these, and that this election will break the mold.

    • Mexico’s president Peña Nieto (or his administration) read the tea leaves and placed his bet on Trump.

      Maybe he knows something about what is coming that we don’t? Peña Nieto’s Secretary of Hacienda, Luis Videgeray, is the one reputed to be behind the Trump invitation.

      Obviously the Peña Nieto administration doesn’t believe Trump’s scorched earth rhetoric about Mexico, and believes there is some room for negotiation with Trump.

    • The other thing that seems to be little talked about in the United States is that Trump and Peña Nieto did not meet alone. Trump went into the meeting accompanied by Rudolph Giuliani and Senator Jeff Sessions:

      El encuentro duró una hora y 10 minutos y se realizó en la Residencia Oficial de Los Pinos. Comenzó a las 13:40 y terminó a las 14:50 horas, de acuerdo con lo informado por el vocero de la presidencia de México, Eduardo Sánchez, quien participó en el encuentro.

      Además de él, estuvieron presentes la secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Claudia Ruiz Massieu; el secretario de Hacienda, Luis Videgaray; el jefe de la oficina de la Presidencia, Francisco Guzmán Ortiz, y el coordinador de asesores, Carlos Pérez Verdía.

      Del otro lado de la frontera estuvieron el excalde de Nueva York, Rudolph Giuliani, y el senador por Alabama, Jeff Sessions. Ambos fervientes impulsores de la propuesta antmigratoria del aspirante a la “Casa Blanca”, de acuerdo con una entevista del vocero realizada por Leonardo Curzio.


    • Or, if you’re Double Dealing Danny, break the mould.

  104. Shock polls:

    RCP average 2-way race Hillary +3.3
    RCP average 4-way race Hillary +2.4

    Trump’s got the momentum! Teleprompter and no big gaffes is paying off big time. Black voter outreach is working too. I suspect it’s not working with black voter so much as convincing white voters he can’t be a racist if he’s reaching out like that. People intuitively believe racists can’t reach out to those they hate. White voters uncomfortable with voting for a racist are now assured that’s not the case.

    See, I told y’all there were two ways for him to win in a black outreach and no way to lose. He’s essentially thrown any real racists in the Republican party under the bus to prove to everyone else that he’s fighting for the American dream for *every* law-abiding US citizen and legal immigrant regardless of race, creed, or ancestry.

    The result of this strategy is now manifest.



    Go Trump!!!

    • Yea, but the Washington Post’s new poll shows Clinton winning even TEXAS!

      From my daily email update from the Texas Monthly:

      Poll Position

      Recent polls have shown Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s lead in Texas sliding considerably, but the Washington Post’s new poll of all of the states shows something we never expected to see this election cycle: a 50-50 split here in Texas.

      “Texas splits about evenly between Clinton and Trump in the new poll,” the Post writes in the data-heavy article. The Post actually has Clinton one point ahead of Trump.

      If the poll results hold, it would be the first time the Lone Star State went blue since Texans chose Jimmy Carter in 1976, and it would be the narrowest election Texas has seen since at least 1972 (that’s as far back as the Post goes to compare election results with it’s new poll).

      The Post’s poll was completed between August 9 and September 1, and it used SurveyMonkey’s online questionnaire platform to poll 74,886 registered voters across 50 states, including 5,147 Texans. According to the Post, “the results are weighted to match demographic characteristics of registered voters in each state.”

      • The WP is full of it. From RCP, for Texas:

        RCP Average 6/10 – 8/14 — 45.7 37.3 Trump +8.4

        PPP (D) 8/12 – 8/14 944 LV 50 44 Trump +6
        KTVT-CBS 11 8/8 – 8/9 1018 LV 46 35 Trump +11
        Texas Tribune/YouGov 6/10 – 6/19 1200 RV 41 33 Trump +8
        All Texas: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data

    • Scott Adams has an interesting post on why he doesn’t believe Trump is a racist, or at least any more racist than the norm.

      Why Trump Doesn’t Scare Me

  105. stevenreincarnated

    This could get interesting. Comey is alleged to have been employed by HSBC, a bank notorious as a money laundering operation and a bank that has a lot of dealings with the Clinton Foundation.

    • Comey was evidently appointed to the HSBC board after all the malfeasance took place.

      For instance, in the most recent arrest:

      The men are accused of making $3m profit by fraudulently trading currencies in advance of a client buying $3.4bn of pounds sterling in 2011, according to the complaint. They are accused of buying sterling in advance of the client’s transaction in a manner “designed to spike the price” to the benefit of HSBC “and at the expense of their client”. They also billed their client for $5m in fees for their work.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I actually ran into his connections with HSBC by accident. I’m mystified as to how someone could show gross negligence with classified information, lie to Federal investigators, lie under oath to a congressional committee, and destroy evidence without any charges being brought forward by the investigators. I thought well maybe Comey was involved in the Lolita ring with Epstein where Epstein got a slap on the hand and everyone else’s identity that were involved were protected by a plea deal in the international transport of under aged girls for the purposes of prostitution. It just so happened that Epstein likes to bank there. I used to think that sure there was inequality in the justice system because rich people can afford better lawyers. I have come to the conclusion that I was being entirely too generous. I’ll wait and see what connections come up between Comey and the Clinton Foundation. I won’t be surprised if there is something there.

  106. Tony B,

    I’m thinking Trump may not be the guy to get ‘the money’ out of politics like I stated might turn me off less: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/how-donald-trump-made-it-look-like-he-was-bribing-the-attorney-general-of-florida/

    • stevenreincarnated

      If you want to do business in a corrupt society you pay the piper or you don’t do business. I’m not sure I would blame the person wanting to do business. I’m sure they would prefer not to have to pay off the politicians.

      • Steven,

        Personally, I blame both.

        Corrupt is an interesting term and paints a worse picture w/r/t Trump U. (the focus of this discussion). Trump not only admitted to paying to play but he bragged about it (oh, except not in the case of Bondi and his ‘U’). As a ‘businessman’ is there reason to see an incentive for him to address it? He’s banking on that ‘businessman’ moniker increasing his value in this race.

        All of ‘our society’ isn’t corrupt, but some is. Shouldn’t we hold to a higher level those who choose to not participate vs. those who require others ‘assistance’ in order to be considered successful?

        Are you comfortable letting Trump off the hook because of the nature of the ‘corrupt society’? Or do you think participation in financial influence creates that corruption? Chicken/egg?

      • that’s a difficult one. If you want to do business in the Middle East some form of corruption or direct bribe is virtually obligatory. I would be disappointed to think this was the case in the US.

        Is expecting some sort of a quid pro quo for favours given, the same as getting specified favours for paying a monetary bribe? I dunno.


      • TonyB,

        Convenient positioning depending on which hat he’s wearing? http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/22/trump-on-lobbying-i-was-part-of-the-problem-but-i-can-fix-it/

        If pay for play continues, Trump will be up against it’s influence for all ‘the politicians’ subject to same. If not, according to himself, (and I’m making an assumption here) his ‘business’ acumen was bought (at least in part) and not earned. What does this say about his running based on being a ‘successful businessman’?

        But apparently I’m the only skeptic in the house.

      • stevenreincarnated

        We don’t know the people that didn’t participate. They went broke or are too small to worry about.

      • Danny

        You know my low opinion of both your Presidential candidates. Is one worse than the other? It seems to me that they are both up to a number of tricks which means they are sailing close to the wind.

        Corruption should be cleaned out of public life and Presidents in particular should be squeaky clean. However, with your powerful lobbyists, I suspect that candidates who can claim to be uncorrupted in the broadest sense are few and far between.

        So I condemn Trump IF he has been involved in wrong doing (and all I know on the subject is what you have posted) equally, Hillary hardly seems like an innocent.


      • “So I condemn Trump IF he has been involved in wrong doing (and all I know on the subject is what you have posted) equally, Hillary hardly seems like an innocent.”

        Agreed. Wrongdoing may not be the appropriate term as it (ugh) seems to be inherent to the system and apparently legal. But so many here a willing to judge one candidate (Clinton/foundation) while looking the other way regarding the other.

        “Is one worse than the other?” That is the question. I dunno. Both leave an odour (for Big Dave: http://grammarist.com/spelling/odor-odour/). Some have selective noses.

    • He’s soaking the RNC too. Lavish expenses being paid to his own resorts out of donations. Some of the Republicans like Ryan are squealing but they can’t do much.

      • jimd

        I looked at the hotel the reporter suggested would be much cheaper and surely he is not comparing apples and apples?

        The Marriott does not appear to have a conference centre on site and whilst of good quality is not that great. I don’t know the circumstances of the various meetings Trump is said to have been overpaid for. If you were wanting to impress people, Mar a Largo seems the place. If you want value for money and a more ordinary experience, go to the Marriott


      • It was interesting that he moved his New York staff to more expensive offices in Trump Tower once the RNC started paying. Hillary pays a lot less per square foot in New York.

      • Jim D says nothing about the millions sent the Clinton’s way for speeches. Hypocrite.

      • It is one thing to pay a lot to go watch a speech. It is different to donate to the Republicans and have Trump throw lavish events that you are not at. I see a difference.

      • Try this on for size, JimD. From the article:

        Amid recent scrutiny of high speaking fees

        Hillary Clinton isn’t President yet, but she like staying in the presidential suite of the luxury hotels she frequents, according to a new report.


      • New in 2014. Not the campaign.

      • I think you must be hallucinating if you thing Bill and Hillary don’t do exactly the same thing. I would hate to be in your shoes, having to defend 2 cr00ks.

      • Guess Jim2 finds it better to defend just one. (Someone tossed out the hypocrite word somewhere.)

      • The equivalent would be if DNC money went to the Clinton Foundation. The Republicans would not like that one bit, I would suggest.

      • stevenreincarnated

        It says his average donation to his own campaign since winning the nomination has been 2.6 million a month. Unless he is spending more than 2.6 million per month on his own properties after the expense of using the properties is included, it is pretty far fetched to claim it is the money of the masses being used to support his lavish style.

      • Lavish? Meh. But $190M in improved revenue due to all the advertising (name branding) I guess. “Trump reported in documents filed in May with federal regulators that his revenue had increased by roughly $190 million over the previous 17 months.”

        Here’s a Fortune accounting as of June 21. Doesn’t look outlandish and there are regulations in place to insure ‘fair market’ is being charged according to the article. http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/donald-trump-campaign-spending-companies/

        Can’t find out how much Clinton has donated of her personal money, just find their fundraising numbers.

      • Danny & JimD – how much did the Saudi’s and other ME countries donate to the Clintons? You know how they treat women? Nice.

      • Jim2,
        I’m not here to defend Clinton or the ‘funding’ which influences our politics. It happens on all side, thru campaigns, thru ‘trusts’ (misnomer?) and thru PAC’s.

        I don’t like it on either side. How about you? You only okay with it on one?

      • I happen to think if it is for a good cause, take their money. Better than letting them use it for funding something opposite.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I think the bribing scandal isn’t going anywhere. Unless my understanding is wrong the residents of FL could join in the NY lawsuit and so if you assume they would demand the same reparations if he lost then he would save no money by not being sued in FL. I don’t know the statistics but my off the hand guess is you would probably be more likely to get a larger settlement in NY. Out of a potential of 50 attorneys general (not counting those in territories) only 2 decided to bring charges against Trump University and those were the two in the bluest states in the union. While Bondi was in office there was only 1 complaint and only 20 before she was in office. Either Trump University was extremely small time in FL or a very small percentage of people complained. Last but not least the Clintons are going to want to stop talking about universities soon and when they do the media will also.

      • Steven,
        I agree that once the $25K is returned to Trump’s foundation and since a fine was paid that it’ll likely just go away. I’m not sure how ‘the media’ is trying to tie in the Texas link. Bit of a stretch IMO.

        The bigger issue to me is that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. And it’s most certainly not just Trump. But he’s not off the hook. He’s strongly bragged about using money as influence. Funnily, Trump says he’s done so with Hillary by contributing $100k (IIRC) and getting them to attend a wedding.

        My ask is that neither get a pass. No clean hands.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Some dirt is coming out on the University the Clintons were involved with. They won’t want to talk about it anymore. Trump won’t want to talk about it. The media for the most part are parrots and only repeat what they hear.

      • $18M for an Honorary Chairmanship? What’s not to love.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The fact that the University has had the same accusations against it that Trump University has had is pretty lovable also.

      • Steven,
        Absolutely! Thank you for your objectivity. It’s sparse in these parts.

      • Obama administration kills ITT Tech, stranding 40,000 students and destroying 8,000 jobs

        ITT’s decision to close all of its 130 some campuses—stranding 40,000 students and 8,000 employees—comes after the Education Department barred new enrollees from tapping federal aid, delayed loan reimbursements and raised its collateral by $153 million. ITT had a mere $78 million on hand at the end of June and no way of meeting the Administration’s cash demand.


        ITT’s execution follows the usual pattern: A pack of regulators attack from all angles—i.e., the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state Attorneys General—and try to run their target out of business before it can raise a legal defense. None of their charges have been proven in court. (snip)

        Although Education Secretary John King claimed that ITT could have stayed in business by taking “corrective action,” liberals appear to have plotted the company’s assassination long ago. Rohit Chopra worked at the CFPB and the Center for American Progress before signing on as a special adviser to Mr. King in January. In June 2015 Mr. Chopra warned ITT shareholders that the department “can revoke eligibility for federal student aid with minimal notice” and that “ITT may be forced to post even more collateral to maintain eligibility. . . . Unless ITT makes improvements to management culture, the board of directors, and executive compensation, it may be unable to survive over the long term.”

        Immediately after the department imposed its lethal sanctions on ITT, Mr. Chopra departed for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Maybe he’ll be tasked to answer questions about the Clintons’ lucrative ties to Laureate.

        Laureate had the good sense (attention: American business, this is the message) to pay 17 million dollars to the bank account of the family that controls the Democratic Party.


        […] Laureate has 87 campuses in 28 countries, most in the developing world, so the State Department’s imprimatur could be useful.

        Yet the Obama Administration’s College Scorecard shows that its five U.S. campuses have graduation rates comparable to ITT’s. However, student debt levels are higher—$31,976 at Walden University and $43,417 at the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego compared to about $26,000 at ITT schools.

        A report by the Senate Education Committee in 2012 found that Laureate devoted more of its revenues to marketing and profit (54%) than the industry average (42%). While progressives like Mr. Chopra howl about how companies determine executive pay and market-based incentives, Laureate says it seeks to align “executives’ interests with those of our investors” and be competitive in the industry.


        Any business with an exposure to federal regulations (which includes every sizable business in the country) now understands that it exists at the sufferance of the politicians who control the federal bureaucracy. As a practical matter, this means Democrats only, for the federal bureaucracy is deeply politicized and attached to the party of big government for solid, practical, self-interested reasons.

        This is banana republic territory, and we are already well into it. Your interests, my interests, and the interests of the ITT Tech students (some of whom face devastation of their career plans and finances) count for nothing.

      • Since it’s no longer a going concern, I’ve also read that transferable credits won’t be transferable.


        “Aside from student loans, the other big question is what happens to the credits earned by students attending ITT. The Education Department said students – especially those close to graduating – may be able to transfer their credits to another institution.

        On its own website, however, ITT cautioned it was “unlikely that any credits earned at the school will be transferable to or accepted by any institution other than an ITT Technical Institute.”


  107. A actually decent primer on polls/polling: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-says-trump-leading-clinton-what-that-means-2016-9

    and a discussion current day standing (crediting Trumps new staff): http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-hillary-clinton-losing-227774

  108. The Military and politics: “The endorsements don’t seem to be swaying military voters, who are disapproving of both Trump and Clinton. Polling of active duty military service members shows that the rank and file preferred Trump over Clinton by about a 2 to 1 margin earlier in the summer but that Clinton closed that gap to about 10 points in August after Trump attacked a Muslim Gold Star family that spoke out against him. One informal poll of troops had both candidates trailing Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson when his name was included in the survey.”


    The military on politics: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/01/former-joint-chiefs-chairman-slams-retired-generals-remarks.html

  109. It’s a ‘bizarro’ world out here on thraE: “Attorney General Chris Koster received the National Rifle Association’s nod Tuesday for Missouri governor over GOP rival Eric Greitens, yet another endorsement for the Democrat from a group that typically supports Republicans.”

    • They support guns, Danny.

      • And Republicans Jim, which is why I called it a bizzaro world hear on htraE.

        “It’s now safe to say the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations of all time. And according to the latest Pew Research poll, Republicans are overwhelming in favor of that.”
        “It seems Republicans have been coalescing in greater numbers around the NRA ever since — though particularly in the Obama years — partly driven by our country’s increased political polarization.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/14/the-nra-ification-of-the-republican-party/

        Back scratching back?: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2016&id=d000000082

        It’s money, baby. It’s money.

      • You are full of it Danny. NRA support politicians who support guns. Some years, there aren’t may Dimowits who support guns. Other years, up to around 30% of NRA funding recipients are Dimowits. So, again, you are distorting the truth to fit your parties propaganda.


      • 1990? Go thru them all and end with 2016. You wish to cherry pick one year showing a peak of +/- 30% financial support to Democrats as an argument that they don’t predominately support every single year from 1990 to date Republicans! Good luck with that.

        Somewhere this was quoted to me: “So, again, you are distorting the truth to fit your parties propaganda.”

      • It proves the point. It’s not the party, it’s if a politician supports the 2nd amendment or not. Dimowits don’t like the 2nd amendment, nor the Constitution in general lately.

      • Over 300 D’s in a search. Two, Henry Cuellar D.-Tx, And Peterson, D.-Mn. have it following their name. The rest are all capital R’s.

        The point ‘that proves’ is that the NRA supports far more Republican’s than Democrats. Plus it ‘disproves’ that ‘Democrats don’t like the 2nd amendment’.

        “The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.”

        “The proposal, sponsored by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, failed to get the 60 votes for passage. The vote was 53-47, largely along party lines.”

        That’s R’s voting for some sort of restrictions and D’s voting against it.

        There’s more in the link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/

        “expand the background check……” Dem sponsored
        “A Republican proposal to delay gun sales……” sponsored by, well, Reps.
        “And a Democratic option that sought to bar all gun sales…….”

        Sounds like someone just ““So, again, you are distorting the truth to fit your parties propaganda.”

      • The NRA supports the second amendment. The Republican party supports the second amendment.

        Connect the dots. Both of you.

    • I support the NRA. So some of my money goes to Dimowits. I guess I need to talk to the NRA about this.

      • “I support the NRA. So some of my money goes to Dimowits. I guess I need to talk to the NRA about this.”

        You can’t make this stuff up. What was that about: It’s about the 2nd and not the party?

        Thanks Jim.

  110. Democrats are getting panicky. Talking heads are pointing to the electoral college instead of the popular vote now saying it’s next to impossible for Trump even if he were to win the popular vote. Here’s the straight scoop on that and why it’s a desperate attempt to appear invincible as the barbarians break down the gate.

    Someone winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college vote happened only once since 1888. It was Bush in 2000 and the popular vote margin was less than 1%. Campaigns and individuals looking with hope at electoral votes counts and ignoring the tightening popular vote in the polls are fighting the wrong war. Get the popular vote by more than 1% margin and the electoral college ALWAYS goes the same way.

    The polls are highly suspect this year in any case. They don’t do well in close populist elections because they don’t get the critical “likely voter” profile correct. Like campaigns fighting the last war, polls profile the last election. That only works when the current war is very similar to the last war. That’s not the case this time. This isn’t Romney vs. Obama. Not even close. It isn’t establishment vs. establishment this time around like it has been for most of US history.

    Brexit winning in the UK despite Remain being way ahead in the poll average this year presages what’s probably going to happen in the US presidential election. The status quo is on the shiit list in this election and there are two stark choices between status quo and radical change before the voters. I guess three choices for radical change if you count Johnson and Stein but they’re just sucking votes away from Hillary not Trump.

    Democrats are doing the classical “whistling past the graveyard at this point”. Ignore that popular vote trend they say, the electoral college is what counts. That’s only true if the popular vote is virtually tied. If either side is ahead by 1% in the popular vote the electoral college always follows suit.

    • The electoral college is about who is winning the ground game. The swing states are seeing the largest local campaigns and ad spending. The non-swing states would hardly know there is an election by comparison.

      • I suggest you check the attendance record at campaign stops to see who’s winning the ground game.

        That aside, which part of “electoral college always follows the popular vote if there’s more than a one percent margin in the popular vote” did you want to disagree with?

      • You can look at the current standings in the polls and electoral college to disagree with that.

      • No, that doesn’t argue against it. The history of electoral college and popular vote inextricably links the two to the same winner except in the exceedingly rare case where the popular vote margin was less than one percent.

        Again, which part of that do you disagree with?

      • Again, I disagree because that is what the current polls are showing, although they also do show a lead for Clinton when you include enough of them.

      • I give up. Your reply makes no sense.

      • His reply makes sense in La La Land.

      • I am saying that Clinton still leads both in the aggregate polls and electoral college, so we can’t test whether they disagree with each other yet.

      • We won’t know the electoral college vote until it’s over – they are a bit of a wild card.

      • http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/create_your_own_president_map.html

        Clinton/Kaine 229
        Toss Ups 155
        Trump/Pence 154

        With no tossups:

        Clinton/Kaine 340
        Trump/Pence 198

        About a week ago, maybe two, Clinton/Kaine had 272, tossups were still around 150, so the Democratic ticket has lost something like what, 43 probable electoral votes in the past week or so according to RCP.

        The Dems’ advantage in the electoral college has been discussed for months now. In a close race I look at it as beginning with the difference between California’s 55 electoral votes to Texas’ 38. Next big Clinton/Kaine advantage is New York with its 29 electoral votes going very solidly in favor of the Dems (the spread is 19 points at the moment).

        After that the ones to watch are Florida 29, Pennsylvania 20, Illinois 20 and Ohio 18. Of those, Illinois is pretty deep blue with a spread of 18 points from one poll taken in July. The other states are more heavily polled and also much closer (<5 point spreads), but only in Florida have Trump/Pence polled ahead of the Dems, back in July, a whopping 0.3% spread. Right now it's a 2.1 point spread for the Dems, which is almost surely inside the MOE of the polls.

        They call 'em battleground states for a reason. It's a goofy system to be sure, but I can't say I mind when it works to my preferences.

    • Fel0nies. Somehow Trump dodged that rule.

      • Maybe. So far. Based on convictions I’d say all have. Based on actual ‘not yet discovered’ who knows.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Maybe. So far. Based on convictions I’d say all have. Based on actual ‘not yet discovered’ who knows.

        That sounds like Mosher’s unicorn method to me: Events that have already happened count the same as events we speculate or predict might happen sometime in the future.

  111. Hillaryous.

    No mercy. Featured on Drudge Report:


    Someone pulled a closeup of Hillary’s coughing fit in Cleveland that shows her spitting a couple big globs of yellow mucous into her water glass on the sly.

    Pretty disgusting. Don’t watch close to meal time.

  112. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

    Nate Silver has Trump back up to 33% chance of winning. After a ridiculously rapid change in 48 hours from 50:50 to 85:15 on July 31st Trump’s odds have slowly recovered. The rapid change is doubtful. Things don’t move that rapidly. Slow recoveries and declines are credible.

  113. Here’s a globalist elitist who isn’t on the radar much in the West, but he along with all the other elitists is upset with Trump. He runs Alibaba, the Chinese version of Amazon. From the article:

    Jack Ma has a warning for those who see globalization as a problem: When trade stops, wars can follow.

    “We should keep on going along the path of globalization,” Ma said Friday in Hangzhou, China. “Globalization is good… when trade stops, war comes.”


  114. And then, naturally, the UN is worried about Trump. A feather in Trump’s cap. From the article:

    UN Commissioner Warns of ‘Weaponized’ Populism from Wilders, Trump, Farage Turning ‘Into Colossal Violence’


    • The United Nations’ high commissioner for human rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said Monday:

      But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Da’esh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.

      Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

      A right needs a left, a ying needs a yang, and the neocons and liberal internationalists like Zied (and the United Nations he works for) need a Da’esh.

      As Trump said, Obama and Clinton — together with the entire neocon and liberal internatonalist cabal — created ISIS (Da’esh).

      The best exposition of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the neocons and liberal internatonalists on the one hand, and the Islamic extremists on the other, was Adam Curtis’s BBC documentary, The Power of Nightmares:

  115. The Magic Pixie Dust called “Globalization” isn’t delivering on its promises. From the article:

    An analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that ratios of world trade to output have been flat since 2008, making this the longest period of such stagnation since the second world war. According to Global Trade Alert, even the volume of world trade stagnated between January 2015 and March 2016, though the world economy continued to grow. The stock of cross-border financial assets peaked at 57 per cent of global output in 2007, falling to 36 per cent by 2015. Finally, inflows of foreign direct investment have remained well below the 3.3 per cent of world output attained in 2007, though the stock continues to rise, albeit slowly, relative to output.

    Thus, the impetus towards further economic integration has stalled and in some respects gone into reverse. Globalisation is no longer driving world growth. If this process is indeed coming to an end, or even going into reverse, it would not be the first time since the industrial revolution, in the early 19th century. Another period of globalisation, in an era of empires, occurred in the late 19th century. The first world war ended this and the Great Depression destroyed it. A principal focus of US economic and foreign policy after 1945 was to recreate the global economy, but this time among sovereign states and guided by international economic institutions. If Donald Trump, who has embraced protectionism and denigrated global institutions, were to be elected president in November, it would be a repudiation of a central thrust of postwar US policy.


    • Globally speaking,

      • The flow of goods across national borders has been flat since 2008, and may even be declining

      • The foreign ownership of financial assets has declined by 37% from 2007 to 2015

      • FDI has fallen well below what it was in 2007

      So has globalization — global economic integration — reached its peak? Is it now in decline?

      What does this say about globalization — global political and cultural integration?

      • And that doesn’t address the issue that global trade is making China a (threatening) global power.

      • I think I would rather have more expensive goods than a power Chinese military. Global trade has provided a short-term gain of cheap (and low quality) goods, but long term, it could be a huge mistake.

      • jim2,

        It looks like Australia is attempting to navigate those turbulent waters as we speak, as this article explains in some detail:

        Are we really going to sell out the US alliance for property prices?

      • So has globalization — global economic integration — reached its peak? Is it now in decline?

        I’d say yes, at least the incarnation based on containers and super-cheap shipping and labor.

        Robotics and additive manufacturing (“3-D printing”) are already starting to kill it.

        Imagine a factory with a bunch of different types of 3-D printers, automated carts, robot arms fixed to the printers and carts, the whole thing controlled by a complex network of high-powered computing.

        I’d guess within a decade, you’ll be able to find several brands of such factory in every town or village, not to mention larger cities.

        Major economics, and especially product regulatory approval, will be based on software/data, with customers able to order whichever products they want and have them made within walking (or short driving) distance.

        Of course, this doesn’t mean there won’t be bulk shipment of raw materials, and perhaps mass-produced generic products. But volumes, and especially values, will be far lower. And there won’t be much market for cheap labor anywhere.

        There probably will be a new incarnation of “globalization” based on engineers (combined product/software): why pay high prices here when there are plenty of engineers in India or Viet Nam eager to do the same job for less?

        But in order to have a market for these products, some way will have to be found to recycle the large majority of income from sales back to the buyers/consumers.

      • Good article. Lot’s of questions, few real answers.

  116. Article clip on globalization @jim2 | September 7, 2016 at 7:48 am in moderation.

  117. I see on Breitbart that Hillary wants to increase taxes on the top 10% of income earners. That means 14.9 million taxpayers would pay more taxes. Of that number 8.7 million make between $100,000 and $200,000. In many communities, like those in Nancy Pelosi’s district, that is hardly rich. Good luck, Hill, getting backing from even some of your diehard allies.

  118. From my daily Texas Monthly email update:

    Open And Shut

    A committee of Texas historians and teachers released a report on Tuesday condemning a controversial Mexican-American history textbook that is being proposed for use in Texas high schools, finding more than 141 errors within its pages and calling the textbook “blatantly racist,” according to the Dallas Morning News.

    In the 54-page report, the committee wrote that the proposed learning tool is just a “polemic attempting to masquerade as a textbook,” and that “its primary thesis, that Mexican American history reveals major menacing or un-American trends in American history, society and culture, is an unsubstantiated and highly misleading claim.”

    Ever since the Texas Education Agency released the book, titled “Mexican American Heritage,” for review in May, the 500-page textbook has been a lightning rod for controversy, thanks to passages like this: “Mexican laborers were not reared to put in a full day’s work so vigorously. There was a cultural attitude of ‘mañana,’ or ‘tomorrow,’ when it came to high-gear production,” and “Chicanos…adopted a revolutionary narrative that opposed Western civilization and wanted to destroy this society.”

    Opponents of the book claim it portrays Mexican-Americans as lazy and is written by authors who don’t actually have any expertise in Mexican-American history.

    The committee will present its report at a public hearing regarding the textbook set to take place in Austin next Tuesday. According to the Texas Tribune, the publisher of the book will have a chance to respond to the allegations of factual inaccuracies and can edit the textbook if necessary. Looks like they’re going to need a lot of whiteout.

  119. It looks like Big Oil is backing Hillary Clinton.

    Does this mean that they don’t take Clinton’s anti-fracking rhethoric seriously?

    Or does it mean that Big Oil’s (the transnational oil companies) domestic operations are so small in comparison to their foreign operations that what happens domestically is of a lesser concern?

    Bucking Oilfield Tradition, Clinton Bumps Trump in Oil, Gas Cash

    • That plot would be a lot more informative if it also showed the figures in terms of percentage of total campaign donations. This is dated, but it shows that Hillary had raised about five times as much as Trump, who is of course mostly self-funded. One way I could surely spin that is that it’s because he’s mostly self-interested.

      Lots of other interesting ways of looking at the data in that article, annoying that they didn’t consistently provide the same information for all candidates.

    • Most big industry and Wall Street back Hillary, and that is because they need a healthy economy to thrive.

  120. It looks like Trump’s presidential campaign is putting a YUGE dent in his pocketbook:

    Is Donald Trump’s campaign hurting his hotel chain?

    Trump’s presidential campaign is hurting his business — here are the stats

  121. The US and China just joined the Paris climate deal — making it harder for Donald Trump to scrap it

    G-20 Leaders Challenged to Find Effective Plan to Reignite World Growth

    • Extraordinary Times, require extraordinary measures…

      Bankruptcy Judge or BHO; I am uncertain.

    • Seems like what a single president does without the consent of congress a single president can undo without the consent of congress.

      No binding treaties may be entered into without the advice and consent of the US Senate. It’s in the constitution. So Obama can’t have entered into valid treaty.

      The president can’t appropriate funds without congressional authorization so he can’t have made any non-treaty contractual obligations in the name of the United States either.

      If he did any of these things without valid constitutional authority then congress will simply refuse to honor whatever he signed. Maybe Obama can be held personally liable for it. The United States cannot because he’s not an authorized signer on the Treasury’s checkbook.

  122. The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton

    [A]ggressive investigative journalism against Trump is not enough for Democratic partisans whose voice is dominant in U.S. media discourse. They also want a cessation of any news coverage that reflects negatively on Hillary Clinton….

    Hillary Clinton’s die-hard loyalists in the media will dislike, and find invalid, any suggestion that she engaged in any sort of questionable conduct. Their self-assigned role is to defend her from all criticisms. They view themselves more as campaign operatives than journalists: Their principal, overriding goal is to ensure that Clinton wins the election. They will obviously hate anything — particularly negative reporting about her — that conflicts with that goal. They will jettison even their core stated beliefs — such as the view that big-money donations corrupt politicians — in order to fulfill that goal….

    [T]here are prominent pundits and journalists who literally denounce every critical report about Clinton as unfair and deceitful, and band together to malign the reporters who scrutinize the Clintons’ financial transactions. Those prominent voices combine with the million-dollar online army that supreme sleaze merchant David Brock has assembled to attack Clinton critics; as the Los Angeles Times reported in May: “Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a Super PAC coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.”

    All of this means that any journalists reporting negatively on Clinton are instantly and widely bombarded with criticisms denouncing their work as illegitimate, as they’ve started noting….

    It’s very common for political factions to believe that they’re persecuted and victimized. Even with the overwhelming bulk of the national media so openly aligned against Trump — with an endless array of investigative stories showing Trump to be an unscrupulous con artist and pathological liar — Clinton supporters seem to genuinely believe that the media is actually biased against their candidate.

    The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and the Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and most major New York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton….

    But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.

    • It would be interesting to ask what percentage of that article you think is accurate.

      • No more interesting than asking Double Dealing Danny what percentage of the article he thinks is inaccurate.

        It’s okay to use decimal points, Double Deal. I know how you like to be precise i.e. “I think 99.97% of the article is not accurate”.

      • David,

        I’d venture to say that probably over 90% is accurate. I am curious as to what Glenn thought since he’s so good at double standards. But since you chimed in, I’ll ask you. Are you willing?

  123. I suppose it should come as no surprise that the extreme far right (e.g., The Spectator) would perceive that the realignment that Trump is attempting to achieve (by attacting more working-class middle-class folks into the Republican Party) “has torn their party apart,” and that “many Republicans can only energise themselves ahead of this year’s election by coming together in Hillary hate, so they are going wild.”

    Trump, without a doubt, has taken a wrecking ball to the extreme far right’s refuge in the Republican Party.

    And the Spectator article, of course, has absolutely nothing to say about anything of substance – economics, domestic security, foreign policy, etc.

    You don’t have to be a paranoid misogynist to hate Hillary Clinton, but it helps. Don’t underestimate the power of Hillary hate… Anti-Hillary sentiment has long been motivated by an animus towards her sex, hence the Lady Macbeth references in the 1990s as she stood by her wicked man, and the pro–Donald T-shirts today that say ‘Trump that bitch’.

    • Glenn

      The Spectator has been published for around 200 years. It has been the springboard for a number of conservative Government ministers including Nigel Lawson (under Margaret Thatcher) and Boris Johnson (under Theresa May).

      There is no way it could be described as ‘extreme right’. It is fairly centralist and sometimes also has articles from liberals.


      • tonyb,

        Jonathan Haidt, in the lecture I cited above, says conservatives can be broken down into three categories, and gave examples of each:

        • AUTHORITARIANS: Donald Trump


        • STATUS QUO (Burkean) CONSERVATIVES: George Bush (elder)


        Somehow Haidt managed to leave out the neo-conservatives.

        Notwithstanding that rather glaring omission, laissez faire and status quo (Burkean) conservatives believe that Trump represents the extreme far right. I disagree.

      • Tony,

        You gotta remember that in the US, everyone thinks that they’re the centrist, and that anyone just to the left or right of themselves politically is the lunatic fringe. This can be quite amusing when one of us actually *is* the lunatic fringe. Not so potentially amusing when the loonies nominate someone like Trump … ask me about that again in November.

        Oh yeah, I was supposed to work on some temperature plots, wasn’t I.

      • Brandon

        I didn’t send you some of my oil money in order for you to talk about politics. The contract was for temperature plots….


      • Brandon once again is creating his own “facts.” …

        “You gotta remember that in the US, everyone thinks that they’re the centrist, and that anyone just to the left or right of themselves politically is the lunatic fringe.”

        Right, Brandon.

  124. Hillary Clinton, the Podesta Group and the Saudi Regime: A Fatal Ménage à Trois

    The lobby firm created by both Tony and John Podesta in 1988 receives $140,000 a month from the Saudi government, a government that beheads nonviolent dissidents, uses torture to extract forced confessions, doesn’t allow women to drive, and bombs schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods in neighboring Yemen.

    The Podesta Group’s March 2016 filing, required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, shows that Tony Podesta himself oversees the Saudi account. At the same time, Tony Podesta is also a top campaign contributor and bundler for Hillary Clinton. So while one brother runs the campaign, the other brother funds it with earnings that come, in part, from the Saudis….

    The Podesta-Clinton-Saudi connection should be seen in light of the recent media exposes revealing the tawdry pay-to-play nature of the Clinton Foundation. Top on the list of foreign donors to the foundation is Saudi Arabia, which contributed between $10 million and $25 million.

    What did the Saudis get for their largesse and access? WikiLeaks revealed a 2009 cable by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying:”More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba and other terrorist groups.”

    Instead of sanctioning the Saudis, Clinton did the opposite: She authorized enormous quantities of weapons to be sold to them…

    On Christmas Eve in 2011, Hillary Clinton and her closest aides celebrated a massive $29.4 billion sale to the Saudis of over 80 F-15 fighter jets, manufactured by Boeing, a company which coincidentally contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

  125. Trump Going to Mexico is not the Real Irony, NAFTA Is

    Many were shocked by Donald Trump’s trip to Mexico. That misses the real ironies here: NAFTA — and how this should be a boon to the Green Party.

    First the obvious stuff: Donald Trump is playing to xenophobic sentiments. His “solutions” are in large part twisted or beside the point, for example, U.S. government has largely already built the wall.

    One real irony is that Trump is appealing for votes based on trade issues. His criticism of NAFTA rightly resonates with many in the U.S. Lots of workers have lost out because of NAFTA and other so-called “trade deals.” These deals are actually largely investment protection agreements that help the huge corporations and the wealthy in the U.S., Mexico and other countries. That’s people like Trump and people and corporations like those who fund Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, these secretive deals often rook regular folks wherever they live.

    But Trump — and many other critics in the U.S. — only talks about how NAFTA has hurt U.S. workers. Largely unacknowledged in the U.S. is how it has devastated Mexican family farms and small industry — which leads to desperate migration from Mexico to the U.S. (along with the drug war).

    So, redoing NAFTA would actually help stem desperate migration that is the source of much of Trump’s support.

    Hillary Clinton is now claiming to be against the TPP, the successor to NAFTA in many respects. In fact, she has backed both. And she just named pro-TPP Ken Salazar to be her transition team head. Her VP pick, Tim Kaine recently backed the TPP before he pretended to flip-flop as well. Meanwhile, Trump contradicts himself on issues like mad. Who knows what he’ll do if he were actually in office.

    But Clinton has largely succeeded in pretending she’s anti TPP….

    So: The incredible irony of this is that the best choice for the xenophobes is Green (the Libertarian Party of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld is openly pro-TPP)….

    [E]nding the NAFTA model may well end desperate migration, a leading concern of many on the right.

    Let Mexicans prosper in Mexico. If the U.S. were to have reasonable agreements with Mexico, people there will work in farms and factories in Mexico without feeling desperate to come to the U.S. for any work they can possibly get here. They are free human beings, not charity cases.

    We have a similar dynamic regarding xenophobia directed against Syria refugees now. Let Syrians be a peace in Syria without outside meddling — the root causes of the war in Syria and much of the Mideast is constant outside intervention, most clearly the U.S. invasion of neighboring Iraq.

    • “U.S. government has largely already built the wall”

      When I read BS like that in an article I stop reading and move along to more credible opinions and factual reporting.

      Length of border with Mexico: 2000 miles.
      Length of finished fence on Mexican border: 625 miles

      This is not “largely already built” but is in fact largely not built.

      I refuse to waste further time on tripe with so little regard for facts so the first glaring error is the end of it for me.

      • Agree fully. The fence didn’t get funded to the point of completion.

        “Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built.”

        and continues: “The Republican Party’s 2012 platform highlighted the fact that the rest of the double fencing was never built and stated that “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.”[7] The Washington Office on Latin America, claims on its Border Fact Check site that the extremely high cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act’s mandate-estimated at US$4.1 billion, or more than the Border Patrol’s entire annual budget of US$3.55 billion- was the main reason that it was not fulfilled.[8] In short, Congress failed to continue to fund the project past the initial $1.2 billion procured, in order to finish building the fence.”

        Congress controls the purse strings. Even if (and that’s a big if) funds are appropriated from illegals there is no assurance that those funds will then be appropriated TO a border wall.

  126. Dangerous Propaganda: Network Close To NATO Chief Breedlove Fueled Ukraine Conflict

    The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine….

    General Breedlove’s departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.

    What’s more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election — she’s considered a potential candidate for secretary of state.

  127. What India Can Teach the US About Free and Fair Elections

    The US system is clearly broken, relying as it does on venerable traditions of suppressing voter turnout and manipulating or corrupting counting and final results. This post is not an effort to describe this national disgrace, the details of which many readers are no doubt aware….

    Now I well understand that the corrupt aspects of the US electoral system are a feature, not a bug. But if this is ever to change, it’s useful for people to know that no deity handed down the US voting system on any tablets to be preserved for all eternity…..

    This post is instead about a completely different national system….

    Eliminating Duplicate Votes

    Vote early, vote often, or so the saying goes. India prevents this problem by using a simple system designed by then-Chief Election Commissioner Sukumar Sen for its first post-independence national election in 1952. Each voter rolls his or her index finger in purple ink after casting a vote. Once that finger is inked, no additional vote can be cast. Simple, effective, cheap? Yes on all three counts. And this system ain’t broke, so it’s still employed.

    Proving Identity

    The Indian system makes it straightforward to prove identity and accepts several forms of valid identification for this purpose. Each voter’s name is indicated on the official electoral roll. In case of a mistake in the roll, election workers can verify a voter’s identity using one of several other forms of acceptable documentation, such as a passport, ration card, driving license, or employment ID card.

    Representatives from political parties are present at polling stations, but other than failure to prove identity, there’s little legal basis for party hacks to challenge someone’s presumptive right to vote. In the event of an unresolved dispute, the vote can still be cast, and will be counted if the challenge is resolved in the voter’s favor.

    • I don’t get it. The article’s thesis is in contradiction to its own statements of fact.

      Thesis: US voter system suppresses voter turnout

      Stated fact: India’s system requires voter ID.

      Fact Left Unsaid: That requirement is seen as suppressing voter turnout in the states and SCOTUS recently shot down state requirements for voter ID.

      Stated fact: Purple ink on finger prevents double voting.

      Fact Left Unsaid: This can be easily defeated with a thin transparent barrier painted on the finger which can be quickly removed with a solvent. It’s redundant if voter ID is required and individual’s name on ID must match a name on a voter list.

      In fact the US system could be made equally secure by simply what India requires sans stupid purple ink; voter ID that matches a name found on a list of voters.

      More trash. Try to be a little more critical of the tripe you post, Windbag. Quantity is no substitute for quality.

  128. Let’s All Drive Putin Crazy, and Vote With Hand-Marked Paper Ballots, Counted by Hand in Public!

    In this post, I want to focus on the balloting systems we use in this country, which are so rickety and fraud-prone that each (major party) candidate is laying the groundwork to use charges of fraud to undermine the legitimacy of the other’s election come voting day.

    Well, any balloting system capable of producing — or even serving as a pretext for — a legitimacy crisis is, to say the least, problematic (except, perhaps, to whoever’s left standing after the crisis resolves itself, if anyone is).

    So, in this post I’ll look (again) at our election system, then look at how the candidates are preparing the ground for a legitimacy crisis, and finally consider the pros and cons of hand-marked paper ballots, counted in public. Such a system wouldn’t prevent a legitimacy crisis, which could happen for any number of reasons, but at least the country could be sure which Presidential candidate we voted for, and so a crisis wouldn’t happen for that reason.

  129. What was Double Dealing Danny or Jim D or whoever trying to say about who’s leading among veterans and active duty military? That “recent” informal showed highest support for Libertarian Johnson?



    Trump has a commanding 19% lead over Hillary among nearly 4,000 veterans and active duty military surveyed.

    Hillary’s base is the rich and the poor. And she promises to keep them each on their own reservation pretty much akin to plantation owners and slaves. Meanwhile the people who actually pay the taxes and keep the wheels on the train we call America are in Trump’s corner. This necessarily includes active duty military and veterans who are rarely either rich or poor.

    • Read it again: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/26/week-in-review-politics-edition-8/#comment-809458

      (now, of course this presumes you can actually read)

      If you need a lubricant to remove your foot from your mouth try soap.

      • It reads the same now as when you wrote it.

        It postulates, without any real evidence, that the 33% lead Trump enjoyed amongst active duty military and veterans in a May 2016 poll conducted by Military Times has been reduced to 10%. This despite no later poll by Military Times.

        A recent poll by NBC finds that the lead is 19% not 10%.

        Please specify which bits of the above you believe is not true and why.

        Or not. It doesn’t matter. My point is made to my satisfaction and I’m sure to the satisfaction of objective readers.

      • Gosh. Apparently you can’t read, or at least don’t comprehend punctuation marks.

        I didn’t ‘write it’, I quoted it. And provided links so ‘objective readers’ could follow:

        Follow up poll was provided, but not via Military Times: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-military-households-n632106

        Quoting again: “The NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll was conducted online August 1 through August 7, 2016 among a national sample of 11,480 adults who say they are registered to vote, including 3,123 respondents who say they are members of military households. Respondents for this non-probability survey were selected from the nearly three million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. Results have an error estimate of plus or minus 1.2 percentage points and plus or minus 2.6 percentage points among military households. For full results and methodology, click here.”

        Read the links and try again. You’ll get it eventually.
        Hint: it says Trump does better with military men. Greater detail included.”Among men from military households, Trump is ahead of Clinton, 58 percent to 34 percent. This 24-point advantage for Trump is much larger than his 6-point advantage among all men voters.” And overall: “Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton among military households by 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent, according to results from the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.”

        51% to 41% equals 10%. (Note: I wrote this sentence)

        And the Military Times disclaimered here: “Between May 3 and May 6, Military Times conducted a voluntary, confidential survey of subscribers who include verified active-duty, National Guard and reserve component service members. More than 59,000 subscribers received e-mail invitations to participate. In total, 951 respondents completed the survey.

        The sample is not a perfect representation of the military as a whole; it over-represents officers and noncommissioned officers, and under-represents junior enlisted personnel. However, it is representative of the more senior and career-oriented members of the force who run the military’s day-to-day operations and carry out its policies.

        The voluntary nature of this survey, the dependence on email and the characteristics of Military Times readers may affect the results. Statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion polls that use random sampling can’t be calculated for this survey” http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05/09/military-times-survey-donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton/84132402/

        My sentence here too: Approximately 20% in almost every branch indicate a preference to not vote due to the quality of candidates. (It’s in the link, for ‘objective readers’.)

      • Military Times Poll Conducted the week before Republican Convention. Trump with 19% lead.

        NBC poll taken this week. Trump with 19% lead.

        These two polls directly refute the thesis in your link that Trump’s lead amongst the military demographic shrunk post RNC.


      • David,

        For shame! Posting graphs. That’s disallowed as you so kindly pointed out to me. Plus, no links (no worries, I provided them)
        along with methodologies.

        Your QED, is QED’d. Military Times does not even vouch for it’s own work as representative.

        How ‘objective’ is that?

      • David,
        Even more shame on you and your QED.

        Military Times poll was:” subscribers who include verified active-duty, National Guard and reserve component service members”

        NBC from your cherry picked graph: “Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 19 points — 55 percent to 36 percent — among voters who are currently serving or have previously served in the U.S. military, according to the latest NBC.”

        Those be apples and cherries.

      • I don’t have any overall comments about the pro or con of the poll and graph.. My interest is in what appears to be a significant difference in the Navy results versus the other 3 services. I can theorize the high Marine support. I can rationalize the officer / enlisted split. But it baffles me why such a large difference for the Navy numbers from the Marines and other 2 branches.

      • Ceresco,

        Speculatively speaking it’s in the methods. I’d say about all we could take from the survey is very general: Maybe Navy 25 ‘enlisted’ got a cherry assignment that day? The couldn’t even calculate an MOE.

        “Between May 3 and May 6, Military Times conducted a voluntary, confidential survey of subscribers who include verified active-duty, National Guard and reserve component service members. More than 59,000 subscribers received e-mail invitations to participate. In total, 951 respondents completed the survey.

        The sample is not a perfect representation of the military as a whole; it over-represents officers and noncommissioned officers, and under-represents junior enlisted personnel. However, it is representative of the more senior and career-oriented members of the force who run the military’s day-to-day operations and carry out its policies.

        The voluntary nature of this survey, the dependence on email and the characteristics of Military Times readers may affect the results. Statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion polls that use random sampling can’t be calculated for this survey.”


      • ceresco

        Front line ground combatants prefer Trump by significantly larger margins. That would be enlisted Army and Marine Corps.

        Hillary: “No ground troops. Not on my watch.”

        Trump: “Whatever it takes to win. Nothing is off the table.”

        As you can see by poll results US ground troops want to engage the enemy not sit on the sidelines while the war is fought from the air and sea. Our rules of engagement under these milksop civilian CinCs afraid to put uniformed troops on the ground for fear of offending foreign leaders and populations are stupid and ineffective.

      • Double Dealing Danny is an imbecile who can’t think his way out of a paper bag. Rambling on about idi0tic reasons for the disparity between military branches when anyone with a pulse and triple digit IQ can see the higher preference for Trump is coming from ground forces. What a phucking dumbass.

      • I’ll take that as a full retraction of your QED. Military Times was clear in it’s lack of confidence.

        Your rant in no way addresses Ceresco’s inquiry. Your assertions are unfounded and unsubstantiated. My assertion was in jest. Plus, you went against the request of our host by knowingly posting graphs. And did so, after you pointed that request to me. More double standards? Objective readers can judge for themselves.

        You do understand what ‘objective’ means, right? Just presuming you don’t here’s the definition: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Let me know if you need the definition of the word facts.

        Carry on.

  130. From the article:

    President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Jeb Bush (remember him?) have declared with one voice: America doesn’t need border walls. Meanwhile, around the rest of the Western world, walls are springing up in order to defend the sovereignty of nation states.
    Walls aren’t a new phenomenon, as even CNN admits. But the rate at which they’re springing up is certainly unprecedented. At least 65 countries now have border walls or barriers, making this one of the few times in recent history where America has been “behind” on an issue.

    I say America. I mean the U.S. political establishment, because we know according to new CNN polling (yeah, I know!) that at least 41 per cent of people are in favour of Mr. Trump’s long-touted wall being built. This ignores the “shy builders“: people who won’t tell pollsters they back the wall, but secretly do.


  131. Double standards anyone? “Donald Trump accidentally declares himself ineligible for the presidency”


  132. Good thing there’s one skeptic left in the house:
    “All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I’m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS.”

    then more recently: “They’ll have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS,” he told supporters in Greenville, N.C.”


    • So now he reveals his secret sauce for defeating ISIS – he will give his generals a month to come up with a plan.

      I’m so glad that he kept that secret for so long. Imagine if he had let that secret out sooner. ISIS would have won if he had done that.

      He’s such a smart, tough guy.

      Oh, and not a warmonger, or anything like that.

    • Should he, like Hillary, inform our enemies of his plans?

      Hillary: “No ground troops. Not on my watch.”

      ISIS: “Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. All information you can give us on how you are planning to defeat us is appreciated. Allahu Akbar.”

      Of course, because Clinton is lyiing every time she opens her mouth, the real message is that she’ll send in ground troops.

      • “Of course, because Clinton is lyiing every time she opens her mouth, the real message is that she’ll send in ground troops.” But Dave, you left out the part where he has no plan. See first sentence above counting in 6 words (you can stop there if you’d like) and then review the definition of double standard. It’s easier to see if you remove your rose coloured glasses!

  133. Dimowits freaking totally out!!!

    WASHINGTON — Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, sent a letter on Tuesday to Speaker Paul D. Ryan urging him to bar Republicans from using hacked documents in the campaign, arguing that “defending our democracy is more important than any advantage or disadvantage in this election.”


    OXFORD, England — Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter lashed out at Russia on Wednesday, accusing the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of demonstrating a “clear ambition to erode” international order and warning Russia to stay out of the American elections.


    • MOLINE, Ill. — Hillary Clinton accused Russian intelligence of interfering with the American election, implying that President Vladimir V. Putin viewed a victory by Donald J. Trump as a destabilizing event that would weaken the United States and buttress Russian interests.


      Hollywood Democrats are getting nervous about recent polls that show the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tightening.

      “I’m freaked out,” David Schneiderman, co-owner and founder of Seismic Productions and prominent Clinton supporter, told TheWrap. “I now post stuff on Facebook every day bugging all my friends to do something. No one wants to wake up to Donald Trump on November 8.”

      A Tuesday CNN/ORC poll showing Trump leading Clinton in a head-to-head match for the first time in six weeks caught some of Clinton’s staunchest industry supporters and donors by surprise. It is one of the “big five” polls widely considered the most reliable — though some journalists questioned its methodology.


    • They always say this but unfortunately, never follow through.

      Acclaimed singer Barbra Streisand is joining the list of disgruntled celebrities threatening to leave America if Donald Trump is elected president. She made the comments during an interview with Sydney-based journalist Michael Usher during an Australian news program broadcast on Sunday.

      “He has no facts. I don’t know, I can’t believe it,” Streisand said, referring to Trump. “I’m either coming to your country [Australia], if you’ll let me in, or Canada.”


    • Pelosi must know there is some very damaging material to be revealed. Why would she tip her hand, otherwise. This takes away her fall back position of saying later on that there was nothing important and we should move on. And if Hillary sticks to her plan of increasing taxes on the top 10% then Pelosi will have to protect many of her wealthy constituents who will get hammered in this very well to do Congressional District.

      • It’s going to be difficult to get a good night’s sleep until these documents are released!

      • Pelosi needs to join the 21st century. Anything important will go viral no matter what the party propaganda does or doesn’t mention.

  134. Trump did relatively well in the Commander-in-chief session. Only two Trump like issues which glared was when he said the VA leadership was corrupt then turned around and bragged on the VA.

    Then, of course, when he bragged that he knows more about ISIS than the generals and turned around and whined that Obama/Clinton didn’t follow the opinion of the experts whom he would probably replace while having the replacements come up with a plan (after 30 days) which he’d choose to ignore, implement, or in-between.

    Clinton held her own. Knows the numbers. No major gaffes.

    Crowd seemingly (based on applause/cheers) were in Trumps corner.

    • Clinton spent most of the first half of the time admitting to mistakes regarding handling of state department email and the Iraq invasion. That was bad. She obviously can’t run on her record because her record is one of mistakes.

      Another thing I noticed is she continually used more time in answering than the moderator wanted to allow and wouldn’t stop babbling when he politely asked her to stop. Her strategy in that was to run out the clock so there would be fewer questions asked from a mostly hostile crowd.

      The last think I noticed was at the end she couldn’t resist an attack on Donald Trump despite having agreed at the beginning to not attack her opponent. The moderator tried to remind her that attacks on her opponent were off limits but she bullied him into silence and finished her rant against Trump.

      Clinton’s performance was horrible with only one exception in regard to a hugely drawn out detailed answer about VA Health Care where she named agency after agency after agency she’d worked with in an attempt to dazzle the crowd with how much she knew about it. Unfortunately that fell flat because she had no answers on how to fix it and it didn’t get fixed during the past 8 years under a democratic president whose legacy she has stated she is carrying on.

      Trump at the outset didn’t give a straight answer to a single one of the moderator’s questions. He simply went off on a tangent taken out of his scripted stump speeches. That said, once he was taking questions from the audience, he did quite well. He answered their questions quickly, factually, and with sure knowledge of the topic. The moderator didn’t need to try to stop him from droning on and on and he took a lot of questions as a result. The moderator also didn’t need to remind him to not attack his opponent although despite a subtle acknowledgement by both at the outset that Hillary didn’t follow that rule and he allowed her to break it.

      Lastly I thought Trump’s message “I’m not going to tell ISIS what my plans are. I’m not going to call you [moderator] up and tell you either.” Went over very well. He acknowledged he was “unpredictable” and made that into a strength not a weakness. He doesn’t want our enemies to know what he will or will not do. And he’s right. Anyone with a scrap of sense knows that you don’t want your enemy to have your plans in advance. Surprise is a vital strategic and tactical element. That’s why we go to great pains to encrypt our communications and intercept the communications of our enemies. And there’s Hillary in contrast who the FBI labeled “extremely careless” with sensitive information and telegraphing to our enemies on cable TV “No ground troops. Not on my watch.” How incredibly stupid. She’s a m0r0n who couldn’t have been elected dog catcher if it weren’t for her charismatic husband who was a multi-term governor and then two term president. The coat tails she’s been riding all her adult life are wearing pretty f*cking thin.

      Let’s call this a pre-season warm up game before the real presidential debates. Trump clobbered Hillary. I expect no less in the real debates. It appears the attack roles have reversed and Hillary is now the rabid dog with no self control. Trump I expect is going to bait her into losing her cool in the real debates just like she lost it at the end of this pseudo-debate. The “but racist” and “but nuclear codes” her campaign has relied on isn’t playing well in Peporia.

      Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

    • Trump got lucky, by the way, in winning the coin toss and wisely choosing to go second. That way he got to correct some untruths like Hillary saying he wanted to privatize VA Health Care. Indeed I caught that right away too. It’s something I listen to closely since I’m a card carrying member of the VA Health Care system. Trump has said he wanted to introduce competition by allowing veterans to choose between VA and private care. This is already sort-of how it is now with a temporary program called “Veteran’s Choice” where if you need medical care and you can’t get an appointment at the VA within 30 days or the care provider is more than 40 miles away then you can seek private care. Trump I believe wants to eliminate the two conditions and allow Veterans to always choose. I’m on board with that. It’s a great solution on paper but we’ll have to see about the details like what procedures are covered and what are not, co-pays, deductibles, caps, and so forth. If the private care option is simply medicare with all its coverage limits then VA will still be an attractive alternative because there are no deductibles, coverage is 100% not 80% like Medicare, no dollar cap on annual coverage, etc. If not then I’d probably go private care most of the time because it’s far more accessible and you can choose from a number of providers. I could start seeing my regular GP again who’s been with me for going on 30 years.

      About the only other cool thing about the VA is it’s almost entirely staffed by veterans. Veterans applying for jobs at the VA get a huge preference in the selection process so just about everybody, with the exception of some of the doctors, are doctors. The VA staff is the friendliest and most cheerful I’ve ever experienced. Some of the patients are pretty messed up in the head and belligerent so it must be difficult at times but they manage.

    • Why not? He was so sure a canvas sided pump trailer was going to be an Iraqi, portable nerve gas laboratory… he delivers to those he has promised.

    • Hard to believe Hillary’s handlers would use the “he did it first” excuse. That’s a child’s defense. The stock answer by adults is “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

      So Hillary, regardless of how, when, or why Colin Powell might have flaunted the law with regard to government communication protocols, information retention law, and the public’s right to see your work-related emails under the Freedom of Information Act, that doesn’t make it acceptable for you to do it. If Powell is guilty too maybe the two of you can be cell-mates.

      Hillary for Prison 2016

  135. Chock Poll:

    RCP 4-way average Clinton +2.1

    Oh Noes! The Trump train just keeps on rolling!

    I think everyone knows, deep down, that the polls are probably flawed in voter turnout profiling resulting in an advantage for Hillary that doesn’t exist.

    The Hillaryous thing is that libtards are in an absolute panic because they can’t understand why Clinton isn’t leading by double digits. They’re not smart enough to know why they are consumed with fear. The reason is that at an unconscious level they intuitively know that, because they can’t explain why Hillary isn’t leading by double digits, they don’t understand the nation or the world in which they live. They inhabit a false reality that exists in their hive-mind and when the real world intrudes enough to expose the frayed edges of the fantasy it creates a panicky cognitive dissonance.

    • Everything Must Go Sale!… The managers said to sell everything, they lost their lease.

      • The professional government workers who are well trained in having to talk out of both side of their mouth just to keep their position are going to vote Donald J. Trump, for President. They have been assumed to be voting a straight ticket, polls wrong again.

  136. In the ROFLMAO department:


    Hillary thinks the email scandal is over.

    Hillary, honey, the email scandal is going to follow you into your grave.

  137. Rumor are floating that Hillary has contracted with a ghost write to produce her memoirs. Tentative title: “All the President’s Phlegm”

  138. Looks like the Soros documents on on DCLeaks.com again.

  139. If our criminal justice system and the State Department were not so thoroughly corrupt, Clinton would minimally be in jail for obstruction of justice, since it appears she destroyed much of the evidence after the investigation began. (QUESTION: If the FBI was able to recover some of Clinton’s wiped emails, why wasn’t it able to determine the date and time the wiping operaiton occurred?)

    All this sounds amazingly like the way Mexico works. Not only was Clinton involved in the cover-up, but the State Department and the FBI worked hand-in-glove with her as well.

    Without the efforts of private individuals and groups, much of what is now known would have been permanently swept under the rug by Clinton, the State Department, the Justice Department and the FBI.

    Navy Vet to Clinton: If I Mishandled Sensitive Intel I Would Be In Prison, You’ve Clearly Corrupted Our National Security

    October 28, 2014: State Department asks for Clinton’s work-related correspondence on her home server. According to Clinton, it contained around 30,000 personal emails and 30,000 work-related emails from during her tenure as Secretary of State.

    Sometime in the fall of 2014 and sometime after October 28, 2014: Clinton said she deleted the personal emails — “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations.”

    December 5, 2014: Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails and communication relevant to her role as head diplomat to the State Department.

    March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee subpoenaed Clinton’s emails.

    September 22, 2015: The FBI reveals that it was able to recover a number of the “personal” emails that Clinton had wiped from her server.

    There is no word as of yet as to what the recovered emails contain.

    August 30, 2016: The State Department reveals that 30 of the emails the FBI recovered were work-related:

    The State Department says about 30 emails involving the 2012 attack on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, are among the thousands of Hillary Clinton emails recovered during the FBI’s recently closed investigation into her use of a private server.

    Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta Tuesday that an undetermined number of the emails among the 30 were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton to the State Department. The agency said it would need until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released.

    The hearing was held in one of several lawsuits filed by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which has sued over access to government records involving the Democratic presidential nominee.


    • And notice how the mainstream media is all but MIA.


      • If the FBI was able to recover some of Clinton’s wiped emails, why wasn’t it able to determine the date and time the wiping operaiton occurred?

      • Did anyone hack Clinton’s private email server or any of the other devices she and her contacts used prior to them being wiped or destroyed?

      • Does someone or someones have the 15,000 disappeared emails archived?

      • If someone does have the 15,000 disappeared emails archived, will they make them public before the November 8 election?

    • http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/09/06/oversight-committee-clinton-obstruction-n2214383

      There’s more than obstruction. Back to criminally mishandling classified information. Hillary had her lawyers sorting through her bathroom email server sorting state department work emails from private non-work emails. The FBI has already stated there were many emails classified top secret, secret, and confidential on that server. So in point of fact Hillary turned over classified information to lawyers who did not have any of the clearances necessary to have, hold, or read those records.

      Hillary For Prison 2016

      That’s where she’d be if she wasn’t the democratic candidate for president.

      The FBI has essentially left it up to the American people to be the judge, jury, and executioner that turns her out on her ass by electing Donald Trump instead.

      I can see the FBI logic in not wanting to be seen as electing a president which is precisely what they’d be doing if they pursued Clinton like any other person. I see the logic and it turns my stomach to have to agree in even the smallest measure that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Trust the public to not elect a pathological scofflaw and liiar or be seen as spoiling an election and choosing a president. This is really, really sick.

  140. This is the exemplar of probity that Clinton is using in her “everybody does it” defense?

    Collin powell vial of anthrax Iraq war lies

  141. “You can take it however you want” Excellent! So your QED is retracted due to improper methods and your apology is accepted.

    Thanks Dave!

    • No. You personally can take the QED however you want. I however stand by it and am confident people will agree with me.

      • Just to make it easy to find the apples/cherries comparison that your NBC chart shows active duty and veteran (no longer active duty) vs active duty only via the Military Times self-unsanctioned (disclaimered?) poll: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/26/week-in-review-politics-edition-8/#comment-809587


      • Is below a fair summary of your story, Dipchit Danny?

        It must be sheer coincidence that veterans + active duty in NBC poll last week and active duty only in Military Times poll in May both have precisely the same 19% lead for Trump. There is no reason to believe that veterans of military service and those on active duty in the military have a lot in common in the way of values and political preferences.

        You go ahead and stick with that story, Double Deal. I’m sticking with mine in saying there’s not a dime’s worth of difference in voter preference between veterans and those currently serving. I was both and that probably doesn’t mean my opinion might be more informed than yours, huh?

      • No Dave,

        Your ad hoc(key) version is effectively a strawman.

        You assert that there was 19% of active duty support Trump. Even Military Times, the source of the 19% does not stand by that figure produced in May.

        You assert that there was no reduction in active duty support after the RNC. And you do so based on the Military Times survey (disclaimed by Military Times) of only active duty personal compared with the NBC poll of active duty AND veterans (no longer active duty). And you offer same with a QED.

        You’ve proven nothing other than the ‘objective’ inability to create a cogent argument. And do so while tossing in a few ad homs just to insure ‘objective’ readers fully understand you have raised one of the worst arguments ever.

        “I’m sticking with mine in saying there’s not a dime’s worth of difference in voter preference between veterans and those currently serving.” Is only an assertion and none of what you say other than your opinion is evidence for that statement.

        The NBC link states:
        “Women from military households go for Clinton over Trump, 49 percent to 43 percent.”
        “Among men from military households, Trump is ahead of Clinton, 58 percent to 34 percent.”
        “Black voters from military households support Clinton over Trump, 80 percent to 16 percent.”
        “Hispanic voters from military households also support Clinton over Trump, 52 percent to 37 percent.”
        “Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton among military households by 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent”

        So if there’s a QED, it’s that IF Military Times was accurate at 19% (and Military Times disclaims that figure) then based on NBC’s UP TO DATE poll showing a 10% lead by Trump indicates Trump’s lead has been reduced. But since the first number is questionable (according to it’s source) that is a fallacious argument.

        You really should stop now, but doubt an ‘objective’ ability to do so. I predict you’ll double down and continue with ad homs. Please prove me wrong.

  142. Poll: Support for Black Lives Matter grows among white youth

    Fifty-one percent of white adults between the ages of 18 and 30 say in a GenForward poll they now strongly or somewhat support Black Lives Matter, a 10-point increase since June, while 42 percent said they do not support the movement.

    But most young whites also think the movement’s rhetoric encourages violence against the police, while the vast majority of young blacks say it does not. And young whites are more likely to consider violence against police a serious problem than say the same about the killings of African-Americans by police.

    Black, Hispanic and Asian youth already had expressed strong majority support for the Black Lives Matter movement in the June poll. Eighty-five percent of African-American young adults now say they support the protesters. Sixty-seven percent of Asian and 62 percent of Hispanic young adults agreed with that sentiment.

    The GenForward survey of adults age 18 to 30 is conducted by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The first-of-its-kind poll pays special attention to the voices of young adults of color, highlighting how race and ethnicity shape the opinions of a new generation.

    The poll “pays special attention to the voices of young adults of color, highlighting how race and ethnicity shape the opinions of a new generation”?

    Yep. That makes sense. For those political entrepreneurs deep into identity politics, who use groupism as their primary organizing principle, it’s important for them to point out the differences between groups, and not their comonalities.

    As Rogers Brubaker has noted:

    This is what I will call groupism: the tendency to take discrete, sharply differentiated, internally homogeneous and externally bounded groups as basic constituents of social life, chief protagonists of social conflicts, and fundamental units of social analysis….

    I mean the tendency to reify such groups, speaking…of Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans in the U.S. as if they were internally homogeneous, externally bounded groups, even unitary collective actors with common purposes….

    [W]e should remember that participants’ accounts—especially those of specialists in ethnicity such as ethnopolitical entrepreneurs, who, unlike nonspecialists, may live ‘off’ as well as ‘for’ ethnicity—often have what Pierre Bourdieu has called a performative character. By invoking groups, they seek to evoke them, summon them, call them into being. Their categories are for doing—designed to stir, summon, justify, mobilize, kindle and energize. By reifying groups, by treating them as substantial things-inthe-world, ethnopolitical entrepreneurs may, as Bourdieu notes,
    ‘contribute to producing what they apparently describe or designate.’


  143. FALSE PHILANTHROPY: Summary Review of Selected Intentionally False Representations in Clinton Foundation Public Filings

    Beginning today, and regularly thereafter, numerous detailed Exhibits will examine the known public record of the Clinton Charity Network within the context of applicable state, federal, and foreign laws….

    To informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date–as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions.

    In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas.

    Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants.

    In contrast to this stark reality, Bill Clinton recently continued a long pattern of dissembling, likening himself to Robin Hood and dismissing critics of his “philanthropic” post-presidency, despite mounting concerns over perceived conflicts of interest and irregularities.

    Normally, evaluating the efficacy of a charity objectively is performed looking closely into hard facts only-specifically, determining whether monies spent upon “program service expenditures” actually have furthered the limited, authorized “tax-exempt purposes” of entities such as the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, its subsidiaries, its joint ventures, and its affiliates (together, the “Clinton Charity Network”).

    But, popular former presidents of the United States retain “bully pulpits” from which they certainly can spin sweet-sounding themes to a general audience and media that is not sufficiently acquainted with the strict laws and regulations that do, infact, tether trustees of a tax-exempt organization to following only a mission that has been validly pre-approved by the Internal Revenue Service, on the basis of a complete and truthful application.

    This Executive Summary carries forward a process of demonstrating that the Clinton Foundation illegally veered from its IRS-authorized mission within days of Bill Clinton’s departure from the White House in January 2001, using publicly available information which, in certain cases, has been purposefully omitted or obscured in disclosures offered through the Clinton Foundation website, its principal public portal.

  144. Pay-to-Play, all the way.

    Clinton’s campaign trail leads to moneyed enclaves

    At a private fund-raiser Tuesday night at a waterfront Hamptons estate, Hillary Clinton danced alongside Jimmy Buffett, Jon Bon Jovi, and Paul McCartney, and joined in a singalong finale to “Hey Jude.”

    “I stand between you and the apocalypse,” a confident Clinton declared to laughs, exhibiting a flash of self-awareness and humor to a crowd that included Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein and for whom the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency is dire.

    Trump has pointed to Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public. But Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her.

    In the last two weeks of August, Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.

    And while Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills, and Silicon Valley.

    “It’s the old adage, you go to where the money is,” said Jay S. Jacobs, a prominent New York Democrat.

    Clinton raised about $143 million in August, the campaign’s best month yet. At a single event Tuesday in Sagaponack, N.Y., 10 people paid at least $250,000 each to meet her, raising $2.5 million.

    If Trump appears to be waging his campaign in rallies and network interviews, Clinton’s second presidential bid seems to amount to a series of high-dollar fund-raisers with public appearances added to the schedule when they can be fit in. Last week, for example, she diverged just once from her packed fund-raising schedule to deliver a speech….

    The public has gotten used to seeing Clinton’s carefully choreographed appearances and her somewhat halting speeches and TV interviews over the course of the campaign, but donors this summer have glimpsed an entirely different person.

    It is clear from interviews with more than a dozen attendees of Clinton’s finance events this summer and a handful of pictures and videos of her at the closed gatherings that Clinton, often described as warm and personable in small settings, whoever the audience, can be especially relaxed, candid, and even joyous in this company….

    Clinton’s aides have gone to great lengths to project an image of her as down-to-earth and attuned to the challenges of what she likes to call “the struggling and the striving.” She began her campaign last year riding in a van to Iowa from New York and spent much of last summer hosting round-table discussions with a handful of what her campaign called “everyday Americans” in Iowa and New Hampshire….

    The campaign’s finance team is led by Dennis Cheng, previously the chief fund-raiser for the Clinton Foundation.

    Cheng, who attends the events with Clinton, offers donors a number of contribution options that provide them and their families varying levels of access to Clinton. John Morgan, a Florida lawyer and donor, described Cheng as “the master concierge.”

  145. From my daily Texas Monthly email missive:

    Saving The Children

    A report presented to Dallas City Council on Wednesday shows that the city has a serious child poverty problem, and has the worst child poverty rate among the nation’s ten largest cities, according to the Dallas Morning News.

    According to leaders of a mayor-appointed task force to address poverty, 38 percent of Dallas’s kids live in poverty (a family of four that makes less than $24,000 per year), 50,000 children live in “extreme poverty” (a family of four surviving off of half of the poverty line income), and 27,300 Dallasites have full-time jobs but still live in poverty, meaning they probably don’t have enough free time to adequately provide care for their own children.

    Not exactly a hope-filled report. Still, council members have some ideas about how to potentially address this issue, like approving tougher housing codes to better protect tenants in single-family rentals, possibly funding more English as a Second Language programs, and boosting educational programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy.

  146. The US polity is getting to look more like Mexico every day:

    Assange: Hillary Clinton Is Lying About Not Knowing (C) Classified Marking, Emails Show She’s Used It Before

    • No one should diminish this factor influencing many independent voters. The Big Four, the R word, the X word, the M word and the H word have been so overused as to putting them into a state of meaninglessness.

      Intellectual debate superceded by the Nasty Quatro.

  147. I just discovered who’s behind Hillary and the “liberal” establishment.

    Notice the similarity to the silent trade. at 5:54ff (where the links starts you).

  148. I think this is a GREAT idea:” With the debates coming, the networks have to think long and hard about how they’re going to handle them. Here’s one starter idea, which I batted around on Twitter Thursday morning with Glenn Thrush of Politico: real-time on-screen fact-checking chyrons.”

    • You’re a m0r0n and so is anyone else who thinks that’s a great idea. Maybe they should blow a horn when a fact is questionable, stop the person speaking, and open up a debate between fact checkers.


      • What’s to fear Dave?

        Fox gets one, MSNBC gets one and they go at it. It happens after the fact anywho. Calling the candidates out on the spot would make us aware of their responses under pressure. Or, even better, factuality might become imbedded leading to less B.S. presented by both. Doesn’t have to be a horn. Moderators are intelligent, can be notified (we’re in an electronic age ya know), and offer a follow up question.

        You seem a bit irritated there Big Dave. Something under your skin?

    • Of course, Danny. And I’m sure you stand by ready with the “facts.”

  149. Imagine how much dagger I feel knowing that our next president resizes the very simple way to defeat ISIS. Just take the oil.

    Yes. Just occur occupy large sectors of the middle east. Keep s force there to hold the areas and protect then from attack. Just take overt the options and run them.

    Yeah. That’ll work. So simple. And it will make us so popular with the local populations. No need for Trump, really, to give the generals a chance to come up with a plan. Trump is probably just saying that as a courtesy. He ready knows better than any stinkin’ generals.

    Just take the oil. So simple. And so not war mongering

    • It’s called war reparations and they are perfectly legal under Geneva Convention and international law.

      It was widely discussed even before the first semi-invasion in 1991 to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

      One way of doing it is impose a production tax on oil produced in Iraq where the tax revenue goes to reparations.

      Do you ever look closer at anything before blurting out your opinions?

      • But that’s a little boring and a tad too technical to get everyone talking about what Trump said. It might not even make the news cycle with hyperbolic diametrically opposed talking heads saying what it means.

        Trump is a publicity hound so he put it in a way bound to stir heated interest in the subject. “Should have just taken the oil”. Sets an anchor on the subject. The listener gets to fill in his own interpretation of what that really means with confirmation bias which is almost guaranteed to make it controversial and inspire thought about how that is possible. The facts then emerge.

        He doubled down on it in the same breath by saying “To the victors go the spoils, right?” Libtard confirmation bias ignores the “right?” at the end. It’s actually a question inviting the listener to agree or disagree that victors get the spoils. Libtard confirmation bias changes it from a question into a statement that Attilla the Hun might have said.

        Confirmation bias is a beautiful thing to behold, isn’t it?

      • I wasn’t talking about the legality, I was talking about the absurdity of the logistics.

        Trump makes these absurd statement devoid of any details regarding the logistics, and then gets a free pass from his sycophants and toadies who are uninterested in anything except ideological reinforcement.

        Please do explain the logistic of how the oil would be taken. How many troops might be required? How is this tax going to be imposed onto the Iraqi people? Will that advance or undermine the fight for hearts and minds among more than a billion Muslims? Will it advance or undermine the ability of ISIS to recruit and foment hatred of the U.S.?

        Or is the requirement going to be made to ISIS to pay the tax? Too funny.

        It’s like his wall, and having Mexico pay for it.

        Or it’s like his notion of “extreme, extreme vetting,” which amounts to asking immigrants from certain countries a couple of questions. Make you feel a lot safer, does it?

        Look. You’re a fan. I get it. You’re not interested in looking at him skeptically.” That’s cool. But don’t pretend like you’re fooling anyone.

        And hold off on your interpretations of what he really means, and the lame rationalizations about how it’s just negotiating stances and manipulating the press. It doesn’t impress anyone who’s actually interested in examining the issues at hand.

        He offers platitudes for the sake of political expediency, and cheap rhetoric to gather votes. It’s like any other politician. Keep pretending to yourself like he’s somehow different if you want. Your choice.

    • Actually, at one time we had much of the Middle East held in check by friendly dictators. They were happy to sell us oil and kept the peace. That system worked to our advantage. The current mess isn’t working.

      • The US should become energy independent. We have the resources to do it for many decades while alternative renewables are brought on line. If other countries or regions want to sell us oil that’s fine if the price is right and it probably will be.

        Harris Poll finds 77 percent of voters agree with Trump’s Energy policy of increasing domestic production adding $500 billion to GDP each year and 3 million new jobs. All of our trade deficits together are $800 billion/year for comparative purposes. Better trade deals, American energy revival, coal, steel, heavy industry renewal… these will get our economy booming in no time and put our underemployed workforce back on the job.


        Trump 2016

      • Interesting w/r/t this question: “According to government and international data, the United States is leading the top 20 economies in the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy. As you may know,
        greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. How important is it to you that the U.S. is doing better than all of the other major economies in Europe and elsewhere when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases?
        Base 1,001
        Important [NET] 77%
        Very important 51%
        Somewhat important 26%
        Not important [NET] 20%
        Not very important 10%
        Not at all important 10%
        Don’t know/Refused 3%
        “Seventy-seven percent of voters think it is important that the U.S. is doing better than all of the other major economies when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and 70 percent support natural gas’ role in this reduction.”

        Of note: ” American voters are looking for energy leadership and would back a candidate who supports more oil and natural gas production, according to new survey by Harris Poll conducted on behalf of API.”

        The actual survey: http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/News/2016/16-June/What-America-Is-Thinking-Energy-Platform-2016.pdf

    • Just take the oil. So simple. And so not war mongering

      We’ve got plenty of oil. Just forbid any oil to be taken out of the ground and/or processed in any territory occupied by “ISIS” or any other Islamic “state”.

  150. Measuring the Shy Trump Supporters


    by Scott Adams

    It’s hard to count people who are intentionally hiding. But just for fun, let’s see if we can deduce how many so-called Shy Trump Supporters are out there.

    For starters, we can say with certainty that they exist. I have a better ear for that than most of you because of my Trump blogging and my public endorsement of Clinton for my personal safety. People feel comfortable telling me privately, and also anonymously online, that they hide their Trump support from their spouse and coworkers. So we know they exist. We just don’t know how many.

    –more at link

  151. Best campaign donation solicitation ever.



    I recorded this video to let you know about a contest I’m holding for two lucky supporters.

    I’ll fly you out to New York City, put you up at a hotel, and meet you for coffee here at our campaign HQ in Trump Tower.

    Ivanka Trump


    $3 per raffle ticket. I bought five.

    • J0shua, Danny, and Jim D would, of course, be more interested in having coffee with one of his boys. Even better if some of the proceeds went to LGBTQ awareness. Thanks to Trump it’s finally okay for Republicans to say they support LGBTQ Americans. LOL

      • Amazingly enough, you’re wrong again David.

        I’d be ‘in’ for a raffle with donations to a charity of my choosing to ‘coffee’ with Trump himself. I’ve given zero funding to any party/candidate this cycle. They’ve not shown sufficient reason to support. But I’d sure like to get some answers to some questions. Hoping the debates will provide same.

        And I share your thanks to Trump for LGBT being seen as ‘American’s’.

        Asking for donations? Wasn’t ‘the appeal’ of Trump that he ‘promised’ he was self funding so cannot be ‘influenced’?

      • Danny, you are thinking about Jesus. The other trump.

      • He changed his mind on entirely self funded. He’s soliciting grass roots donations. Average campaign donation size is $70. There ain’t much influence purchased for $70.

        He also, at least monthly that I’ve seen so far, has a matching contribution drive where he will match any donation with a personal check.

        I don’t think many people expected him to pony up a couple billion dollars of his own money. He self-funded through the primaries. Has anyone else ever done that in a major party and won?

      • “He changed his mind on entirely self funded.” And he has that right. But what was his reasoning for ‘self funding’? “By self-funding my campaign, I am not controlled by my donors, special interests or lobbyists. I am only working for the people of the U.S.!” (Trump)

        Got me thinking. On what else has he ‘changed his mind’.

        ISIS. Having a secret plan vs. giving Generals 30 days.
        Immigration, before he didn’t then did then didn’t.
        Campaign Management. Lew, Monfort, current.
        Influence of the media (until he hired the staff of a media outlet).
        Taxes, reduce, flat, consumption, retain as is and ‘add good things’.
        Megyn Kelly
        Banned media then unbanned.
        Lack of memory recall disqualifies one from presidency.
        Sam Nunberg
        Syria and how to address with or w/o ground troops.
        Iran nuclear deal
        Party affiliation
        Minimum wage
        Legalization of marijuana
        Funding of planned parenthood
        Punishing women who get abortions
        Banning Muslims
        Iraq war
        2nd amendment’ers going after President Clinton
        Guns in classrooms
        Nukes and who should have ’em (Japan?)
        Climate change (hoax) except when it affects one of his golf courses.
        National debt.

        I’m sure I’m boring you now. Much more here: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

        How can anyone wonder why I’m skeptical?

        I may ‘double deal’ but at least I don’t have double standards.

      • What did you do, if anything, to validate the truthiness of each one of those items?

      • I read direct quotes and histories and after about 25 then got bored. That’s when I ran across the link so I went with it.

        Surprising you’re willing to say ‘you don’t care about thoughts’ when you give me such a hard time here for mine while giving Trump a ‘pass’ for his.

      • About half I’d argue aren’t true and the other half I don’t what evidence exists to support them. I care about actions not thoughts or intents.

        Hillary was a senator who voted for the Iraq War. A mistake that she admits and she had the best classified information in the world upon which to base her decision. Trump was a businessman in 2003 with little interest in elections. He could buy politicians from either side with equal ease. He wasn’t getting intelligence briefings and had no security clearance to see classified material.

        When asked prior to the invasion on the Howard Stern show if he supported the invasion he said, “Yeah, I guess so.” When have any of you asshats ever heard Trump being so unsure of anything that he’d say “I guess so”. His opinions are notoriously and ridiculously strident. Never, yeah I guess so. He’s normally 100% certain of his positions because he has a terrific brain and is almost always right, in his own inflated opinion of himself.

        Libtards of course have no shame so while they mock Trump for being so cock-sure of himself all the time, when it doesn’t suit their argument they refuse to acknowledge the one time when he wasn’t so sure. So typical.

  152. Women in Military, Sexual Assault, and Uninformed Libtards

    So Trump tweeted 3 years ago about sexual assaults:

    26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?

    That’s a pretty simple observation of human nature. You take young, vital women and insert them into a huge boys club of the most testosterone enhanced and sex deprived men on the planet where constitutional rights are replaced by absolute military authority, where failing to follow orders results in fines, prison, demotions, social rejection, and what have you… well, what the ph*ck do you expect is going to happen?

    Matt Lauer tried to put Trump’s answer in his mouth “So the only way to fix this is to take women out of the military?” Laur almost shouts and pops a blood vessel.

    No, says Trump. There needs to be a court system outside the chain of command, but still within the military, to raise the complaint/conviction ratio, and increase punishments.

    Of course all the libtards can’t see past the political incorrectness of Trump being blunt about the initial conditions predicting the current situation and think it’s pure unadulterated misogynism. Confirmation bias at work once again.

    • Such an easy fix. Why didn’t anyone think of it sooner?

      “Sexual assault remains a persistent problem in the military,
      with an estimated 20,000 active duty service members
      experiencing unwanted sexual contact in 2014 [1•], and sexual
      assaults even occurring in combat environments [2]. Estimates
      of sexual assaults that occur during military service range
      from 9.5 to 43 % among women and 1–12 % among men
      [3]. In the most recent survey of sexual assault in the military,
      4.9 % of active duty women and 1.0 % percent of active duty
      men reported being sexually assaulted within the past year
      [1•]. For the US general population, the rates of sexual assault
      have been estimated at 28–33 % of females and 12–18 % of
      males [4]. For female undergraduates at a 4-year college or
      university, the rates of sexual assault have been estimated at
      nearly 16 % before entering college and 19 % after entering
      college [5]. The rates of sexual assault prior to entering the
      military have been reported as 30 % among women and 6 %
      among men, although estimates among military samples can
      range from 15–49 to 1.5–22.5 %, respectively [3, 6]. Thus, the
      problem of sexual assault in the military mirrors the problem
      of sexual assault in the general US population and worldwide.”

      “Thus far, the military’s attempts to end sexual assault appear sporadic and
      half-hearted. What is desperately needed to end sexual assault
      within the military is a comprehensive and sustained strategy
      that considers the root causes and myths surrounding sexual
      assault, the military cultural factors that may unintentionally
      contribute to sexual assault, and the uncomfortable issues surrounding
      sexual assault that are often ignored (such as the
      prevalence of male sexual assault within the military). The
      military’s strategy must be based on evidence-based approaches
      that (a) change the military culture and leadership
      around how women are viewed and treated, (b) employ sexual
      assault prevention psycho-education and skill training, (c)
      make reporting incidences of sexual harassment and assault
      a right of the victims to maintain total control throughout the
      entire process including the prosecution phase, (d) seek to
      modify laws and regulations to increase the likelihood of sexual
      assaults being reported and decrease the likelihood of perpetrators
      manipulating the law to obtain acquittals, and (e)
      increase the support of survivors of sexual assault, including
      support throughout the service members military career and
      post-military life.” http://cir.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sexual-Assault-in-the-Military.pdf

      • Blah blah blah psychobabble. It’s not unique to the military nor to this time in recorded history. There are good reasons behind institutional segregation of men and women and that segregation has been common throughout recorded history. Men can’t resist their biological impulses and women can’t defend themselves. What did these geniuses expect when they forced vital young men and women in their sexual prime together in an institution, military of all things, where violence (war) is its mission statement.

        I’m not sure there is anything that can be done about it. If there were we could look back through history and find a similar situation and solution that worked. Wake me you have an example and spare me the blah, blah, blah psychobabble in the meantime.

      • Springer,
        “It’s not unique to the military nor to this time in recorded history.” is exactly the point. Does Trump’s ‘fix’ not already exist in society? And does the continuation of the activity in society in general (mirroring the military) not show that ‘the fix’ didn’t fix it?

        Thanks for the confirmation.

      • Removing complaints and adjudication from the chain of command is a good idea. I’m not sure how much of the problem would be remedied. No one is.

        One solution sure to work is undue the ill-conceived changes that were made in 1993 that were resisted by military leadership from the Pentagon on down.


        Do we need to ask who the civilian commander-in-chief was who defied military leadership and pushed through the changes? I’ll give you three chances to say “Slick Willy”, world-renowned expert on sexual assault of women in workplace.

      • “Removing complaints and adjudication from the chain of command is a good idea. “(Agreed)

        “I’m not sure how much of the problem would be remedied. No one is.”

        Exactly! So ‘the fixer’ has no idea if his ‘fix’ will ‘fix’ anything. Yet here we are debating the issue.

        A sound bite won’t get it done in the job. And I appreciate your recognition of same.

      • Danny, here are the voices of some 11K, commenters. A nice polling number to get a valid picture of current events. You have a minority position from the looks of things…


        Humiliate Hillary 2016, you irredeemable, basket of deplorables.

      • Arch,
        “Humiliate Hillary 2016!” She’s doing a fine job of that all by herself, but have at it. It’s what freedom of speech is all about. The ‘deplorable’ comment was deplorable.

        But you see, I’m willing to state that because I look at this campaign as being between two candidates which do not deserve our support. However, several here are not even willing to be honest in their evaluation of ‘their’ candidate Mr. Trump. They are 100% partisan. If you, of anyone here, is suggesting he’s ‘perfect’ this catches me by surprise. If not, how about an honest presentation of concerns?

      • stevenreincarnated

        They have. It is similar to the system used in several nations already. I’m not sure about the statistics on how it has worked out.